Summary: We have found the Council at fault for delay and poor communication in relation to Mr X’s homelessness case. This caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed his family in unsuitable temporary accommodation after they became homeless. He also complained the banding awarded to them was too low a priority given his wife’s medical need.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have not investigated the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation or his priority banding. Mr X had the right to request a review of these decisions, and it was reasonable for Mr X to have used this.
5. I have investigated how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness case after it accepted the main housing duty.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Law and guidance

The main housing duty

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

9. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation within 21 days of it being offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Suitability of accommodation

10. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. 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)
12. 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

13. Mr X and his family approached the Council in August 2023 as their landlord had issued a Section 21 Notice. Mr X’s wife had health issues and was pregnant at the time.
14. In January 2024, the Council accepted the Main Housing Duty.

Family move into temporary accommodation

15. In May 2024, the family was evicted from their private rented property and moved into temporary accommodation secured by the Council. Mr X approached the Council. He said his wife was 9 months pregnant and was medically high risk and the temporary accommodation was too far from the hospital.
16. Mr X’s wife gave birth and Mr X requested alternative temporary accommodation. He said the accommodation was unsuitable because his wife needed support due to her medical condition, and the accommodation was too far from family and the hospital. Mr X said he has had to reduce his hours at work to support his wife and this has resulted in the family suffering financial hardship.
17. The Council advised Mr X that there were no properties available for transfer and that he should consider private rented accommodation.

Complaint

18. In July, Mr X complained to the Council about the temporary accommodation being unsuitable. The Council acknowledged that the accommodation was not ideal but explained that there was a housing crisis and that many families are placed out of borough. It highlighted that there are unprecedented levels of demand and that it could not prioritise Mr X and his family above others. The Council said it would arrange for a case officer to do a face-to-face housing needs assessment and advised Mr X of his review rights.
19. Over the following months, Mr X and his representative chased the Council. They provided medical information and a letter from the children’s school about the unsuitability of the accommodation.
20. At the end of October, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 2. It apologised for failing to act after its July response and agreed to arrange a face-to-face assessment within a week of its latest response. It reminded Mr X that he could request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation and priority banding.
21. The Council offered Mr X £300 to remedy the injustice caused to him by the lack of action on this case and poor communication. Mr X rejected this offer on the grounds that it did not recognise the significant effect the case had on him and his family.

Housing needs assessment

22. In early November, the Council met with Mr X to discuss the family’s needs. After the meeting, the Council summarised that Mr X believed the temporary accommodation was physically suitable for the family’s size but was unsuitable due to his wife’s health and distance from the hospital.
23. The Council advised Mr X that the quickest route to accommodation nearer the hospital would be through the private rented sector. It suggested he provide additional medical information about his wife’s condition so the district medical officer could make a recommendation about the banding priority. It also reminded him of his right to request a review of the suitability.
24. A week later, Mr X submitted additional medical information. He also chased the Council for a decision on the suitability of the accommodation and his banding priority. Mr X said then, out of frustration, he requested a review. He later withdrew this request as he said there were still outstanding actions from his complaint that the Council was handling.
25. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman when he considered the Council had not addressed the points he had raised in his complaint.

Update

26. In January, the Council forwarded the additional medical information to the medical officer. The medical officer confirmed that the family’s housing needs are for accommodation within 1 hour of the (named) hospital, ground floor or first floor unlifted, or any floor lifted.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that Mr X’s temporary accommodation was within 1 hour of the (named) hospital and that it was not higher than the first floor.

My findings

28. The Council was at fault for its delay in taking further action following its response to your stage 1 complaint and for failing to keep Mr X updated on his case. The Council agreed to carry out a housing needs assessment in July 2024, but this did not take place until November 2024. This caused Mr X and his family uncertainty and frustration.
29. I do not consider that this delay caused any injustice regarding the family’s accommodation. This is because when the Council did eventually meet and assess the family, it did not consider the accommodation to be unsuitable.
30. I have not investigated whether the temporary accommodation was suitable or whether the banding priority was correct. Mr X had review rights. The Council repeatedly advised Mr X to formally request a review. Although Mr X did request a review, he withdrew it.
31. In its response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council confirmed that it had put measures in place to prevent such delays in the future. I have therefore not recommended any service improvements.
32. The Council has already apologised for the delay in assessing Mr X’s family’s housing need and for the poor communication in relation to his case. The Council offered £300 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by the delays and the time and trouble it took Mr X to pursue his complaint. I consider a larger payment of £600 to be in line with our guidance on remedies. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X this.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council should:
1. Pay Mr X £600 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by the delays, poor communication, and the time and trouble it took Mr X to pursue his complaint.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing an injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman