Summary: Ms X complains that the Council provided unsuitable temporary accommodation when she became homeless and failed to consider her medical needs when considering her housing priority. The Council is at fault for delay in carrying out a suitability assessment of Ms X’s temporary accommodation and delay in considering her request for a review of her housing priority. These faults caused distress to Ms X which the Council has agreed to remedy by apologising and making a payment of £500 to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council:

• failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation to Ms X when she became homeless after fleeing domestic abuse;
• failed to give proper consideration to Ms X medical needs and the impact of fleeing domestic abuse when making its decision to place her in band C-1 of the housing allocations scheme.

2. As a result Ms X considers she has lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated whether Ms X’s temporary accommodation is suitable. This is because Ms X has the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision of May 2023 that the accommodation was suitable for her and apply to the county court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:

• considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• discussed the issues with Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. 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. This is the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Applicants in priority need include victims of domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in a number of categories. These include homeless people and people who need to move on medical and welfare grounds.
14. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
15. The Council allocations scheme prioritises applicants by placing them into priority bands, A to D. Band A is the highest priority.
     

What happened

Temporary accommodation

16. In 2022 Ms X made a homelessness application as she was fleeing domestic abuse and living in a refuge. The Council accepted the relief duty. The Council’s records show Ms X wanted to stay in the refuge and she did not want interim accommodation. The Council therefore did not offer interim accommodation to her at this time.
17. In March 2022, the refuge served Ms X with a notice to quit. The Council offered interim accommodation to her which was a room in a hostel. A few days later the Council ended the relief duty and accepted the main housing duty. The Council advised it would continue to provide the room in the hostel as temporary accommodation.
18. The Council’s letter notifying Ms X that it owed the main housing duty said:

“if you feel that an offer of accommodation is unsuitable for you, you are entitled to seek a suitability review of the offer within 21 days of the offer. If you request a review, we may initially carry out a suitability assessment. This is a more detailed assessment of whether the offer is suitable. If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this assessment, you will then have a further right of review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996”

19. In late April 2022, Ms X sent an email to the Council saying she considered her temporary accommodation to be unsuitable. She said she felt it was unsafe and unsuitable for people fleeing domestic abuse. Ms X raised her concerns outside the 21 day timescale in which to request a review. The Council responded to Ms X at stage one of its complaints process. The Council told Ms X that it had passed her concerns to its temporary accommodation team. It did not treat the complaint as a request for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The Council told Ms X to seek a review in response to her stage two complaint.
20. The Council has said it decided in June 2022 to carry out a suitability assessment of Ms X’s accommodation. It allocated Ms X’s case to an officer in March 2023 who completed the assessment in May 2023. Ms X continued to raise her concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation during this time. The Council has said the delay in carrying out the suitability assessment was due to a backlog of cases. The Council decided Ms X’s accommodation was suitable and notified her of her right to seek a review of its decision.
21. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that it will carry out a suitability assessment in response to an applicant’s request for a review as there has to be a decision to review in the first place. The suitability assessment is then subject to the right to review.

Priority band

22. The Council accepted Ms X’s application for the housing register. As Ms X was homeless, the Council placed her in band C. In May 2022, Ms X applied for a medical assessment and Ms X’s medical needs were assessed by the Council’s medical advisor. The Council notified Ms X that she remained in band C following the medical assessment. The Council did not notify Ms X that she had the right to seek a review of its decision not to increase her priority.
23. Ms X requested a review of her medical assessment in October 2022. The Council has said it carried out the review but it did not notify Ms X of the outcome or keep the decision letter on file.
24. The Council reviewed Ms X’s medical assessment in August 2023 and increased her priority to band B. The Council’s decision letter noted it had considered medical information from 2022 and 2023 which it did not have when making its previous decision. Ms X considers she should be placed in band A due to her medical conditions which are made worse by her accommodation.

Analysis

Interim accommodation

25. There is no evidence to show the Council assessed the suitability of the hostel for Ms X before offering it to her as interim accommodation. This is fault. But I do not consider it caused significant injustice to Ms X. The Council continued to provide accommodation at the hostel for Ms X as temporary accommodation when it accepted the main housing duty and subsequently assessed its suitability. So, I cannot conclude the Council would have considered the interim accommodation to be unsuitable if it had assessed the suitability before offering it to Ms X.

Temporary accommodation

26. The Council is at fault in how it dealt with Ms X’s concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. Ms X clearly indicated in her email of April 2022 that she considered the temporary accommodation to be unsuitable. So, the Council should have treated Ms X’s email as a request for a review of the suitability rather than a complaint. This delayed the Council’s consideration by two months.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it may carry out a suitability assessment rather than a review in response to a review request. This is also reflected in the Council’s explanation of an applicant’s review rights as set out in its letter to Ms X notifying her of the main housing duty. The Council has a duty to provide suitable accommodation so it should have considered whether the property is suitable when offering it to the applicant. There is no provision in the Homelessness Code of Guidance to carry out a suitability assessment rather than a review. So, the Council is adding another stage in the review process by carrying out a suitability assessment for those applicants who submit a review request within the timescale of 21 days. On balance, I consider this to be fault.
28. On balance, the Council is not at fault for carrying out a suitability assessment rather than a suitability review when Ms X raised her concerns. Ms X raised her concerns outside of the 21 day timescale to request a review. So, it was appropriate for the Council to first assess whether the temporary accommodation continued to be suitable. But the Council took 11 months to carry out the suitability assessment which is an excessive period of time and is fault. This delay caused distress and uncertainty to Ms X which the Council should remedy.

Consideration of Ms X’s medical needs and priority.

29. The Council has acknowledged it failed to notify Ms X of the outcome of her request for a review of her medical priority in October 2022. The Council also cannot provide evidence to show it carried out the review at that time. So, I am not persuaded it acted on Ms X’s request for a review. This is fault.
30. The Council carried out the review in August 2023 and increased Ms X’s priority to band B. I have considered whether the Council would have increased Ms X’s priority if it had carried out the review in October 2022. The Council’s letter to Ms X notifying her of the review decision set out the medical evidence it had considered. This included medical evidence submitted by Ms X in May and June 2023. As the Council relied, in part, on recent evidence when making its decision, on the balance, I cannot say it would have placed Ms X in band B in October 2022. But the delay in carrying out the review caused distress to Ms X which the Council should remedy.
31. Ms X disagrees with the outcome of the Council’s review of her medical assessment and priority. It is not our role to decide what priority should be awarded to Ms X. We examine if there is any fault in how the Council reached its decision. The Council’s decision letter shows it considered the relevant evidence and it explained its reasons for why it increased Ms X’s priority to band B. The Council also explained why it did not place Ms X in band A. I am therefore satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to place Ms X in band B and this decision is in accordance with its allocations scheme.
32. The Council’s letter of May 2022 notifying her of its decision not to increase her priority did not explain Ms X had the right to seek a review of this decision. This did not cause significant injustice to Ms X as she requested a review. But the Council should ensure it notifies applicants of their right to seek a review of the Council’s decision on their priority.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. That the Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Ms X for the distress caused to her by its delay in carrying out a suitability assessment of Ms X’s temporary accommodation and delay in reviewing her medical priority. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Ms X for the injustice set out in point a).
3. Reviews its procedures to ensure officers consider the suitability of interim, temporary or permanent accommodation at the point of offer and record this decision. This is to avoid the need for the Council to carry out a suitability assessment in response to an applicant’s request for a suitability review when the request is lodged within 21 days. This is also to ensure the Council does not insert an additional stage into the review process.
4. By training or other means, ensures officers recognise a request for a review of homelessness decisions, including requests for a review of the suitability of temporary and permanent accommodation, and direct them to the appropriate officers to carry out the review.
5. Draw up or provide its action plan, with clear timescales, for reducing the delay in carrying out suitability assessments.
6. Amend its template letters to ensure the Council includes details of how applicants can seek a review of the Council’s decision on their housing priority band.
34. The Council should take the action at a) and b) within one month and the action at c) to f) within two months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. Fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman