Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her housing, particularly that it disregarded her disabilities and medical vulnerability, which kept her in unsuitable accommodation. Ms X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration, and caused her mental and physical health to deteriorate. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and improve its service.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Ms X, complained about the way the Council handled her housing needs. Specifically, she complained that the Council:
1. disregarded her medical conditions, disability and vulnerability, meaning she was essentially trapped in accommodation which was unsuitable because she could not safely or easily access the front door, kitchen or bathroom; and,
2. did not involve her in creating a personalised housing plan, and did not share it with her before offering her accommodation.
2. Ms X said this caused unnecessary distress and frustration. She said that living in unsuitable accommodation caused her mental and physical health to deteriorate. She also said it impacted on her and her young child.

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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. As I set out above, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that are more than 12 months after the complainant first had knowledge of the problem, unless there are good reasons to do so.
8. In this case, Ms X complained to us in February 2023 about events going back to August 2021.
9. We have decided to look at events going back to August 2021, as Ms X made an ongoing effort to raise concerns with the Council about the suitability of the property she was offered, and because of personal circumstances which made it difficult for her to pursue the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
11. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (recently updated).

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Suitability of temporary accommodation

12. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
13. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of being notified of the council’s decision on their homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
14. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation.

Personalised Housing Plans

15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help them 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)

Equality Act

17. The Ombudsman can make decisions about whether or not a council has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
18. Councils will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed, or appealed.

What happened

19. In summer 2021, the Council accepted a homelessness duty to Ms X and issued her with a personalised housing plan. The Council told Ms X it intended to offer her first-floor accommodation in August 2021. Ms X raised concern about the suitability of the accommodation due to her medical needs, but accepted the offer in late August.
20. From October 2021 Ms X began asking the Council to review the suitability of the accommodation. She told the Council her medical needs and disabilities meant that using stairs was very difficult and painful for her. The Council did not respond to her emails until March 2022.
21. In April 2022, the Council decided that the accommodation was not suitable for Ms X because of her medical conditions, without carrying out a full review.
22. Ms X complained about the time it had taken to respond to her request for a review.
23. The Council said it was unfortunate that she had been placed in a property that did not suit her needs. It said it was looking for alternative temporary accommodation, but there was nothing suitable at that time.
24. In November, a charity offered Ms X ground-floor accommodation as an interim measure, which the Council agreed to.
25. In February 2023, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Suitability of temporary accommodation

26. Ms X complains that the Council disregarded her medical conditions, disability and vulnerability, meaning she was essentially trapped in accommodation which was unsuitable because she could not safely or easily access the front door, kitchen or bathroom (part a of the complaint).
27. Although Ms X had expressed concern with the Council about the suitability of the property before it was offered, she accepted the formal offer when it was made in August 2021.
28. Ms X requested a review by email in October 2021. The Council did not respond to the request, which was fault. Had it done so, the Council agrees it would have likely identified the property was unsuitable by November 2021.
29. Following further emails from Ms X in March 2022, the Council decided in April 2022 that Ms X’s accommodation was unsuitable for her on medical grounds, and that she needed ground floor accommodation.
30. In May 2023, the Council reassessed Ms X and decided that it owed her the main housing duty.
31. After deciding in April 2022 that Ms X’s accommodation was unsuitable, the Council should have moved her to suitable accommodation in line with its duties under the law. The Council did not do this. The Council says it was not able to provide Ms X with suitable housing because of the housing crisis and a resulting lack of properties. This is service failure, which is fault.
32. Ms X remained at the unsuitable accommodation until November 2022, when she moved into housing provided by a charity.
33. I have considered whether the Council had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, as Ms X has disabilities. I am satisfied the Council had due regard to its duties by agreeing to review the suitability of her property, given her medical needs, although it was fault that it overlooked her original request for a review.

Personalised Housing Plan

34. Ms X complains that the Council did not involve her in creating a personalised housing plan (PHP), and did not share it with her before offering her accommodation (part b of the complaint).
35. As I have said above, I have investigated the Council’s actions from February 2022 onwards.
36. As I have found above, when the Council decided that Ms X’s accommodation was unsuitable, it should have reassessed her to see if it still owed her the main housing duty. It did not do this. However, it has now reassessed Ms X and decided it owes her this duty.
37. Councils must review PHPs or issue new PHPs in cases like this. However, because the Council did not reassess Ms X, it did not issue a PHP for her. This is fault.
38. The Council issued a PHP for Ms X in summer 2021. The Council accepts that it did not review Ms X’s PHP when its main housing duty was re-triggered. It accepts this is fault.
39. I find this fault caused Ms X injustice, in that it caused uncertainty.
40. The Council says it will issue Ms X with a PHP in due course. This is positive, but the Council should not delay issuing this plan.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X in writing for the injustice caused by:
• having to remain in unsuitable accommodation;
• failing to reassess her case after it decided her accommodation was unsuitable; and,
• failing to issue her with a personalised housing plan.
42. In writing this apology, the Council should refer to the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (recently updated) which details how to make an effective apology.
43. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X of £3200. This is made up as follows:
• £250 per month from November 2021 to November 2022 – this reflects the fact that the Council would have likely decided the property was unsuitable by November 2021 had it responded to the original request for a review in October 2021. The Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies suggests a monthly payment of between £150 and £350. In arriving at a mid-range figure, I have taken into consideration Ms X’s disabilities and vulnerability, and that she had to carry a child up and down stairs which was not safe for her to do. I consider this is an appropriate and proportionate amount for the injustice caused here. £250 multiplied by 12 months is £3000.
• £200 for the uncertainty caused by failing to issue Ms X a personalised housing plan when it should have. I consider this an appropriate and proportionate amount to the injustice caused.
44. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to remind staff that if the Council decides a property is unsuitable for an applicant, it must reassess the household to see if it owes them a housing duty, and also issue a personalised housing plan.
45. In arriving at the above remedies and service improvement, I have considered the Ombudsman’ published guidance on remedies.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault and this caused Ms X injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice and improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman