Summary: The Council failed to consider relevant information before refusing Ms X’s request for a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to discharge its homeless duty. The Council has agreed to review the suitability of the offer.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council provided unsuitable interim accommodation and then offered unsuitable accommodation in another local authority area. Ms X further complains the Council then refused to accept her request for a review of the suitability of the property.
2. Ms X says that due to the Council’s fault her children were out of school and she could not bid on social housing properties.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 the information provided by Ms X.
6. I considered the Council’s response to written enquiries along with relevant law and guidance.
7. Ms 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

Homeless law and guidance

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented 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 his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
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;
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
13. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

Background

15. In 2018, Ms X became homeless. She approached the Council for help.
16. The Council accepted it had a duty to house Ms X. It provided interim accommodation until February 2019.
17. In February 2019, the Council offered Ms X a private rented tenancy in a different council area outside London. The Council gave Ms X a letter which said that if she wanted to ask for a review of the suitability of the offer, she had 21 days to ask for one.
18. Ms X moved into the property. She asked for a review 20 days after she moved in, but 26 days after the Council issued the offer letter.
19. The Council refused Ms X’s review request because it was late.

My Findings

Interim accommodation

20. Ms X says the interim accommodation provided by the Council was unsuitable. In particular, Ms X complains about having to share a kitchen and bathroom with other people and that the security in the building was poor.
21. Ms X says she complained about this at the time. The Council says it has no record of any complaints from Ms X about the interim accommodation. The Council had at first provided Ms X with different interim accommodation, but it was too small to meet her needs.
22. Given the Council accepted the original accommodation was unsuitable, I find it likely it considered suitability before providing Ms X with the new interim accommodation. In the absence of any evidence from Ms X or the Council of complaints or a change of circumstances, there was no reason for the Council to review the suitability before it accepted a main duty to Ms X in February 2019. Therefore, I find no fault by the Council.

Refusal of review request

23. The Council offered Ms X accommodation in a different council’s area a significant distance from London. It invited Ms X to a meeting where it provided her with a copy of a letter making this offer. At the meeting, the Council explained to Ms X that she could ask for a review of the suitability of the offer but that it was in her best interests to accept the offer and move in first. That way, if a review was unsuccessful, she would still have somewhere to live.
24. The letter also explained this. It set out that any request for a review had to be made within 21 days of the letter. Ms X received the letter the day after it was dated.
25. Ms X accepted the offer. She viewed the property for the first time five days later when she moved to the new area with her children. Twenty days later, Ms X emailed the Council to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
26. Ms X says she did not think her review request was late because she understood that she had to have moved into the property before she could ask for a review. She therefore took the 21 days to start when she moved in. Although inaccurate, this confusion is understandable.
27. The law says that review requests should be made within 21 days of the date of the decision. However, the Council has discretion to accept a late request.
28. In deciding whether to accept a late request, the Ombudsman expects councils to take each case on its merits and consider all relevant information before making a decision.
29. In this case, there is no evidence the Council considered that Ms X had just moved with four young children to an area where she had never lived before. It also did not consider the delay between when the Council made the offer and when Ms X was first able to view the property. This is fault.
30. Since Ms X did not think her review request was late, she did not provide any explanation in her request. Before deciding not to accept the late request, the Council should have asked Ms X for an explanation. It did not. This is fault.
31. By failing to take relevant information into account, the Council denied Ms X a properly made decision. This is an injustice to Ms X. On balance, I find it likely that had the Council taken these factors into account, it would have decided to accept Ms X’s late review request.

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in writing; and
• Complete a s202 review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to discharge the Council’s duty in February 2019.
33. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman