Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation when she became homeless. We found the Council to be at fault. It took long to carry out a suitability review and a result Miss X lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to carry out a suitability review of her temporary accommodation. She says this has caused significant distress, particularly as she feels she has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. This has caused a decline in her mental and physical health.
2. She also complains about poor case management.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(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

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the documents provided by Miss X.
7. I discussed Miss X’s complaint with her.
8. I read the documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
9. I considered the relevant law and guidance.
10. Miss 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

11. 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)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

12. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17)
13. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202)
14. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
15. Councils 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)
16. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)
17. We do not consider that simply adding an applicant to a ‘Transfer List’ and waiting for a suitable property to become available is sufficient for a council to demonstrate how it is meeting its duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation. This is in line with the court’s decision that putting applicants who are owed the section 193(2) duty, and who are in unsuitable accommodation, on a waiting list for temporary accommodation is not a lawful means of fulfilling the unqualified and immediate duty to secure suitable accommodation for their occupation.” (Elkundi & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2021] EWHC 1024 (Admin) 308)

What happened

18. I have set out a summary of key events. It is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
19. Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council in October 2022 because she had been told she had to leave her current accommodation in the near future.
20. She attended a homelessness interview in January 2023.
21. She was placed in interim accommodation (Property A) in mid-February 2023. Miss X lives with her young child and has physical and mental health issues. Miss X told the Council Property A was unsuitable, for several reasons, including its size, layout and location. Miss X provided the Council with letters from several doctors describing her various medical conditions.
22. The Council accepted she was owed the main homelessness duty in July 2023. Shortly afterwards Miss X asked the Council to carry out a suitability review of Property A.
23. The Council incorrectly deemed this to be a non-statutory review. This was corrected when the mistake was highlighted by Miss X.
24. In September 2023, the Council asked Miss X to agree to an extension of time in which to carry out the review. Miss X did not respond straight away. From this, the Council assumed Miss X had agreed to wait. Miss X says she did not agree (and confirmed this in writing three weeks later) and so the Council should have carried out the review without further delay.
25. The Council completed its suitability review in February 2024. The Council assessed Property A as being unsuitable.
26. Miss X was placed on the transfer list for a ground floor property. Due to the shortage of suitable properties, Miss X remains living in Property A.

The complaint

27. Miss X made a formal complaint in May 2023 about the Council’s poor communication. She said since moving into Property A in February 2023, she had failed to receive a timely, satisfactory response about her concerns over its suitability. She had contacted the Council on several occasions and not received a reply for several weeks. The Council explained the case officer has left and her manager was on holiday.
28. The Council accepted communication has been poor and apologised. It confirmed its view that Property A was suitable because she was not overcrowded.
29. In response, Miss X explained the property was unsuitable due to her medical needs, not solely based on space. She also told the Council that its general handling of her case and delay was having an ongoing detrimental impact on her mental health.
30. The Council’s final response in July 2023 confirmed she was owed the main homelessness duty and her suitability review request was being processed. It accepted there has been a delay in making its decision and apologised.
31. As the suitability review was overdue, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries, the Council has:
1. accepted there was delay in processing the homelessness application due to her caseworker’s absence;
2. accepted it was at fault for not initially treating Miss X’s suitability review as one it was required to do by law; and
3. agreed to fast track Miss X’s priority on the transfer list because she had complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. The Council has a duty to secure suitable accommodation for homeless households to whom it owes a housing duty.
33. There was significant delay in carrying out the suitability review. The Council has explained this was due to the high volume of review requests. Reviews should be carried out within eight weeks. In this case it took approximately seven months. This delay was fault.
34. In my view, if the Council had completed the review within time, it is very likely on a balance of probabilities, it would have reached the same conclusion as set out in paragraph 25 (above) by late September 2023.
35. This fault meant Miss X has remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer than necessary, between September 2023 and March 2024. September 2023 is when the Council should have completed its suitability review. From this date, the Council was obligated to find alternative accommodation for Miss X.
36. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and affected her physical and mental well-being as the accommodation did not meet her medical needs. This injustice requires a remedy.
37. There was further fault when the Council failed to find Miss X alternative accommodation once the decision on suitability had been made in February 2024. The law expects councils to rehouse applicants without delay. The Council has explained this was not possible because of the chronic shortage of suitable properties. The Ombudsman acknowledges this issue, and for this reason, I deem this to be a service failure (see paragraph four above).
38. I welcome the action now taken by the Council to give Miss X priority on the transfer waiting list.
39. I have also found fault with the Council’s overall management of this case. It has already accepted communication with Miss X has been poor, especially when the case worker was absent. Councils should have procedures in place to ensure cases are not allowed to drift as they did in this instance. It is also disappointing that, despite the Council’s acknowledgement in its first complaint response that its earlier communication with Miss X had been poor, it did not improve afterwards. Miss X and her solicitor wrote to the Council several times asking for an update, but often the Council either failed to respond or told Miss X the matter had been transferred to a different team.
40. She was also given the wrong information about the review process and incorrectly assumed she had agreed to extend the time in which to carry out the review. I also have also seen evidence the Council made requests for Miss X to submit medical information she had previously sent. The Council also took too long to respond to her complaint.
41. I am satisfied this poor case management caused Miss X avoidable distress and frustration for several months waiting for her case to be progressed. This injustice requires a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Miss X for the faults I have identified.
2. Pay Miss X £200 per month to recognise the unsuitability of the accommodation and the effect it had on her for the period from late September 2023 (by which time it should have completed the suitability review) to March 2024. This is a period of six months, totaling £1200.
3. Continue to pay Miss X £200 per month whilst she remains living in Property A.
4. Pay Miss X £500 as a symbolic payment to recognise the distress and frustration she experienced because of the Council’s prolonged poor case management.
5. Write to Miss X explaining what action it is taking to source suitable accommodation for her, with some indication as to how long she can expect to wait, taking into consideration its current transfer waiting list.
6. Reflect on the issues raised in this decision statement and identify any areas of service improvement, particularly in respect of suitability review delays and poor communication. The Council should prepare a short report setting out what the Council intends to do to ensure similar problems do not reoccur. This report should be sent to the Ombudsman.
43. These payments are in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy the injustice to Miss X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman