Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable accommodation when he became homeless and his removal from the housing register. We found the Council to be at fault. It failed to review its suitability decision when compelling new evidence was provided by the occupational therapy service. It also incorrectly removed Mr X from the housing register. These faults caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation under the homelessness legislation, based on a flawed telephone assessment. He also complains about the Council’s removal of his housing application from its housing register.
2. Mr X says he has suffered significant distress because of living in unsuitable accommodation since April 2021. This has affected both his mental and physical health. He has also experienced avoidable frustration and inconvenience having to legally challenge the Council’s original decision about suitability.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the written information he provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter, including its case records.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

9. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it will owe them the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17)
11. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202)

What happened

12. I have summarised below the key events. This is not intended to be a detailed account.
13. Mr X had been owed the full homelessness duty from when he first applied in 2012. Since then, he has been provided with several temporary accommodations that have been unsuitable.
14. Mr X is also on the Council’s housing register, with the aim of finding permanent social housing.
15. Mr X has several health conditions. They affect his mobility and causes extreme pain.
16. In 2021, the Council made an offer of temporary accommodation at Property A. Mr X says he was pressurised into accepting it without seeing it. As soon as he moved in, due to his health needs, he realised it was unsuitable. In particular, the bathroom was too small, and this made it unusable. It also has a step leading to the front door that was difficult for Mr X to manage.
17. When he accepted Property A, he was removed from the Council’s housing register.
18. In May 2021, he requested a suitability review of Property A. Despite being represented by a solicitor, the review was not completed until March 2022 (the 2022 Review). This determined the property was suitable.
19. At the same time. he was reinstated onto the housing register. The Council accepted it had made a mistake in removing him due to confusion with the relevant legislation applicable to Mr X.
20. Mr X had surgery in February 2022. Sadly, this failed to provide any improvement to his health and well-being.
21. In May 2022, the officer who carried out the 2022 Review (whom I shall refer to as Officer J) received information from the Council’s occupational therapy (OT) service. Officer J told her manager this information, “clearly indicates Mr X’s property is unsuitable…I would suggest we consider providing him with alternative accommodation”.
22. In July 2022, the Council advised Mr X’s MP that it was looking for alternative accommodation. It did not explain why. Nor did the Council act on the information sent to Officer J by the OT.
23. Mr X moved out of Property A in June 2022 because it was not possible to use the bathroom safely. He says he has been living with family or sleeping in his car since.
24. Mr X’s solicitor continued to challenge the Council’s decision about the suitability of Property A. The Council refused to reconsider its position. In response, the solicitor made an application to the court for a judicial review of this decision.
25. In response, the Council agreed to carry out a suitability review. In June 2023, the Council assessed the property as being unsuitable (the 2023 Review).
26. Frustrated by the Council’s position and lack of suitable accommodation, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about:

• the way the 2022 Review was carried out. In particular, he was unhappy the decision was largely based on a telephone occupational therapy assessment. He says it would be impossible to make a proper assessment without viewing the property in person; and
• the delay in finding him suitable accommodation after the 2023 Review.

27. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council maintained its view that the 2022 Review was carried out correctly based on information that was available at the time. It acknowledged Mr X had not been provided with suitable accommodation due to the shortage of available properties. The Council apologised and offered Mr X £500.
28. Disappointed with this outcome, particularly as the remedy sought by Mr X was to be rehoused, he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Removal from the housing register

29. The Council has accepted Mr X was incorrectly removed from the housing register in 2021. This was fault. I am satisfied Mr X suffered an injustice as a result of this mistake because he spent several months thinking that he had no opportunity to improve his living situation with a permanent home. I have made recommendations below to remedy this injustice and ensure his future bidding prospects have not been affected by this fault.

Suitability review

30. There was significant delay in carrying out the 2022 Review. Reviews should be carried out within 56 days. In this case it took nearly a year. This delay was fault.
31. I have read the suitability review carried out in March 2022. It was detailed and the rationale for the decision was evidence based. Although Mr X is heavily critical of the telephone assessment, I do not consider this automatically invalidated the review. As Council has explained, the telephone assessment was only one piece of evidence that was relevant to the decision. Overall, I found no fault with the way this assessment was carried out. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s conclusions, but in the absence of any procedural fault, the Ombudsman will not interfere with this type of professional judgement by Officer J.
32. However, two months later, Officer J was provided with what I consider to be compelling evidence from the OT service that the property was unsuitable. The OT had been provided with photographs of the bathroom that showed:

• kitchen white goods, with associated electrics, positioned next to the shower;
• the shower was unsuitable; and
• there was insufficient space in the bathroom for Mr X to maneuver.

33. The OT had also received evidence that Mr X’s landlord was not prepared to allow necessary adaptations. This contradicted information that Officer J had relied upon in her 2022 Review.
34. Officer J recommended (I presume to her manager) that Mr X should be provided with alterative accommodation. The case records I have been provide with are silent as to what happened next. Based on the fact the Council allowed Mr X’s solicitor to take the matter to court, on balance, I can only assume this email was ignored by the intended recipient.
35. It is disappointing this significant event was neither acknowledged nor explained in the response to my enquiries.
36. Based on the email from Officer J, I am satisfied the Council should have reviewed decision on suitability from May 2022. If the Council has decided the information provided by the OT was inadequate, its rationale should be recorded. Failure to do so was fault.
37. I am satisfied Mr was suffered a significant injustice as a result of this fault. He has not been provided with the accommodation he was entitled to. He has also experienced avoidable distress and been involved with unnecessary court action because of the Council not acting on information it received from the OT service and Mr X’s landlord in May 2022.
38. I have made recommendations below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £500 to acknowledge his avoidable distress and frustration caused by the faults I have identified.
3. Pay Mr X £4200. This is a symbolic payment of £200 per month for 21 months (from June 2022 to February 2024) to acknowledge his lack of suitable accommodation. If Mr X has already accepted and received £500 that was offered to him during the complaints procedure, the sum of £4200 should be reduced to £3700. I have taken into consideration the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies in calculating this amount.
4. Pay Mr X £200 per month from March 2024 until the time he is provided with suitable accommodation. In the meantime, the Council should make its best endeavours to secure suitable accommodation for Mr X.
5. Review Mr X’s housing register application and assess whether he has been disadvantaged (in terms of bidding priority gained from time spent on the register) by his removal in 2021. If this is the case, Mr X’s priority should be adjusted to ensure he has not been disadvantaged by this fault.
6. Provide relevant staff with a copy of this decision statement. I have not made further service recommendations because I found no evidence of wider systemic fault.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman