Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss J’s complaint about the Council failing to move her from unsuitable temporary accommodation. She remained in temporary accommodation it decided was unsuitable for 17 months. It delayed dealing with her review request for five months. It also delayed dealing with her complaint for six months. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss J complains about the Council failing to:
1. move her from unsuitable temporary accommodation despite her telling it about her limited mobility and health issues; and
2. deal with her complaint promptly.
2. As a result, she remained in unsuitable accommodation with her two children, struggled with the stairs, and struggled getting to school which is more than an hour away.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I am not investigating the Council’s actions before September 2021. This is because this is when we decided her previous complaint about her interim accommodation and its suitability.
4. Usually, I would not investigate a complaint about the suitability of accommodation because the Council accepted it owed Miss J a full homelessness duty. This means she had the right to ask for a review of the suitability assessment which is what she did. While the Council reviewed it and advised her of her right to appeal it to the courts within 21 days, it failed to send her the review decision until that period had expired.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

Housing law

Temporary accommodation

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
9. 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)
10. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable.
11. Section 204 gives an applicant who is dissatisfied with the section 202 review a right of appeal to the County Court. An appeal must be brought within 21 days of the applicant being notified of the review decision. The Court may give permission for a late appeal if there is a good reason why it was not made in time.
12. Where the housing authority arranges accommodation, this must be suitable for the person and those who can reasonably be expected to live with them. Accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty is called temporary accommodation. Councils meet this duty in different ways, including:

• its own housing stock;
• dedicated hostels or purpose-built accommodation;
• properties obtained from housing associations or other registered providers of social housing; and
• properties leased from private landlords.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered all the information Miss J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

14. Miss J made a homeless application to the Council in 2019. It placed her in accommodation temporarily and later accepted it owed her a full housing duty.
15. She complains it placed her in unsuitable temporary private accommodation. She remained in the same one-bedroom first floor flat as she did when she previously complained to us. She left the flat at the start of April 2023 when she found herself alternative private accommodation when she could face living there any longer.
16. Miss J complains the flat was unsuitable because it was: above a noisy music venue; near to noisy bus stops; she had restricted mobility because of a medical condition which meant she sometimes had to pull herself up the 30 stairs going backwards; her eldest child is at school, but the school is about an hour and a half away; far from her support network and daughter’s friends.
17. The Council accepted the property was unsuitable in May 2022 but did not move her. She is unhappy the Council failed to move her, and her two young children, to more suitable accommodation.
18. She also complains about the Council’s delayed consideration of her review request of its decision on her homeless application. It also sent its decision to her after the deadline for challenging it passed. When she asked it to reissue it so she could challenge it, the Council failed to do so.
19. The review decided her current accommodation was not suitable on medical grounds. It recommended a ground floor accommodation or, if higher, a lift with few internal stairs.
20. These are key dates:

2021:

• September: The housing medical adviser considered her illness or disability was of a moderate nature which was affected adversely by her current living conditions. It recommended a move to improve her health. The Council awarded her Band C (less urgent) medical need but recommended priority for ground floor level access permanent accommodation.
• November: The Council carried out a suitability assessment which decided her temporary accommodation was suitable. The assessment referred to the housing medical needs assessment done in September.

During the suitability assessment, the officer considered the previous medical assessment was not a significant factor in assessing suitability. This was because the medical assessment considered the impact of her accommodation on her medical conditions and awarded less urgent need for rehousing and although recommended a move, this did not mean her present accommodation was unsuitable. The suitability assessment went on to note that considering the severe shortage of accommodation available to discharge its statutory duties and high level for demand, the realities were such that the highest level of suitability may not be achievable. The officer concluded the accommodation suitable taking account of her housing needs, the medical assessment, and the available accommodation to the Council. Several days later, Miss J asked for a review of its decision.

2022:

• February: Miss J sent an email to the Council. This said she wished to complain about the Council failing to respond to ‘my letter of appeal to the Lambeth Housing Review dated 15th November 2021’.
• March: The Council asked Miss J about how she sent her review request and where she sent it to. She replied saying she posted it but received no acknowledgement.
• April: The Council said it had now received Miss J’s request letter but did not know why it had not received it sooner. An email sent to her at the start of the month confirmed it had found her letter, ‘which was an oversight on our part’ for which it apologised. It told her it would accept her review request as the delay was not her fault.
• May: The Council reviewed her case and sent her its decision. On review, it decided her property was unsuitable. This was on the grounds of her medical needs.
• June: Miss J made a formal complaint to the Council. Her permanent housing medical needs were assessed and considered less urgent taking account of her medical circumstances and the impact her current accommodation might have on them.
• December: The suitability checklist was updated, and Miss J required transferring to low level ground floor temporary accommodation. She told the Council she was pregnant.

2023:

• January: The Council instructed the agent to look for property on the ground floor or one with a lift.

The Council responded to her formal complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to it and for the delay providing her with alternative accommodation. It explained when it assessed her, in December 2022, it only had accommodation available in Essex or Kent, but this was not acceptable to Miss J because she was pregnant and did not want to move further away from her hospital.

It also assessed her as Band C1 under its housing allocation scheme. This means she does not have priority to be placed in Lambeth or close to Lambeth. It would try and find her accommodation as close to Lambeth as possible if it could not find suitable accommodation within it.

My findings

21. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. Section 206 of the Housing Act 1996 states all accommodation provided under Part 7 (homelessness) must be suitable for the needs of the applicant and household members. As the Council decided her accommodation was unsuitable, it breached its duty under section 206 from the date of its decision. This means this breach continued from May 2022 until April 2023 when she moved out. Keeping her in accommodation after deciding it was unsuitable amounts to fault.
2. I also took account of the Council accepting it did not act on her review request letter she sent in November 2021. For whatever reason, it did not locate and act on it until May 2022, about 5 months later. It accepted this failure was an oversight on its part. This is fault. It also means she remained in unsuitable accommodation from November 2022 when it should have reached this decision, until April 2023 (17 months).
3. The delay moving Miss J and her family to suitable accommodation is a service failure even though there may well be a shortage of suitable temporary accommodation for her. I note the Council provided no evidence showing a lack of suitable accommodation available. Nor did it show what active steps it took to try and find such accommodation for her apart from: one suggested viewing in May 2022 a short distance away; contacting the agent of the property Miss J was in to keep a look out for ground floor accommodation.
4. I am satisfied the identified failures caused Miss J an injustice. This is because she has the uncertainty of not knowing whether she might have been out of the property had the Council made an earlier decision. There was a lost opportunity to have her situation reviewed earlier. She was also caused some distress in the form of frustration.
5. The Council also delayed responding to the complaint she made in June 2022 until January 2023, seven months later. This is because its complaint policy states a formal complaint will initially be investigated by the service complained about which will respond within 20 working days. If it cannot do so, it will explain why and say when it will respond. It failed to do so in this case. The Council failed to respond to her complaint within the complaints policy timescale or tell her why it could not do so or when it would respond. The Council delayed responding to her complaint by about six months. These failures amount to fault.
6. I am satisfied this also caused her some injustice. It caused her distress in the form of frustration, uncertainty, and inconvenience.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. I considered our guidance on remedies.
23. I also considered our homeless complaint report (22 007 276) against the Council issued on 15 March 2023. When finding fault, we noted in the last three years, we made recommendations to the Council about addressing the supply of temporary accommodation. We also noted an ongoing problem despite making this recommendation, as well as the challenges the Council faces with meeting the demand for services with limited resources. Despite recognising this, the law says councils must meet their homelessness duties.
24. As part of the decision on that complaint, the Council agreed to produce an action plan based on the lessons from that case and the wider review of the homeless service of how it will ensure it is able to meet its statutory duties to homeless applicants.
25. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint, unless otherwise stated:
1. Send Miss J an apology for failing to: move her from unsuitable accommodation for 17 months; act on her review request for five months; respond to her complaint according to its complaints procedure timescales.
2. Provide a copy of the action plan it agreed to do on a reported case (22 007 276) by June 2023. The action plan will be based on learning from that case and a wider review of the homelessness service of how it will ensure it can meet its statutory duties to homeless applicants.
3. Identify why the review request sent in November 2021 was not located for about five months and act to ensure this cannot happen on future cases.
4. Review why failings in the complaints process happened and act to ensure these cannot happen on future cases.
5. Pay Miss J £4,250 for living in unsuitable accommodation (17 months x £250)
6. Pay Miss J £250 for the distress the fault caused.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman