Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to provide her with suitable interim and temporary accommodation and about its assessment of her bedroom entitlement. We have found fault by the Council in the provision of suitable accommodation and in delays and the way it considered Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom, causing her injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making payments to reflect the upset and inconvenience caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Miss Y, complains the Council failed to provide her with suitable interim and temporary accommodation and about its assessment of the number of bedrooms she and her children need. She says the Council failed to:

• move her to suitable interim accommodation;
• respond promptly to her requests to be moved to suitable temporary accommodation; and
• properly consider her request for an extra bedroom.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 Miss Y, made enquiries of the Council, and read the information Miss Y and the Council provided about the complaint.
6. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Suitability of accommodation

7. A council must secure accommodation for an applicant if it believes they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is referred to as interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996 section 188 (1))
8. A council must also ensure all accommodation provided to an applicant is suitable for their needs. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided once an applicant is owed the main housing duty (temporary accommodation). (Housing Act 1996 section 206 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance)
9. Applicants have the right to ask for a review of a council’s decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is no right to ask for a review of the suitability of interim accommodation provided while a council makes enquiries.
10. Councils must continue to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance)
11. Accommodation that is suitable for a short period may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period.

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. The Council’s published allocations scheme (the policy) says:

• It will assess each application to determine the size of property to which the applicant is entitled.
• An adult or couple with two children of the opposite sex who are both under ten, or two children of the same sex under 25, will be assessed as having a minimum two bedroom entitlement.
• Applicants can apply for an extra bedroom due to their medical or social needs. Circumstances will be considered and evidence supporting need for an extra room will be required
• Applicants have the right to ask for a review of decisions made about their housing application.
• The policy cannot cover every eventuality. Exceptions will be considered by Housing Management who have discretionary power to award additional priority and approve offers of housing

What happened

14. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened.

Miss Y’s homelessness application and interim accommodation

15. In July 2020 the Council accepted Miss Y and her two children, who are both under ten, were homeless and in priority need.
16. It made Miss Y a final offer of interim accommodation – a one bedroom flat. The Council said it had undertaken an extensive assessment of her circumstances and needs before deciding this offer was suitable and reasonable for her to accept.
17. At the same time, its homelessness prevention officer told Miss Y she was aware the one bedroom property was not suitable but it was the only accommodation available at the moment. Miss Y was told the allocations team would actively look for alternative accommodation and notify her as soon as something suitable was found.
18. In August the Council told Miss Y by letter it accepted it owed her the main housing duty. It confirmed she had the right to ask for a review if she did not believe her temporary accommodation was suitable.

Miss Y’s complaint about the temporary accommodation

19. On 17 August, Miss Y complained to the Council about the accommodation. The Council already knew one of Miss Y’s children, Z, had a very serious medical condition. Miss Y told the Council Z had recently returned home after surgery. Z was finding it difficult to breathe but they could not open windows because other occupants in the building were smoking cannabis outside their accommodation.
20. Miss Y complained again on 27 August about the behaviour of other occupants in the building and the overcrowding because the accommodation only had one bedroom.
21. The Council told Miss Y it was satisfied the temporary accommodation offered was suitable. But she could now ask for a suitability review because it had accepted the main housing duty. She would need to provide evidence of the accommodation’s unsuitability, including police confirmation it was unsafe for her to occupy the property.
22. The homelessness prevention officer told Miss Y’s social worker she was “painfully aware they were in unsuitable accommodation”. She referred Miss Y’s request to move, and information about Z’s health issues, to the temporary accommodation (TA) team.
23. In its reply of 8 October, the TA team said:

• Miss Y had to personally make a written review request
• The medical information provided so far did not warrant a move and was not sufficient for a suitability review. Evidence was needed to show why the current accommodation was unsuitable, its detrimental effect on Z’s medical condition, and why they could not stay there.

24. Miss Y’s written review request made on 9 October was upheld and she was moved to alternative temporary two bedroom accommodation.

Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom

25. In December Miss Y told the Council she was grateful to have been moved from the previous accommodation. But she felt she had been wrongly assessed as needing a two bedroom property. Although her children were both under ten, they could not share a bedroom because of the impact of Z’s medical condition. She asked to be assessed as needing a three bedroom property.
26. On 20 December the Council told Miss Y:

• It accepted the new temporary accommodation to which she had moved was not suitable. (I understand this was because it did not have a downstairs toilet. Because of her medical condition, Z struggled climbing up stairs and it was now difficult for Miss Y to carry her).
• It might be some time before it could offer her alternative suitable accommodation due to the low supply of available housing
• It had asked a manager to meet with her to discuss her needs. It would then consider whether to make an exceptional decision to allocate her a permanent property

27. Miss Y and the support worker at her children’s school contacted the Council in January and February 2021 about heating issues at the property and her request for an extra bedroom.
28. In March 2021, a local councillor contacted the TA team with their concerns about Miss Y’s living conditions. The councillor referred to Z’s serious medical condition and said Z needed constant care, to be kept cool, with windows open and no heating. This made sharing a bedroom very difficult. Z’s school and the medical professionals treating Z were also concerned about their current accommodation.

Request to the Council’s Exceptional Decision’s Panel

29. On 29 March the Council decided to submit Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom to its Exceptional Decisions Panel (the Panel).
30. On 3 June the Panel considered the request and decided it needed an expert medical assessment before it could determine this. The Panel also considered moving Miss Y to three bedroom temporary accommodation, as an interim solution, until it could make a decision about her request.
31. Miss Y and her children were moved to three bedroom temporary accommodation, with a downstairs toilet, in July 2021.

The medical assessment

32. The Council asked its independent medical adviser to assess whether Miss Y needed an extra bedroom because of Z’s medical condition.
33. The adviser completed an assessment on 28 June based on medical information provided by Z’s GP, her children’s specialist cardiac nurse and hospital consultants.
34. The adviser concluded:

• There was nothing to suggest Z’s mobility was significantly adversely impaired by her cardiac disease.
• She was said to suffer from night sweats which may disrupt her sleep pattern. There was no suggestion of any underlying cause for her night sweats.

• There was nothing to suggest sharing a bedroom with a sibling was precluded.

The Panel’s decision

35. The Panel declined Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom. It said it had considered the supporting medical documentation, vulnerability assessment and the medical adviser’s assessment. It referred to the medical adviser’s comments and said it could find nothing to substantiate an extra bedroom was medically essential.
36. The Council told Miss Y on 9 August the panel had declined her request and as this was a discretionary decision, there was no further avenue for appeal.
37. Miss Y complained to us on 16 August.

My findings – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Suitability of interim and temporary accommodation

38. The Council has not provided evidence of the extensive suitability assessment it said it had made in its interim accommodation offer.
39. Under its policy, Miss Y needed at least a two bedroom property. The Council’s officer told Miss Y the interim one bedroom accommodation was not suitable, but it was all there was at the moment and they were actively looking to move her to suitable accommodation.
40. Based on the evidence seen, my view is Council accepted in July 2020 the interim accommodation was unsuitable for Miss Y for anything more than a short period. But I have not seen any evidence the Council kept the suitability of the Miss Y’s accommodation under review or took action to look for alternative accommodation for her. I consider this was fault.
41. And I consider it was fault by the Council to tell Miss Y in October 2020 she had to make a written request for a suitability review. It had already accepted the accommodation was unsuitable. Miss Y was put to the unnecessary time and trouble of putting her review request in writing and waiting for it to be considered.
42. The Council accepted in December 2020, that although the alternative accommodation into which Miss Y had just moved had two bedrooms, it was not suitable for them. But it did not move Miss Y to a suitable property with a downstairs toilet until July 2021. In my view this was fault.
43. I note that when the Council took action to move Miss Y to more suitable properties in December 2020 and July 2021, alternative accommodation was quickly found. I consider, because of the Council’s fault in failing to take action to move Miss Y and her children, one of whom is very ill, they had to live in unsuitable accommodation for much longer than was necessary.
44. Where fault has resulted in someone living in unsuitable accommodation, we normally recommend a remedy payment of between £150 to £350 a month to acknowledge the upset and inconvenience this has caused. The figure is based on the circumstances of each case to reflect the impact on that person.
45. I consider the payment in this case should be towards the higher end of the scale for the period from July to December 2020 because of the impact of the location and sharing one bedroom, and at the lower end of the scale from January to July 2021.

Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom

46. Miss Y asked the Council in December 2020 to reconsider its decision about her bedroom entitlement, because of the change in Z’s medical condition and its impact on the children’s sleeping arrangements. The Council has not explained why it did not review this change in circumstances and the need for an extra bedroom at this stage.
47. Miss Y’s request was not considered by the Council – as a submission to its Exceptional Decisions Panel – until June 2021, nearly six months after Miss Y’s initial request.
48. I consider this delay was fault, which left Miss Y in a state of uncertainty about whether and when her request for an extra bedroom would be considered.

The Panel’s decision

49. The Panel was entitled to take into account the medical adviser’s assessment when deciding whether Miss Y needed an extra bedroom because of Z’s medical needs. But it should also have considered the other information available. This included the medical evidence provided in support of Miss Y’s request.
50. And when considering the medical adviser’s assessment, I consider the Panel should have taken into account the fact the adviser had not examined Z whereas the nurses, specialists and doctors who provided the medical evidence had.
51. In my view the medical adviser failed to address a number of important issues raised in the medical evidence:
1. The adviser concluded there was nothing to suggest Z’s mobility was significantly adversely impaired by her cardiac disease but did not comment on or address:

• the cardiac nurse’s evidence Z’s exercise tolerance was less than a healthy child her age because of her heart condition and a property with numerous flights of stairs unlikely to be suitable; or
• the hospital specialist’s evidence that after examining Z, she was slow, short of breath, tired on attempting walking and asking to be carried.
2. The adviser concluded there was nothing to suggest Z sleeping with her sibling was precluded but did not comment on or address:
• the cardiac nurse’s evidence it was important Z could open windows for adequate ventilation. It would be more beneficial for Z to have her own room. Due to her complex needs Z often woke in the night with breathing difficulty and night sweats. This affected her sibling sharing the room and impacted both children; or
• the hospital specialist’s evidence that Z had been referred with an ongoing history of significant night sweats which was under investigation. Miss Y had said these significantly disrupted Z’s sleep and required modulation of Z’s bedroom environment, which was disruptive for both children. Separate sleeping environments for the children would be beneficial for them both
3. The adviser did not address the medical evidence about Z’s ongoing night sweats, the impact these had on her and her sibling’s sleeping arrangements, and that their cause was still being investigated.

52. The Panel repeated the medical adviser’s conclusions in the grounds it gave for its decision. It did not explain why it preferred the adviser’s view to the opinions of medical and other professionals who knew and had examined Z
53. Based on the evidence seen, my view is the Panel did not properly consider all the evidence available to it before making its decision to decline Miss Y’s request for an extra bedroom. This is fault. Because of this Miss Y lost the opportunity to have her request for an extra bedroom properly considered.
54. The Council has told us, following further medical evidence about Z’s current condition, it has now assessed Miss Y as requiring a three- bedroom property. On this basis, I do not propose any further remedy for the injustice this fault caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Miss Y for the faults and its failures and delays in moving her to suitable accommodation and considering her request for an extra bedroom.
• pay Miss Y £500 to reflect her time and trouble making a formal written request for a suitability review, the upset caused by the delay in considering her request for an extra bedroom and the lost opportunity to have the request properly considered.
• This is a symbolic amount in line with our published guidance on remedies.
• pay Miss Y £2,550 (£300 a month for the period from July 2020 to December 2020 and £150 a month from January 2021 to July 2021) for the time she and her children spent in unsuitable accommodation.

56. The Council has told us it has agreed to make these payments to Miss Y as a gesture of goodwill.
57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has competed the above actions

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will carry out the above actions as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman