Summary: The Council placed Miss B and her daughter in unsuitable accommodation when they were homeless. The Council failed to carry out a review of the suitability of the accommodation and failed to make proper efforts to move them to alternative accommodation. As a result, they remained living in unsuitable accommodation for over two years and nine months. The Council also delayed considering Miss B’s medical evidence and so she was not given sufficient priority on its housing register. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss B and to take action to prevent similar failings.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her housing and homelessness applications. In particular, she says the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation, failed to carry out a review of the suitability of the accommodation and failed to review her housing priority.
2. Miss B says that as a result of the Council’s failures, she was left living in unsuitable accommodation with her daughter for over two and a half years which affected her mental health and her daughter’s development. She says she also incurred unnecessary storage costs.

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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law, government guidance and Council policy

Homelessness

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable.
9. Bed and breakfast accommodation is not suitable for households with ‘family commitments’. The Order defines this as a household that includes a dependent child or a pregnant woman. Where no other accommodation is available, the authority may place a family in bed and breakfast accommodation as a last resort but only for a maximum of six weeks. (The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2003)
10. The Order defines bed and breakfast accommodation as accommodation which is not self-contained and where the household has to share a toilet, cooking or bathroom facilities with other households.

Housing allocations

11. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
12. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme. Housing applicants can bid on available properties.
13. The Council places applicants who qualify to join the housing register in a priority band from Band 1 (highest priority) to Band 4 (lowest priority). This priority is the first factor the Council uses to allocate a property.
14. The award date is the date on which the Council placed the application into a higher priority band. It is used to prioritise between applicants within the same band.
15. Applicants have the right to request a review of housing priority decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews.

Overview

16. Miss B joined the Council’s housing register in November 2018.
17. In January 2019, Miss B made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council accepted the homeless relief duty and placed Miss B and her 3-year-old daughter in a hotel.
18. In late February 2019, the Council arranged for Miss B to move to alternative accommodation on 1 March. It was a room in a hostel with shared toilets, cooking and bathroom facilities.
19. The Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss B on 5 March 2019.
20. Miss B and her daughter remained living in the hostel until November 2021, when they were offered the tenancy of a two-bedroom house.

Analysis

Suitability of accommodation

21. As explained in paragraphs nine and ten, accommodation with shared facilities is not suitable for households with family commitments. The Council can only place families in such accommodation as a last resort, and for a maximum of six weeks.
22. Miss B and her daughter lived in a hotel room for almost eight weeks and then in a room in a hostel with shared facilities for around two years and nine months. The Council failed to comply with its duty to provide suitable accommodation. This was fault.
23. The Council’s failings here resulted in Miss B and her daughter living in unsuitable accommodation for over two years and nine months. This had a detrimental impact on Miss B’s mental health and her daughter’s development.

Review request

24. Miss B made it clear from the outset that she did not consider the accommodation was suitable. During Miss B’s first year living in the hostel, she emailed the Council several times asking to be moved to alternative accommodation, explaining the impact it was having on both her and her daughter. It was not until April 2020 that an officer advised Miss B to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. Each time Miss B told the Council that the accommodation was unsuitable, it should have explained that she could request a review. It did not do so; this was fault.
25. Miss B requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation in April 2020. She provided a letter from a support worker which explained how her living conditions were affecting her mental health and her daughter’s development. Miss B also provided a letter from her GP which provided details of Miss B’s history of mental health problems and explained how the accommodation was affecting her mental health.
26. The review should have been completed within eight weeks, by 15 June 2020.
27. Miss B chased the Council several times for its decision on her review and then made a formal complaint in October 2020. In the Council’s response, it said that it could not see that a review had been requested. However, when Miss B made another complaint in June 2021, the Council said that the review was still under investigation.
28. By the time Miss B left the accommodation in November 2021, the Council had not carried out the review. The Council failed to comply with its statutory duty to carry out a review of the suitability of the accommodation. This was fault.
29. The Council’s failings here contributed to Miss B and her daughter remaining in unsuitable accommodation. Miss B was also put to avoidable time and trouble chasing the Council for its decision.

Move to alternative temporary accommodation

30. On several occasions, Miss B was told that a request had been made to the temporary accommodation team to move Miss B and her daughter to self-contained accommodation. I have not seen any evidence to show that the Council attempted to find alternative accommodation. Considering the length of time Miss B and her daughter were left living in unsuitable accommodation, the Council either did not look for alternative accommodation, or it unfairly prioritised other families over Miss B and her daughter. This was fault and contributed to Miss B and her daughter remaining in unsuitable accommodation.

Housing priority

31. Miss B was awarded Band 2 priority in February 2019 after she became homeless. The Council also gave Miss B a Band 2 medical award in July 2019.
32. Miss B provided further medical evidence from her GP on 3 February 2021. The letter said that the living conditions were having a detrimental effect on Miss B’s daughter’s development, and she appeared to be regressing. The GP said that he considered both Miss B and her daughter’s mental and physical well-being were at risk.
33. The Council says that it considered this medical evidence as part of an assessment it carried out a few days after it was received. It says the officer decided to maintain the Band 2 award, but that when the case was considered again in October 2021, another officer decided the medical evidence did warrant a Band 1 award.
34. The Council’s decision letter following the assessment it carried out in February 2021 shows that it considered whether Miss B had an exceptional need to move and whether she should be awarded priority on hardship grounds. Miss B had asked to be assessed for priority on these grounds in May 2020. The letter does not refer to the medical evidence which Miss B had submitted a few days earlier. On the balance of probabilities, I consider the Council failed to consider the medical evidence until October 2021. This was fault.
35. On 26 February 2021, Miss B’s support worker sent the Council an exceptional needs form. She detailed how the accommodation was affecting both Miss B and her daughter.
36. The Council’s records show that it considered the form and decided not to award any additional housing priority. But it did not tell Miss B or her support worker that it had made this decision. This was fault and meant they did not have the opportunity to request a review.
37. If the Council had properly assessed the medical evidence Miss B submitted in February 2021 without delay, I consider she would have been awarded Band 1 by mid-March 2021. Miss B would then have likely successfully bid on a suitable two-bedroom property and moved by the end of April.
38. Miss B was paying to store her furniture while she was staying in temporary accommodation. If she had been able to move to permanent accommodation by the end of April 2021, she would not have incurred storage fees between April and November 2021.

Award date

39. When the Council assessed Miss B’s application in January 2020, it changed Miss B’s award date to 23 January 2020. This was fault. Miss B’s award date should not have changed from 5 February 2019 because that was when she was first awarded Band 2.
40. The Council did not correct Miss B’s award date until 22 October 2020.
41. The Council changed Miss B’s award date again in February 2021, but on that occasion the error was quickly identified and corrected.
42. I do not consider these failings caused Miss B any significant injustice. Miss B had the correct award date for the majority of the time between October 2020 and October 2021 and did not successfully bid on any properties. I therefore consider it unlikely that she would have been successful if she had the correct award date between January and October 2020.

Housing conditions

43. The Council acted appropriately when Miss B complained to the Council about mould in her room in early March 2020. It contacted the managing company promptly to ensure remedial works were carried out and checked that the works had been completed. I therefore do not consider the Council is responsible for any damage to Miss B’s belongings.
44. I am satisfied that each time Miss B raised concerns about disrepair in the accommodation, the Council acted appropriately. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within four weeks, the Council will make the following payments to Miss B:
• £8250 for the 33 months she and her daughter were living in unsuitable accommodation.
• £1706.90 for the storage fees she incurred between the end of April 2021 and the end of November 2021 (16 weeks at £47.75 and 14 weeks at £67.35).
• £500 to recognise Miss B’s distress and the avoidable time and trouble she was put to as a result of the failings in this case.
46. Within eight weeks, the Council will:
• Provide an action plan, including timescales, to show how it intends to ensure homeless families do not remain in accommodation with shared facilities for more than six weeks. It will also provide evidence to show the number of families who have been in such accommodation for more than six weeks, and the average length of time homeless families have to stay before self-contained accommodation is provided.
• Ensure that when officers review housing priority decisions, they list all the evidence they have considered in reaching their decision.
• Review and audit current processes to ensure that when it carries out an assessment of a housing applicant’s case, it applies the correct award date, in accordance with its policy.
• Take action to ensure its officers provide application decisions in writing, in accordance with its procedures. In particular, it will ensure officers write to the applicant with the Council’s housing priority decision after considering an exceptional needs form.
47. The Council has accepted that it has ongoing delays in processing and reviewing housing applications due to unprecedented demand. It has provided us with a copy of its action plan to reduce the timescales for assessing new applications, which includes a full-scale restructure and extensive recruitment.
48. The Council has recently agreed to provide an updated action plan to show how it proposes to reduce delays in processing all applications and review requests. It has also agreed to provide an updated report to show the improvements made since the first action plan was sent to us.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman