Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed in its statutory responsibility to provide suitable accommodation when he became homeless. The Council was at fault for failing to complete Mr X’s Personalised Housing Plan and failing to start a suitability review sooner. However, Mr X did not suffer significant injustice as a result of the identified faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed in its statutory responsibility to provide suitable accommodation when he became homeless. He said this came at a time when he was mentally and physically vulnerable due to his health condition.
2. Mr X said he could not manage pain relief, attend appointments, or meet his food and health needs due to unsuitable accommodation. He wanted the Council to provide suitable accommodation.

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 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. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Housing Act 1996.
6. Mr 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

Guidance and legislation

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
• He or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• He or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
10. 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)
11. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:
• eligible for assistance.
• homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.).
• not intentionally homeless.
12. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• People with dependent children.
• Pregnant women.
• People who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

14. 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)
15. 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)
16. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24 and from 3 April 2018 17.30)
17. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the Council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.32)

Decision Letters

18. 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, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met
• whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority
• the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty
• 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). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

What happened

20. Mr X presented to the Council as homeless in November 2021. He said he was staying at his sister’s home and had to leave by 15 November.
21. Mr X told the Council he had a brain tumour and was awaiting surgery. He had also been diagnosed with depression and anxiety. He told the Council he could lose 50% of his hearing and would be unsteady on his feet following surgery.
22. The Council booked Mr X into a hotel as temporary accommodation (TA) from 29 November. This was interim TA while the Council considered whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. The Council extended the hotel booking into the new year after Mr X’s surgery was put back.
23. The Council booked Mr X into a different hotel on 26 January 2022. This was still interim TA.
24. The Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty on 2 February 2022. He remained in TA at the same hotel, but it was no longer interim TA. The Council wrote to Mr X confirming its decision. It also made him aware of his right to ask for a review.
25. The Council offered Mr X a one bed home in February. Mr X declined because it was too far away from his medical appointments.
26. Mr X contacted the Council in April to advise he was due to have neurosurgery. He said his current TA would likely be unsuitable afterwards, as he will need nursing care and help with cleaning, medication, and food. He asked the Council to review his priority banding and award Band A priority due to his welfare needs and need for adaptations.
27. The Council spoke to Mr X on 3 May. He was not at the hotel, because he said it was not suitable for his recovery as he could not have visitors or therapy.
28. The Council spoke to Mr X again on 11 May. It told him it sent a welfare self-assessment form for his housing application to the hotel. Mr X said he was not at the hotel because it was not suitable for his recovery. Mr X declined to tell the Council where he was staying.
29. Mr X telephoned the Council on 16 May. He said he was not staying at the hotel as it was not suitable for his needs. He wanted the Council to provide him with suitable accommodation.
30. Mr X then sent the Council an email. He said he had been telling the Council for six months that the TA was not suitable, but it had not replied.
31. The Council telephoned Mr X back. Mr X said he needed self-contained accommodation local to his medical appointments. He also said he needed to have friends and nurses visit to aid his recovery. Mr X confirmed he had been staying with his partner.
32. The Council sent a copy of the welfare self-assessment form to Mr X’s email address instead. Mr X returned the form a few days later.
33. Mr X complained on 19 May 2022.
34. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 23 May 2022. It said his complaint was considered by the review and quality manager for the housing options service.
35. First, the Council addressed Mr X’s complaint his TA was unsuitable. It described his medical condition and the medical recommendation for surgery – which Mr X decided to have.
36. It said his surgery went ahead on 21 April 2022 without complications. Mr X had some blurred vision and eye discharge whilst on the ward. He also had occupational therapy on the ward. He had an appointment with an eye specialist on 27 May and physio appointment on 26 May.
37. It also said Mr X suffers anxiety and depression, which he takes medication for.
38. The Council did not uphold this element of Mr X’s complaint. It said he asked not to be moved from his TA and confirmed he can make arrangements for carers and therapists to visit.
39. The Council also did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about lack of contact. It said its records showed it responded to him reasonably promptly.
40. The Council could not comment on whether TA had adversely affected Mr X’s health. However, it said its housing service made appropriate efforts to help him with his search for permanent accommodation.
41. The Council ended by saying it found no fault in the way its housing services supported Mr X with his homelessness.
42. The Council awarded Mr X priority band A on 24 May 2022, due to his brain tumour and need to be around his support network following surgery.
43. Mr X placed a successful bid on a home in late May but turned it down because it was too far from the hospital where he received treatment.
44. Also in late May, the hotel the Council had allocated as Mr X’s TA confirmed he could have visitors as COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted.
45. Mr X contacted the Council on 30 May. He said the courts had ordered he must look after his children every other weekend and half of school holidays. He also said he would be having more neurosurgery soon and asked the Council to find suitable emergency or long-term accommodation.
46. The Council asked Mr X if he would like to request a suitability review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
47. Mr X agreed and asked the Council why it took so long to offer him a review.
48. The Council booked Mr X into new TA at a different hotel for four days in June 2022. Mr X complained the hotel had no lift, despite him telling the Council he could not manage more than 15 steps. He questioned whether the Council checked this.
49. Mr X sent the Council a copy of a message from his doctor stating that he is ‘a high falls risk’. Mr X said he needs additional rails and aids to support himself, and none of the TA locations the Council placed him in support this.
50. The Council rebooked the previous TA hotel for Mr X for the remainder of June.
51. The Council nominated Mr X for a social rented home in the middle of June. Mr X accepted and the Council helped him with the advance rent needed.
52. Because Mr X had moved out of TA and into settled accommodation the Council closed his suitability review request.

My investigation

53. Mr X told me his TA was unsuitable because he had no fridge to store his eye medication, he could not make adaptations to the room, and he could not have guests. That meant his outpatient home care could not attend. He said the hotel eventually agreed to allow visitors for the final few weeks of his stay.
54. In response to my enquiries, the Council told me when it first placed Mr X in TA it considered he had no mobility support needs, based on his housing assessment. It therefore considered his TA was suitable.
55. The Council said Mr X raised concerns about the suitability of his TA on 30 May 2022. On 31 May the Council offered him a room in a shared house with a kitchen, but Mr X declined.
56. Then, in June 2022, Mr X’s doctor said there was a risk of him falling because of his operation. Mr X said he needed a property with handrails. The Council offered Mr X a self-contained caravan, but he turned it down due to the location.
57. On lift access, the Council said Mr X was in TA without a lift from 1 June to 4 June 2022. However, his room was on the ground floor.
58. The Council recognised it made an error at the beginning of Mr X’s homelessness application because it failed to complete a personalised housing plan (PHP) for him. However, despite this error, the Council said it completed the relevant actions verbally and gave advice and assistance to Mr X throughout. The Council said it has put quality assurance measures in place to minimise the risk of this happening again.

Analysis

59. The Council accepted it was at fault for not completing Mr X’s PHP. However, I found it did not cause Mr X significant injustice. This is because the Council discussed Mr X’s PHP with him, completed the actions we would expect, within the relevant timescales, and it supported Mr X into TA.
60. When the Council first allocated TA for Mr X, it was interim TA while it considered his homelessness application. At that stage, Mr X was awaiting surgery for his tumour. The Council considers Mr X’s TA was suitable at that time and I have not seen any evidence to suggest it was unsuitable.
61. There is no right of review for interim TA, so the Council’s earlier letters did not mention suitability or review procedures. However, the Council still has a duty to ensure interim TA is suitable and it should consider any health issues.
62. The Council was satisfied the interim TA was suitable, based on the housing assessment it conducted. The Council was clearly aware of Mr X’s brain tumour, and I have not seen evidence it failed to consider his health needs. At that stage, he had not had surgery, so the aftercare elements and post operative rehabilitation issues had not come into play.
63. Once the Council had accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty in February 2022, its letters did tell Mr X he could ask for a review of its decisions (including about TA). The letters also gave details of how Mr X could ask for a review, by writing to the designated review officer. Mr X did not do so. Given Mr X’s legal background, and the references he made to the Council’s duties under the Housing Act 1996, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to be aware he had the right to ask for a review.
64. Mr X’s surgery was delayed until 2022. He told the Council in April that he was about to have surgery. He also alerted the Council to the fact he considered his TA would then become unsuitable. I have not seen any evidence the Council gave further consideration to the suitability of the TA at that time.
65. Although Mr X did not formally ask for a review (he waited for the Council to offer one), I found he did raise questions about the suitability of his TA on several occasions before the end of May 2022. I would have expected the Council to respond or engage with Mr X about why he felt the TA was unsuitable. Or it should have told Mr X to send a formal review request to the designated review offer. That was fault.
66. However, the Council did re-assess Mr X’s housing priority. It placed him in band A, as he asked, in May 2022. That increased the likelihood of Mr X finding a permanent home. Indeed, the Council did find a home for Mr X in June, less than a month after increasing his priority.
67. The Council did not complete its suitability review, because Mr X left the TA. However, a review officer did consider the suitability of Mr X’s TA as part of his complaint.
68. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether accommodation is suitable. It is ultimately the Council’s decision. The Council demonstrated it considered Mr X’s medical conditions. It decided his TA was suitable. That is a merits decision and I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached.
69. Despite failing to start a suitability review sooner, I have not seen evidence Mr X suffered significant injustice as a result. That is because I have not seen evidence the result would have been different.
70. In addition, I found Mr X often did not stay at the TA. He stayed elsewhere, including at his girlfriend’s home. I am also mindful of the fact the Council offered Mr X two alternative properties (one in May and one in June 2022). It also allocated Mr X priority band A and found him permanent housing. I also found the Council acted within a suitable timeframe to help Mr X following his surgery.
71. I therefore did not find the Council failed to try to help Mr X or failed to consider his needs.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault for failing to complete Mr X’s Personalised Housing Plan and failing to start a suitability review sooner. However, Mr X did not suffer significant injustice as a result of the identified faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman