Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed accepting a housing duty, provided temporary accommodation unsuitable for her family’s needs, and failed to address concerns about the condition of the accommodation. She also complained about the Council’s communication. We have found the Council at fault. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Delayed accepting the relief housing duty;
2. Delayed issuing a personalised housing plan;
3. Delayed accepting the main housing duty;
4. Provided unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation;
5. Failed to address reported damp, mould and other defects in her temporary accommodation; and
6. Failed to communicate effectively about her homelessness and housing circumstances.
2. Ms X said she and her children had been living in unsatisfactory and unsuitable housing, far from the local area and her children’s school. She said this interfered with her children’s education and affected her employment. She also said her current accommodation was not suitable and in poor condition, negatively impacting her family’s health and wellbeing.

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 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)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered information she provided.
7. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
8. Both Ms X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance (the Code) 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty

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)

The main housing duty

11. 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)

Review rights

12. Relevant to this case, homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• 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.

Review timescale and right of appeal

13. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:
• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.
14. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
15. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Interim and temporary accommodation

16. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
17. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
20. 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 Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
21. 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; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
22. When assessing the suitability of private rented accommodation offered to applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, authorities should have regard to Article 3 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012 (England). Article 3 sets out the conditions a property must meet to be considered suitable. Relevant in this case, it says a private rented property must not be regarded as suitable if it is not in a reasonable physical condition.
23. The High Court held that a local authority is not entitled to defer performance of its duty under s193 (the main housing duty) and the court should not be persuaded by the alleged impossibility of finding suitable accommodation unless it was satisfied all reasonable steps had been taken. (R v Newham LBC ex p Begum [2000] 2 All ER 72, 32 HLR 80)

Council’s allocations scheme and Homeless Placement Policy

24. 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))
25. The Council publishes its allocations scheme on its website. The Council operates a choice-based lettings system. It awards points to applicants based on relevant criteria. Depending on the total points awarded, applicants will be placed into one of eight priority bands. Relevant to this complaint, Section 8.3 of the Council’s allocations scheme (“Emergencies”) states:

“Where an applicant is provided with temporary accommodation by the council and the landlord wants the property back, or the property is for some reason considered inappropriate to meet the household’s needs, the application will be awarded an additional 500 points…”

26. The Council also has a separate Homeless Placement Policy, which sets out the Council’s approach to allocating the limited supply of suitable affordable accommodation inside, and near to, its district. There are three types of priority afforded by this policy:
• In borough, within the Council’s district
• Close to home, defined as any area within 90 minutes’ travelling time of the district; and
• Any area, which is more than 90 minutes’ travelling time to the district.
27. The Homeless Placement Policy says the Council accounts for factors such as:
• access to health treatment;
• whether individuals are providing care and support to others;
• employment; and
• education.
28. The policy says awarding “in borough” or “close to home” priority does not guarantee placement in these areas, but will provide the applicant additional priority if a suitable property becomes available.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

29. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
30. In July 2022, Ms X approached the Council as homeless. Ms X’s household consists of her and her children, who are different ages. Some of Ms X’s children attend primary school, while others attend secondary education in the Council’s district.
31. The Council provided accommodation for Ms X outside of its district (Property B). Ms X lived at Property B for two months. The Council issued Ms X’s PHP shortly after and said it accepted the relief housing duty at the same time.
32. Ms X told the Council Property B was too far from her children’s school and her work commitments as a carer. In September 2022, the Council moved Ms X to new accommodation (Property C) in another location outside of its district.
33. From late 2022 into 2023, Ms X told the Council Property C was still too far away, making it unsuitable for her children’s education and her work commitments. Ms X also told the Council Property C suffered from mould, damp, leaks and other repairs issues. She said these issues affected her family’s health, wellbeing and belongings.
34. The Council said it accepted the main housing duty towards Ms X in February 2023.
35. Ms X complained to the Council. I have summarised the complaint and the Council’s responses as follows:
1. Ms X complained the Council had provided temporary accommodation in unsuitable locations. The Council did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint.
2. Ms X said the Council had advised her to give up her job, due to the location of the accommodation it offered in July 2022. The Council said its records did not show this. It said it had explained it would move Ms X when closer accommodation became available. It did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint.
3. Ms X complained the Council did not consider her children’s education, with her older children preparing to take their exams. The Council said it always considered a household’s needs but, in an emergency, it had to look at the accommodation available on the day. It did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint.
4. Ms X said the Council had not responded to messages or telephone calls. The Council said it had no record of these contacts from Ms X. It did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint.
5. Ms X said the Council had not given her a decision on her homelessness application, a meaningful PHP, or a bidding number. The Council said Ms X approached as homeless and the Council provided her with a PHP a short time later. It said Ms X had been on the housing register since August 2020 and the Council provided her bidding details when she registered. The Council confirmed it accepted the main housing duty in February 2023 and provided Ms X with details of her new priority banding.
6. Ms X said the Council had not acted on reports of mould and damp in Property C. The Council said it passed these concerns onto the accommodation provider. It said the accommodation provider told the Council it addressed these matters in February 2023. The Council understood Ms X was not using dehumidifiers provided, which was not helping to manage the problem. The Council said it had asked the accommodation provider to inspect again and take pictures. It did not uphold this part of Ms X’s complaint.
36. In March 2023, the Council said it visited to inspect Property C, but could not gain access. Ms X escalated her complaint.
37. In July 2023, the Council responded to Ms X’s escalated complaint:
1. The Council apologised for its delay in responding. It set out Ms X’s points of complaint. These concerned delays in the Council accepting the relief and main housing duties, as well as how the Council ensured the accommodation it offered was suitable for Ms X’s household’s needs.
2. The Council confirmed it had a statutory duty to ensure it offered accommodation suitable for a homeless applicant’s needs. It said the accommodation provider had visited in January 2023 and suggested Ms X’s actions were making the damp and mould in the property worse.
3. The Council said the accommodation provider had said further visits would make no difference, unless Ms X followed guidance to help reduce the damp and mould. The Council said it had discussed this further with the provider, who would now carry out further work in Property C. It said it was important Ms X and the accommodation provider fulfilled their obligations to manage the problem. The Council partially upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint.
4. The Council provided Ms X with copies of the relief duty letter and Ms X’s PHP. Regarding whether Property C was affordable, the Council said it considered this when providing the accommodation. The Council said as applicants could claim housing benefit, properties would normally be affordable, because of the national scheme available for rent assistance.
5. The Council said when it allocated Property C to Ms X, it could not confirm what additional costs Ms X might incur. It said Ms X could now request a suitability review, which would assess affordability. It said Ms X should contact her case officer for more information.
6. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint overall. It said its service had fallen short of expectations, but said the impact to Ms X had been minimal. However, it recognised the avoidable distress caused.
38. The Council’s records show it periodically passed Ms X’s concerns to the accommodation provider. The provider inspected more than once and told the Council Ms X contributed to damp and mould by not heating the property, or using dehumidifiers.
39. In December 2023, the Council inspected Property C. It found:
• The heating was on at the time of inspection and some windows were open.
• There was damp in two bedrooms and the living room, but not in other rooms.
• It was possible Ms X could be contributing, by drying clothes inside and not always ventilating properly.
40. Following this inspection, the Council decided Property C did not meet Ms X’s household’s needs. It awarded Ms X 500 extra points under the criterion set out in paragraph 25. It said this meant Ms X would have high priority for suitable properties. The Council also said it would seek new temporary accommodation for Ms X. It said it may reduce Ms X’s added priority, if it found new temporary accommodation it considered suitable.
41. As of May 2024, Ms X and her children still lived in Property C.

Analysis

Complaint Council delayed accepting relief duty

42. In its complaint responses, the Council said it accepted the relief duty when Ms X approached the Council as homeless, on 5 July 2022. It placed Ms X into Property B on the same day.
43. The Council accepted it did not send Ms X a decision letter confirming it accepted the relief duty, which was fault. The Council said this did not cause Ms X an injustice, as it placed her household into interim accommodation immediately. It said it included notice of its decision in Ms X’s PHP, issued on 18 July 2022. It said the PHP included the required information and told Ms X of her right to seek a review of the Council’s decisions about discharging this duty.
44. I recognise the Council has accepted it was at fault and believe the apology it offered in its complaint responses is suitable. There is no further unaddressed injustice to Ms X.
45. However, this fault could cause injustice for others, if repeated in future. I have recommended the Council act to improve its services and prevent this from happening.

Complaint Council delayed issuing PHP

46. There is no specific timescale for producing a PHP. The Code stresses the need for authorities to take reasonable and sometimes urgent steps to prevent homelessness. These actions may be taken alongside the authority’s assessment and while drawing up the applicant’s PHP.
47. The Council said it issued a PHP on 18 July 2022, two weeks after Ms X approached as homeless and after it provided interim accommodation. It said it believed it issued Ms X’s PHP in a reasonable period.
48. I agree the Council issued Ms X’s PHP within a reasonable period. The time taken did not delay the Council acting to secure interim accommodation for Ms X. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for the time taken to issue Ms X’s PHP.

Complaint Council delayed accepting main housing duty

49. The Code sets out the circumstances in which the Council can end the relief duty. Applicable here is when 56 days have passed since the authority accepted the relief duty, and is satisfied the applicant has priority need and is unintentionally homeless. It says where authorities have the information needed to decide whether an applicant is in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it should be possible to tell the applicant on or around day 57.
50. The Code also says in complex cases where the authority needs to make further enquiries, it should tell the applicant of its decision within a maximum of 15 extra working days, after the 56 days have passed.
51. The Council has recognised it delayed accepting the main housing duty. In accordance with the Code, the Council should have accepted the main housing duty on or around 21 September 2022 at the latest, allowing for the maximum time allotted to complex cases. It did not accept the main housing duty until 23 February 2023, a delay of around 22 weeks. This is fault.
52. The Council said this delay meant Ms X could not bid on properties and apologised for this. However, it said this did not cause Ms X any missed opportunity, as there had been no suitable four-bed properties advertised during this time.
53. The Council’s apology was suitable. However, the Council’s delay caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty, an injustice it has not addressed. I have recommended the Council act to remedy this.
54. Further, the Council’s delay accepting the main housing duty denied Ms X her right to seek a suitability review of Property C. The Council also did not tell Ms X about her right to ask for a suitability review when it decided it owed the main housing duty. I have found the Council at fault for this.
55. These faults caused Ms X an injustice. I have addressed this injustice further in this statement.

Complaint Council provided unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation – Property B

56. From 5 July 2022 to 5 September 2022, Ms X and her family lived in Property B. Property B was outside the Council’s district. Ms X said it was far from her work and her children’s schools. I understand travel time was more than two hours in each direction.
57. The Council owed Ms X the relief duty while she lived at Property B. This meant Property B was interim accommodation. Ms X did not therefore have a right to ask the Council to review the suitability of Property B. However, the law still requires the Council to ensure the interim accommodation it provides is suitable for the applicant’s needs and the needs of their household.
58. I asked the Council how it decided Property B was suitable for Ms X’s household. The Council did not provide any specific suitability assessment for Property B. The Council highlighted its homeless placement policy and said it had regard for the Code when allocating accommodation. Ms X’s PHP notes a wish to remain within the Council’s district due to her children’s school, but there are no specific measures set out in the document to address this.
59. In its complaint response to Ms X, the Council said it tried to accommodate homeless applicants as close to the local area as it could, but this depended on the accommodation available. It said it provided accommodation further away until something closer became available. It said it moved the family closer to its district in September 2022, which coincided with the start of the academic year.
60. The Ombudsman recognises the pressures authorities face in securing suitable accommodation. However, the Council has not provided any evidence to show how it turned its mind to the question of whether Property B was suitable for Ms X’s household’s needs, when assessed against its own Homeless Placement Policy, the Code, and Ms X’s PHP. I have found the Council at fault for this.
61. I cannot say whether the Council would have decided Property B was suitable, had it turned its mind to this question. This causes uncertainty, which is an injustice to Ms X in itself. This is mitigated by the Council moving Ms X slightly closer, to Property C, a short time later. This is likely what the Council would have done, had it found Property B unsuitable.

Complaint Council provided unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation – Property C

62. The Council moved Ms X to Property C in September 2022. Property C was closer to the Council’s district, but still outside it. From September 2022 to February 2023, Ms X did not have a statutory right to seek a suitability review of Property C, because the Council delayed accepting the main housing duty. Ms X should have had this right by 21 September 2022 at the latest. This means for almost the entire time Ms X resided at Property C, she should have been able to ask the Council to review its suitability. That she could not is an injustice to Ms X.
63. The Council also did not formally offer Property C to Ms X in writing, or explain Ms X’s right of review, when it decided it owed her the main housing duty. This further frustrated Ms X’s rights. The Council told me as of December 2023, it had not conducted a suitability review.
64. Ms X told the Council how the distance impacted her finances, work commitments and children’s education, particularly as her older children were studying for their GCSEs. I asked the Council how it decided Property C was suitable for Ms X’s needs. The Council previously told Ms X it matched applicants to properties based on family composition and medical needs. It said this is what it did in this case.
65. However, as with Property B, the Council provided no evidence to show how it turned its mind to the question of whether Property C met the family’s needs. I have seen no consideration given to Ms X’s work commitments or the distance to her children’s schools. These are matters the Code says authorities must consider. It also did not explain how it assessed Property C against its policy, or Ms X’s PHP.
66. Ms X asked how the Council had made sure Property C was in a suitable condition before she moved in. The Council told Ms X it asked providers for gas and electric certificates, and inspected properties regularly. However, it said there may be gaps in these inspections, due to resource issues. The Council said in some cases, this meant property issues would be resolved after families moved in. It recognised this was not ideal. The Council said it had no record of inspecting Property C before Ms X moved into it. The Council told me it tried to inspect Property C in March 2023, six months after Ms X moved in, but could not gain access. It said it did not follow this inspection up again, which it accepted was an error.
67. After it inspected in December 2023, the Council awarded Ms X additional priority on the grounds Property C no longer met the family’s needs. I asked what specifically led to the Council’s decision. It told me this was the result of a composite assessment of Property C, which included reports of damp and mould, property disrepair, and the property being cold.
68. Having considered the available evidence and the Council’s responses, I have found:
• The Council cannot show how it decided Property C was suitable for Ms X’s housing needs, accounting for the needs and commitments of all household members, before it allocated it.
• The Council did not assess the condition of Property C before Ms X moved in.
• The Council did not correctly offer Property C to Ms X, nor provide her with the notice about her right to review its suitability. Even though Ms X then complained about suitability, the Council still did not conduct a suitability assessment.
• The Council did not follow up on a missed inspection in March 2023. It then did not inspect for several months, despite Ms X continuing to raise concerns about Property C.
• When it did inspect over a year after Ms X moved in, it found Property C was not suitable for the household, based on factors present from the point Ms X moved in.
69. With the Council concluding Property C was not suitable for Ms X, based on long-standing concerns, it follows that Property C was never suitable for Ms X’s household. This means Ms X and her children have resided in unsuitable accommodation since September 2022.
70. I have found the Council at fault for the reasons set out above. I have recommended it act to remedy the injustice caused and improve its services.

Complaint Council failed to communicate effectively

71. I have addressed the Council’s failure to properly tell Ms X about her housing duty and review rights. The evidence available also shows the Council’s communication has been reactive and inconsistent. I have found the Council at fault for its communication in this case. A more proactive and consistent approach may have mitigated the avoidable frustration and distress Ms X felt. This frustration and distress is an injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed action

72. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies sets out how we remedy injustice arising from fault.
73. The Guidance on Remedies says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we are likely to recommend a payment between £150 to £350 per month in recognition of this, depending on the individual factors of the case. These factors may include:
1. The accommodation’s size and location.
2. The accommodation’s condition and state of repair.
3. The age and vulnerability of the household members.
74. The Guidance on Remedies says where a complainant has suffered avoidable distress, we would normally recommend a payment of up to £500 in recognition of this, depending on the individual factors of the case. We may sometimes recommend more, if we decide it is warranted. The factors we consider may include:
1. The severity of the distress.
2. The length of time involved.
3. The number of people affected.
4. Whether those affected are vulnerable and therefore disproportionately affected.
5. Distress can include frustration, uncertainty, inconvenience and stress.
75. I have had regard for the Guidance on Remedies when making the following recommendations.
76. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Share a copy of this decision with relevant officers, to identify wider points of learning.
3. Act to ensure officers clearly record how properties offered under the interim accommodation duty are considered suitable for the applicant and members of their household, when offering the accommodation.
4. Act to ensure all offers of temporary accommodation are made in writing and set out the applicant’s statutory right to request a suitability review.
5. Remind relevant officers the Council must write to applicants to confirm what housing duty it decides it owes them and to explain the applicant’s rights of review.
6. Pay Ms X £200 a month for the 21 months spent in unsuitable accommodation at Property C, between September 2022 and May 2024, totalling £4200.
7. Continue to pay Ms X £200 per month until the Council provides Ms X with suitable alternative accommodation or otherwise ends its main housing duty to her.
8. Pay Ms X a further £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty arising from the Council’s failure to properly notify her of her housing duty and review rights, failing to complete a suitability review at the point of complaint, and for its inconsistent communication.
77. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

78. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman