Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mrs N’s complaints about it taking too long to decide her homeless application and failing to move her from temporary and interim accommodation it agreed was unsuitable. It delayed deciding her application and issuing her Personal Housing Plan. It failed, and continues to fail, to move her from unsuitable accommodation. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs N complains about the Council:
1. taking too long to consider the homeless application she sent in July 2022 and reaching a decision on it that it owed her the main homelessness duty; and
2. failing to remove her from unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation since she applied and particularly since it decided her current accommodation was unsuitable.
2. As a result, she has lived, and continues to live, in unsuitable accommodation with her husband and three children.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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)

Homelessness: relevant law and guidance

7. The Housing Act 1996 (part 7) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Interim accommodation

8. Where a council has reason to believe a person may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it will have a duty to provide interim accommodation for them if they request this. Applicants with priority need include people with dependent children.

Relief duty

9. Where a council is satisfied a person is homeless and eligible for support, it has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the person secure accommodation that will be available for at least 6 months. This is the relief duty, and it applies for 56 days. The council should set out the steps that it, and the person, will take in a Personal Housing Plan (PHP).

Main housing duty

10. If, at the end of the relief duty period, a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, has a priority need, and is not intentionally homeless, the council has a duty to secure accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

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

Interim accommodation

12. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. Examples of applicants in priority need include:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability, or old age.

The main homelessness duty

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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)

Suitability of accommodation

15. 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)
16. 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 of 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)

Delay

17. There are no statutory time limits for making decisions in homelessness cases. The new Code no longer contains a recommendation that authorities should complete their inquiries and make decisions within 33 working days.
18. We expect authorities to conduct assessments, take necessary actions, and make decisions, in a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the duty in question and the applicant’s circumstances.

Council housing allocation policy (2017)

19. The scheme has bands which is the way the Council ranks the level of housing need an applicant has, and how the law and its scheme responds to those circumstances. The bands are Band 1 (the highest priority) to Band 4 (the lowest priority).
20. The scheme does not allow for cumulative priority. A household’s priority is assessed as the highest/most urgent preference within their household. Within each band, a household’s priority is decided by their effective date. The length of time an applicant waits for an offer of a property depends on the number of available properties and the applicant’s choices.
21. The banding includes:

• Band 1: for emergencies and management transfers.
• Band 2: for urgent cases including urgent medical, severe overcrowding (by two or more rooms) and those needing to urgently move due to exceptional circumstances.
• Band 3: for those owed a homelessness duty, overcrowding, and medical needs.
• Band 4: for those where there is no accepted homeless duty,

22. An overcrowding preference will not be awarded to an applicant who is occupying any temporary accommodation provided to them by the Council or a member of their household in discharge of any of its duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. This is because separate priority will be awarded to those that are homeless and/or owed a full statutory homeless duty and this will not be combined with an overcrowding preference.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

23. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Mrs N complained to us in November 2023. This means we would usually only look at the Council’s actions from November 2022.
24. Due to the fact that she gave birth in July, I have exercised discretion to investigate her complaint from July rather than from November as I consider it would not have been reasonable to expect her to complain so soon after the birth. I also took account of the fact she also had a child with special needs.
25. I did not investigate any complaint about the offer of accommodation the Council made. This was because she had the right to ask for a review of this decision and, if she remained dissatisfied, challenge the decision at court. She successfully challenged the decision through the review process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

26. I considered all the information Mrs N sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries on her complaint. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs N and the Council. I considered their response.

Back to top

What I found

27. In July 2022, Mrs N and her children became homeless. They were referred to the Council because of her local connection with it. After the birth of her baby, the Council placed them in interim accommodation. They were placed in one hotel for a week, and then another for another week. Her family is made up of her partner, and their three children who were all under 18. Her three-year-old child was autistic.
28. The Council explained they were moved to different hotels because it relied on commercial hotels to fulfil its statutory emergency accommodation duties. This is problematic as this type of accommodation is subject to commercial availability, booking restrictions, are often only available for short periods, and never for more than two weeks initially.
29. The following month, the Council placed them in a hostel with shared kitchen and bathroom. They were all now living in one overcrowded room. Mrs N argued the accommodation was unsuitable, but the Council confirmed it was suitable.
30. The Council could not provide evidence of keeping the accommodation’s suitability under review. While noting staff are on site, it argued most households are best placed to highlight issues which may affect whether it has become unsuitable.
31. Mrs N obtained medical evidence about her youngest autistic child which explained he was increasingly frustrated in a confined space and vented his anger on the family as they all lived in one room. It also impacted on his eating and sleeping.
32. The Council accepted it owed her the Relief Duty in November and sent her a PHP. It confirmed it did not formally review her PHP, but support officers were in regular contact with her.
33. In February 2023, the Council decided it owed her a full homeless duty. She and her family remained in the hostel accommodation. As this was now classed as temporary accommodation, she had the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision about its suitability.
34. The Council explained it took this amount of time to decide her application because of high demands for its homelessness services, more complicated housing needs, and substantially reduced availability of housing options. This caused the Council problems concluding investigations and issuing timely decisions.
35. The Council confirmed the medical letter was received in March, despite being dated September 2022.
36. Mrs N challenged the Council’s decision about the suitability of the accommodation and in April, it agreed it was unsuitable.
37. In May she complained to the Council about how it dealt with her.
38. The following month, it sent her its response under the first stage of its complaints procedure. It accepted her current accommodation was unsuitable but pointed out it was looking to find her alternative accommodation.
39. In October, the Council’s independent medical advisor considered the medical evidence she sent. This decided her application was Band 3 (medical priority) as one child needed his own room, there was a need for first floor maximum accommodation or one with a lift, as well as access to a garden, park or nearby outside space. This did not mean the family needed a garden it could exclusively use. She could bid for 3-bedroom properties.
40. In November, Mrs N asked for her complaint to go to the second stage of its complaints procedure.
41. She received an offer of accommodation in another town which she argued was unsuitable for them because of its distance to where they were living, her place of work, college, and support. She refused it.
42. Mrs N asked for a review of both her housing banding, as she believed she should have higher priority, and the suitability of the offered accommodation. She believed she should have higher priority than Band 3 (medical priority) under its allocation scheme.
43. The Council confirmed it would not award her a higher banding based on medical grounds.
44. In January 2024, the Council accepted her reasons for refusing its offer of alternative accommodation. It also responded to her review request about banding. It explained she was Band 3 because it owed her a homeless duty. The Council was satisfied she was in the correct banding. It also satisfied itself about her medical evidence which it sent to its independent medical adviser.
45. The Council confirmed it:

• made progress and reduced the number of outstanding homeless decisions to pre-pandemic levels. It apologised it was unable to issue a prompter decision on her application.
• was no longer reliant on hotel accommodation, apart from exceptional cases and emergencies.
• has the second lowest number of social housing lets available in London.
• focuses its main efforts on obtaining accommodation and has increased its resources. It focused on large scale leasing and the purchase of a significant number of properties. It believed this was the best approach to secure accommodation which it then allocates according to its policy.
• has plans to increase the supply of accommodation this year through purchase and repair as well as a larger purchasing programme.
• keeps its Acquisition and Placement Policies under review, which it updates every 12-18 months. The review looks at how many properties were purchased to secure accommodation. It has also agreed capital spending on a major purchasing scheme.

My findings

46. I found the following on this complaint:
1. I am satisfied it took the Council too long to decide her homeless application. It received it in July 2022 and decided it owed her a full duty seven months later in February 2023. While the Code does not specify a set period within which an application must be decided, I consider seven months is too long.
2. It also took 4 months to issue a PHP which I consider was too long as this is not line with the Code (paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18). For both periods of delay, I have taken account of her circumstances which included a family of five living in one room, with shared facilities, along with a very young child and another who had autism.
3. I am satisfied these delays caused Mrs N an injustice. She had the uncertainty of not knowing whether an earlier decision on the application would have affected her chances of successfully bidding for a property under its housing policy. She lost the opportunity of receiving her PHP sooner.
4. Mrs N and her family were placed in one room in a hostel in August 2022. They remain in this property despite the Council accepting it was unsuitable for them. I consider this was fault.
5. I am satisfied this caused her an injustice. She remains in accommodation which does not meet her family’s needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. I considered our guidance on remedies.
48. I also considered the individual circumstances of Mrs N and her family. This includes the size of her current accommodation, shared facilities, as well as the ages and health of her children.
49. I took account of the steps the Council said it has taken since Mrs N made her application.
50. The Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, unless otherwise stated:
1. Send a written apology to Mrs N for failing to: decide her homeless application promptly; issue a PHP promptly; move her from unsuitable accommodation.
2. Make a payment to Mrs N of £6,650 (£350 pcm x 19 months: August 2022 to March 2024) for the injustice caused by remaining in unsuitable accommodation.
3. To make her a monthly payment of £350 until she moves to suitable accommodation.
4. Consider steps it can take to provide her with suitable accommodation as soon as possible.
5. Review why it took so long to decide her homeless application and act to ensure delays are removed.
6. Review why it took so long to issue a Personal Housing Plan and act to ensure they are issued sooner in the future.
7. Within 6 months of the final decision, review what impact the steps it said it took, and is taking, to improve the number of properties available has, and is having, on homeless applicants known to be living in unsuitable accommodation.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I made the following findings on Mrs N’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice.

53. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman