Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision in response to his suitability review request and the Council’s failure to offer a proper remedy. We found fault with the way the Council reviewed the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation. This fault caused injustice to Mr X which lasted for a few months and was more significant because of Mr X’s individual circumstances. The Council agreed to apologise, complete the remedy it has already offered to Mr X and make an additional distress payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to offer him a proper remedy after finding his accommodation offered in March 2024 unsuitable. Mr X says the unaffordability was not the only reason why this accommodation was not suitable.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failure caused him distress and meant members of his family found it much more difficult to support him.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative framework

9. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
10. Councils must provide their reasons if, following the suitability review, they decide the property is suitable. (Housing Act 1996 Section 203 (4))
11. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

What happened

Background

12. Mr X has complex mental health and physical needs, which reduce his mobility and ability to look after himself. He has been relying on his family to provide daily support for his health and care needs.
13. In February 2023 Mr X asked the Council to clear the rent arrears from his previous accommodation and explained he could not claim Universal Credit until 2026.

Suitability review

14. In March 2024 Mr X accepted the Council’s offer of accommodation made under Section 193 (2) of the Housing Act 1996 (the Property) which was in the area of a different council. Mr X said he had not realised the accommodation was a private rent offer.
15. In the second week of April 2024 Mr X asked the Council to provide response to the issues raised by him during an earlier telephone call, mainly about the difficulties of his family to get to his new place and his inability to claim Housing Benefit and pay for the Property. Mr X asked the Council to help him to apply for a suitability review. On the same date Mr X’s brother asked the Council to carry out a suitability review.
16. Having received no response, Mr X, through his legal representative, asked the Council again to review suitability of the Property in July 2024. In September Mr X’s representative further clarified this request. The legal representative said:
• Mr X could not afford the Property as he could not claim Universal Credit and the Council did not allow him to claim Housing Benefit;
• distance and the cost of travel between the Property and the place where Mr X’s family members lived made it impossible for them to provide necessary support for Mr X. Mr X needs this support daily to help him with taking medication, cooking, cleaning and washing. Because of the specific nature of Mr X’s mental health difficulties the unavailability of this support poses safeguarding risk to Mr X and other people;
• the location of the Property made it impossible for Mr X to continue receiving support from the mental health team in the Council’s area. Mr X could not secure similar level of support from the mental health team in a new place.
17. At the end of October the Council responded to Mr X’s review request. It stated the Property did not meet Mr X’s needs and thus the Council would be looking to find another property for him. The Council told Mr X he had the right to appeal this decision on a point of law within 21 days.
18. At the beginning of November 2024 Mr X’s brother complained on his behalf to the Council. He said that although the Council had accepted Mr X’s Property was not suitable for him, it had failed to offer any compensation for time spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation. Mr X’s brother referred to the previous complaint where the Ombudsman had recommended £300 per month for the period when Mr X lived in unsuitable accommodation.
19. In its response two weeks later the Council accepted the Property was unsuitable for Mr X but refused to offer him any compensation. The Council’s position was that unaffordability was the only reason the Property was not suitable.
20. A few days later Mr X’s representative told the Council any property in the north of England would not be suitable for Mr X as he had been receiving support from his brother who lived in the Council’s area. Mr X’s representative pointed out that supported living accommodation would not be suitable for Mr X either because of his medical condition.
21. The Council sent its final response to Mr X at the beginning of January 2025. It said:
• the property the Council had offered him would have been suitable if Mr X had been able to claim Universal Credit;
• it would write off any arrears in Mr X’s rent;
• it would offer Mr X a payment of £600 for two months since the Council’s review had found the Property unsuitable.
22. In response to Mr X’s query about the Council’s reasons for only offering payment for two months, the Council said it was applied from the date of the Council’s decision ending the suitability review process. The Council explained Mr X only applied for a review in July 2024 which would indicate Mr X was happy with the Property until then. During the review process, the Council said, there were some delays with sending documents by Mr X’s legal representative.
23. By the beginning of January 2025 Mr X’s rent arrears amounted to over £7,700. Following a few letters telling him to pay rent arrears Mr X received Section 8 notice with the date of early February 2025 to vacate the Property. His legal representative asked the Council to withdraw it.
24. After receiving Section 8 notice Mr X had left the Property for a few days and had slept rough before his legal representative advised him to return.
25. At the end of January 2025 the Council made a temporary accommodation offer to Mr X of the same property he had been living in. It said: “In reaching the decision to offer you this property, we have taken into account your individual circumstances and consider the property to be suitable for you and your family to occupy on all grounds. We consider it to be of adequate size, affordable and suitably located.” The Council advised Mr X he could ask for a review of this decision.
26. The Council told us that at the end of December 2024 Mr X’s rent areas for the property he had lived in since March 2024 was £7,540.

Analysis

27. As explained in paragraph four the Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions when performing their duties. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant evidence, or not properly explained the reason it has made a decision. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to address this.
28. Mr X asked for a suitability review in April 2024. I have seen no evidence the Council responded to this request. This is fault which meant that Mr X had to seek help from his legal representative. It also delayed resolving the issue of suitability by three months. The Council only looked at the suitability of the Property after correspondence from Mr X’s representative in July 2024.
29. I did not find fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s review request. As explained in paragraph ten of this decision a council needs to give reasons for its decision only if it has decided the property is suitable. The Council decided Mr X’s property was not suitable so it did not have to provide its reasons.
30. I did not find fault in the Council not referring to all reasons for unsuitability of the Property raised by Mr X. This is not necessary. The Council should have, however, referred to Mr X’s concerns about the distance from his support network and his difficulties with obtaining medical care when offering the same property to Mr X in January 2025. Its failure to do so was contrary to good administrative practice as set up in our guide. In particular the Council failed to take into account Mr X’s individual circumstances when dealing with him about his housing. The Council failed to show flexibility and sensitivity necessary due to Mr X’s mental health and physical needs. As indicated in paragraph 11 of this decision location of the property is one of the elements of its suitability. As the Council knew Mr X repeatedly raised the issue of the Property’s location, it should have explained why it considered it suitable. Although Mr X could have asked again for a review of suitability of the Property, it is not good practice for the Council to rely entirely on this right, especially when dealing with a vulnerable person.
31. The Council’s correspondence with Mr X about the payment offered to remedy his injustice was confusing. The Council said it had offered a payment of £300 a month for two months only as it had disregarded the months before July 2024, when Mr X did not query the Property’s suitability and offered the payment from the date it had considered the Property unsuitable for Mr X. This is incorrect as Mr X asked the Council to review suitability of the Property in April 2024 but the Council failed to respond.
32. The Council’s insistence on Mr X claiming Universal Credit instead of Housing Benefit caused Mr X further confusion. He had told the Council in 2023 he could not claim Universal Credit up to 2026 therefore was upset the Council did not consider this when offering him the Property in March 2024.
33. After the Council had agreed Mr X’s accommodation was not suitable it failed to stop recovery action which caused significant distress to Mr X, leading to him leaving the Property and sleeping rough.
34. The Council’s failings described in paragraphs 28 to 33 meant Mr X for many months was left in the property he considered unsuitable not knowing the Council’s position on its suitability which meant he could not challenge it. He was confused and distressed by the Council’s correspondence and at times lack of communication. Continuing debt recovery action after the Council had accepted Mr X could not afford the Property meant Mr X felt threatened which led to him leaving the Property. Considering Mr X’s vulnerability, receiving debt recovery letters and Section 8 notice must have been particularly unsettling for him and was bound to affect his well-being.
35. Writing off Mr X’s rent arrears by the Council is appropriate to remedy injustice caused by the unsuitability of the Property for Mr X because he could not afford it. The Council considered this was the only reason the Property was not suitable for Mr X. As explained in paragraph four of this decision we do not query merits of councils’ decisions.
36. The injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s failings during and after the process of a suitability review was so significant that £600 is not sufficient even as a symbolic payment. Mr X’s individual circumstances meant that any complications and confusion with the Council’s processes were likely to affect his mental health and have much greater impact on him than would have had on other people.

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• complete the remedy offered by the Council in its complaint response of 2 January 2025;
• pay Mr X £400 in addition to £600 already offered to recognise distress caused by the Council’s failings.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

38. We also recommend the Council within three months of the final decision review the way it records temporary accommodation suitability reviews to ensure all requests are responded to. The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman