Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed moving him and his family from unsuitable temporary accommodation. He says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable stress and have had a negative impact on his family’s mental health. We found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, provide an opportunity for him to request a review of the suitability of his current temporary accommodation, and make a payment to recognise the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed moving him and his family from unsuitable temporary accommodation. He says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable stress and have had a negative impact on his family’s mental health. He would like the Council to find him and his family suitable permanent accommodation.

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 investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

8. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. 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)
11. If satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure accommodation that is available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193, and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
12. 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)
13. Homeless applicants may ask for a review within 21 days of receiving notice of certain decisions. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

14. The Council’s scheme sets out how the Council assesses the size of home each applicant needs. The scheme says where a household includes a pregnant woman, the baby will not be taken into account until it is born. The scheme also sets out how the Council determines an applicant’s priority need within one of its four priority bands, Band A to Band D. Band A is the highest priority (for emergencies and strategic priorities), and Band D is the lowest priority.

What happened

15. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. Mr and Mrs X submitted a homeless application to the Council in October 2018. Mrs X was pregnant with the couple’s first child at the time. The Council provided Mr and Mrs X with interim accommodation in a hostel which comprised of a room with its own bathroom and access to a shared kitchen.
17. Mr and Mrs X’s child, Child A, was born in November 2018.
18. In January 2019, the Council offered Mr X a second-floor, two-bedroom property with its own lounge/kitchen area. Mr X told the Council he could not accept it because there was no lift to the property and Mrs X suffered from back pain. He said access to the property was difficult with a pushchair and the location was quite far from his place of work. Mr X also said he was concerned about his ability to pay the rent at the property.
19. Mr X contacted the Council in October 2019 and said Mrs X was expecting their second child. He said whenever Mrs X had to prepare food in the shared kitchen, she had to take Child A with her as they could not be left unsupervised in their bedroom. Mr X said his current flat was very small for his family, and the accommodation would be even more unsuitable when their second child was born.
20. The Council replied to Mr X and said it did not have many properties available. It said someone would contact him when something became available.
21. Mr X contacted the Council again in January 2020. He said his second child was due in February 2020 and asked the Council to provide suitable accommodation as soon as possible. The Council replied and said someone from the temporary accommodation team would contact Mr X.
22. On 27 January 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X and said its “duty to help you to secure that suitable accommodation becomes available for occupation” had come to an end. It said this was because 56 days had elapsed since the Council decided Mr X was eligible for assistance and was threatened with homelessness. On the same day, the Council wrote to Mr X and told him it had completed its enquiries and was satisfied Mr X was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need. The Council acknowledged its responsibility under section 193(2) of the Housing Act to secure suitable accommodation for Mr X.
23. On 28 February 2020, the Council offered Mr X a two-bedroom, first floor flat. Mr X declined the offer and told the Council the flat did not have space for a washing machine.
24. Mr and Mrs X’s second child, Child B, was born in March 2020.
25. The Council says Mr X requested a transfer of accommodation in October 2020.
26. Mr X told the Council Mrs X was expecting their third child in May 2020.
27. In early March 2021, the Council offered Mr and Mrs X a first floor flat. However, Mr X declined the offer.
28. Mr and Mrs X’s third child, Child C, was born in April 2021.
29. Mr X sent a medical assessment form to the Council in August 2021 in respect of Child A and provided evidence that Child A had a hearing disability. Mr X said his current accommodation was not suitable because it was not safe to take his three children to the shared kitchen while food was being prepared, and it was not safe to leave them by themselves in the family’s room. Mr X said he worked full time, and this meant Mrs X had to wait until he returned home before she could cook for the family.
30. The Council replied to Mr X. It said its medical assessor decided the medical grounds provided by Mr X meant he had a “less urgent” medical need, and that his medical priority band was Band C.

Mr X’s complaint

31. Mr X complained to the Council on 18 September 2021 about its failure to move him and his family to suitable accommodation. He said his family of five were living in overcrowded accommodation and the situation was affecting the family’s mental and physical health. Mr X said Child A and Child C had the same medical condition and asked the Council to provide an urgent transfer to more suitable accommodation.
32. The Council replied on 23 September 2021. It said it was aware of the situation regarding the size of Mr X’s accommodation and said he was on the transfer list for a three-bedroom property. It said the number of people seeking social housing far exceeded the amount of housing available and said the shortage of social housing meant even those with high priority had to wait a long time.
33. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two on 24 September 2021. He said the Council had not addressed his complaint that his accommodation was unsuitable for his family and had not addressed Child A’s and Child C’s medical conditions. Mr X said his family needed urgent rehousing to a larger property and asked the Council to review the suitability of his current accommodation.
34. The Council replied on 1 November 2021. It said it had requested information from the hostels manager about Mr X’s current accommodation and had confirmed Mr X’s current flat was too small for his family. The Council said it had offered Mr X alternative accommodation in March 2021, but Mr X had declined the offer. It said the temporary accommodation service had experienced a very high demand, and this had been a factor in the lack of further offers made to Mr X. The Council apologised for the situation Mr X’s family was facing. It said Mr X’s case was being treated as urgent due to the unsuitability of his current accommodation and the time taken since being made an offer in March 2021.
35. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.

What happened next

36. Mr X contacted the Council in December 2021 and February 2022 to ask when it would transfer his family to alternative accommodation.
37. The Council offered Mr X a three-bedroom property as temporary accommodation in March 2022, which Mr X accepted. He and his family moved to the property in the same month.

Analysis

38. I have exercised discretion in investigating Mr X’s complaint back to 2019. This is because Mr X said he has been asking for a transfer since 2019, shortly after the birth of Child A. Mr X complained about this to the Council and brought his complaint to us within 12 months of the Council’s final decision.

Was there delay in moving Mr X from unsuitable accommodation?

39. Mr X complains the Council delayed moving him and his family from unsuitable temporary accommodation. I have reviewed the information provided by both parties when considering this complaint.
40. As part of its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged that initially, Mr X’s household consisted of him and Mrs X, who was pregnant at the time. The Council says, based on the dimensions of the room and the Council’s hostel standards, the accommodation was designated as suitable for three people. However, since moving to the hostel, Mr and Mrs X’s family grew and the accommodation therefore became increasingly overcrowded. The Council says the family’s occupation of the hostel room breached the hostel space standards after the birth of Child B in March 2020. I agree with the Council’s findings regarding this.
41. The Council says the main reason for the time taken to move Mr and Mrs X is the shortage of housing, especially family-sized housing, and the number of other households requiring temporary accommodation.
42. I acknowledge the Council’s comments regarding the shortage of social housing available. However, if a council has decided an applicant’s current accommodation is unsuitable, it is in breach of its statutory duty under section 206 of the Housing Act, (as referred to in paragraph 12), from that point until it provides suitable accommodation. We consider delay in transferring the applicant to suitable accommodation, even when this is due to external factors such as a shortage of temporary accommodation, is service failure.
43. Mr X told the Council on 13 January 2020 that he and Mrs X were expecting a second child. The evidence shows the Council acknowledged this as it is referenced in the Council’s letter to Mr X dated 28 February 2020. This letter demonstrates the Council decided Mr X’s accommodation at that time would not be suitable from the date Child B was born. This is because the letter offered Mr X a two-bedroom property to accommodate himself, Mrs X, Child A and Child B.
44. The Council transferred Mr X to a three-bedroom property in March 2022. This is 23 months after the birth of Child B, the date from which the Council acknowledges the family’s occupation of the hostel room breached the hostel space standards. I acknowledge the Council made an offer of alternative accommodation in March 2021. I also acknowledge that Mr X declined this offer as he considered it was not suitable. However, the Council’s single offer of alternative accommodation between March 2020 and March 2022 is evidence of delay. This is because I have seen no evidence to indicate the Council took steps to secure accommodation for the period March 2020 to March 2021, and then again for the period March 2021 to March 2022. This delay in transferring Mr X to accommodation it considered to be suitable is fault by the Council.

Was there delay when considering Mr X’s homeless application?

45. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities says, “Housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.” (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraph 14.16)
46. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation on 9 October 2018 under section 188 of the Housing Act (the Act). It accepted the main homelessness duty under section 193(2) of the Act on 27 January 2020.
47. I acknowledge the guidance says that where significant further investigations are required, it is recommended that councils aim to complete inquiries within 15 working days after 56 days have passed. However, the time taken by the Council to decide it owed Mr X the main homelessness duty was almost 16 months. This is delay by the Council and this delay is fault.

The Council’s offer of alternative accommodation

48. The evidence shows Mr X was invited to view his current address on 1 March 2022. Mr X says he moved into the property on 5 March 2022. Although this is a three-bedroom property, Mr X says it is not suitable for his family.
49. The Council provided Mr X with letters relating to the transfer on 24 March 2022. This included a letter confirming the offer of accommodation made under section 193(2) of the Act. The letter explained that Mr X had the right to request a review of the suitability of the offer. It said if Mr X wished to request a review he must do so “within 21 days from the date of your viewing”.
50. As per paragraph 13, homeless applicants may ask for a review within 21 days of receiving notice of certain decisions. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered under section 193. The Council’s letter of 24 March 2022 therefore gave incorrect information to Mr X about his right to request a review as it specified a period starting from the date of viewing instead of from receipt of the decision. In addition, the Council did not provide the decision letter until 23 days after Mr X viewed the property. As a result, had Mr X wished to request a review on receipt of the letter, the timeframe had already expired. The Council is at fault for providing Mr X with incorrect information about his right to request a review.
51. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused a significant injustice to Mr X. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable distress as he and his family were living in overcrowded, unsuitable accommodation. He says Mrs X was unable to leave the children alone in the bedroom to go and cook in the shared kitchen and was not able to safely take them into the kitchen either. He said Mrs X and their children had to stay in the single bedroom all day until he came home from work, and this had a negative impact on his family’s mental and physical wellbeing. The delay in providing Mr X with the Council’s decision about accepting the main homelessness duty also caused an injustice to Mr X, namely the uncertainty caused while waiting for the Council’s decision about its duties to him.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:

• Provide an apology to Mr X;
• Provide Mr X with an opportunity to request a review of the suitability of his current accommodation;
• Make a payment of £5,750 to recognise the distress caused by the delay in providing suitable accommodation. This equates to £250 per month for 23 months and is in line with our published guidance on remedies.
• Make a further payment of £1,000 to recognise the distress caused by the delay in making its decision about the main homelessness duty. This amount reflects the length of the delay and is in line with our published guidance on remedies;
• Remind staff to ensure the correct timeframes are given when notifying applicants about their right to request a review.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman