Summary: Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of housing offers made to her, she says the Council issued different contractual agreements. Ms X also says the Council failed to review the suitability of her property. Ms X says this caused her distress and frustration. We have found fault in the Council’s issuing of housing offers and failing to review the suitability of the property offered to Ms X. The Council has agreed to issue Ms X with an apology, pay her a financial payment and complete a suitability review and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of housing offers made to her, she says the Council issued different contractual agreements. Ms X also says the Council failed to review the suitability of her property.
2. Ms X says this caused her distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
8. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
9. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2). Space and the arrangement of a person’s accommodation are key factors in deciding if it is suitable, but councils should consider all relevant factors.

Suitability Reviews

12. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. This is a statutory review. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. The person must make their statutory review request within 21 days of the council deciding to offer the accommodation. The council must complete the review within eight weeks of the review request, unless the applicant agrees to extend the period in writing.
13. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
14. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

15. The Council accepted Ms X onto its housing register in early 2023.
16. The Council made an offer of a property to Ms X in mid-September 2024. The letter the Council sent to Ms X said it had placed her on the management transfer priority waiting list for housing because she could not remain in her current property.
17. Ms X contacted the Council and told it the offer was not suitable due to the location.
18. The Council left Ms X a voicemail saying it could withdraw the offer of a one bed property it made to her. However, it would only offer a studio property going forward. The Council asked Ms X to respond to it the same day with her decision.
19. The Council issued a corrected letter around a week later and told Ms X it was making her an offer of permanent accommodation. The letter told Ms X she had the right to review this offer if she did not believe it was suitable. In its cover email the Council explained it had withdrawn this offer following further consideration and that it would make a further offer at a later date.
20. Ms X complained to the Council in early October 2024. She complained about the errors made in the original letter, the Council’s poor level of service and the offer it made was in an area it knew would likely be unsuitable.
21. The Council made a second offer to Ms X in mid-October 2024. Again, the Council’s letter wrongly said it had approved Ms X for a management transfer.
22. The Council issued a stage one response to Ms X’s complaint in mid-October 2024. It apologised for the errors made in the letter and poor level of service and offered Ms X £350 in recognition of this.
23. Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to stage two shortly after and also explained why she thought the second offer she had received was unsuitable. Ms X explained the property offered was located in an area she had no connections with and was a significant distance from her GP and the routine she was used to. Ms X also explained the rent was 30% higher than the first offer made to her.
24. The Council issued a corrected letter about the second offer it made to Ms X in late October 2024. The Council again apologised for the error in the original letter. It also told Ms X about her right to ask the Council to reconsider its decision.
25. The Council issued a stage two response to Ms X’s complaint in mid-December 2024. It apologised again to Ms X for the errors in the letters issued and said it should have considered the area the first offer was in before making the offer. The response agreed the remedy offered at stage one was reasonable.

Analysis

26. The Council issued a letter to Ms X containing wrong information in September 2024. As the wrong information was in the letter the Council failed to tell Ms X of her right of review. This is fault. After Ms X queried the letter and offer made by the Council it corrected the letter and withdrew its offer.
27. The Council then repeated this error when it issued a second offer to Ms X. This again is fault. Ms X was caused frustration and inconvenience which was exacerbated by the same error being made again after she had complained about it.
28. Ms X says the voicemail left by the Council caused her distress. While I appreciate why this may have done, the Council were advising her of the options available and did invite her to contact it to discuss.
29. When Ms X emailed the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two, she told the Council she was querying the suitability of the offer made to her. This was within 21 days of the second offer the Council made to Ms X and despite it not issuing the correct letter to advise her of her rights. I have not seen the Council took any action to review the suitability of the offer it made. This is fault. Ms X would have been caused distress, frustration and uncertainty having not received a response to her request to review the suitability of the offer.

Back to top

Action

30. Within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Ms X to apologise for the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Complete a suitability review in relation to Ms X’s property and inform her of the outcome and any further action she can take.
• Pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to her. This amount includes the £350 already offered by the Council.
• In writing, remind officers of the importance of checking the correct letter template is used.
• In writing, remind officers of the importance of recognising and acting on review requests.

31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman