Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council has placed him and his family in an overcrowded and unsuitable temporary accommodation and how it had dealt with disrepairs in the property. There was fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X and his family. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council has placed him and his family in an overcrowded and an unsuitable temporary accommodation for six years. In particular, he said the temporary accommodation does not meet his child’s (Y) disability-related needs.
2. Mr X also complained about how the Council has dealt with disrepair issues in the property.
3. Mr X said the matter has caused significant distress and inconvenience to him and his family. He also said the matter has affected his and Y’s health as they continue to live in an overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation for six years.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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

8. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
9. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters between 2018 and July 2022. This is because the complaint is late, and evidence shows the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s initial complaint in July 2022 where it upheld his complaint. The Council also offered Mr X a £100 per month compensation while his family continue to live in an unsuitable temporary accommodation until when the Council can provide them with an alternative permanent accommodation. Mr X accepted the Council’s payment offer. Also, I find it was reasonable for Mr X to have complained to us at the time/sooner if he was dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
10. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from August 2022 to April 2024. This covers the period from after the Council’s final response in July 2022 to when Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. This is because the complaint suggests there is an ongoing potential fault by the Council and injustice caused to Mr X and his family.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information Mr X and the Council provided about this complaint.
12. I sent Mr X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

13. 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)
14. 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)
15. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
16. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
17. 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)
18. Priority need - examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

Housing Allocations

19. 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))
20. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

21. A points-based system – is used by the Council to assess applications for its housing register. Only applicants with 100 points or more are eligible to bid and the maximum number of points within the scheme is 1,000.
22. A high health and wellbeing priority - will be considered where the applicant or a member of their household has a long-term health and wellbeing issue which is being affected by their current housing. The Council will make a direct offer to people that have been awarded 1,000 points with a high health and wellbeing priority need or an urgent need to move.
23. Wheelchair adapted properties – are for people who have been assessed as requiring a wheelchair adapted home and have been awarded a health and wellbeing need to move. All wheelchair-adapted homes are allocated by making a direct offer.

The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Transfer Policy

24. Temporary accommodation is not a long-term solution for residents. The Council’s aim is that no household should spend longer than six months in temporary accommodation. It aims to ensure that the accommodation it offers, meets the needs of the household, and meets the suitability criteria.
25. The Council will usually only make one offer of temporary accommodation to a household, usually as an emergency response or where it has been unable to secure a suitable and affordable home.
26. The Council will ensure that the accommodation it offers to a household is suitable for them. In determining whether a property is suitable the Council will balance the needs of the household with the nature of the accommodation being considered. A key factor in determining location is the availability of suitable affordable housing.
27. When determining suitability with regard to the household’s medical needs, the Council will consider whether the medical condition itself makes the housing and location offered unsuitable.

Background

28. In 2018, following an eviction from Mr X’s previous accommodation, the Council provided Mr X and his family with an emergency two-bedroom temporary accommodation (TA). The accommodation has only one toilet/bathroom which is on the first floor.
29. As of 2018, Mr X’s family was a family of six (Mr X, his wife and their four children). One of Mr X’s children (Y) has some disabilities and is a wheelchair user.
30. In August 2020, Mr X submitted Y’s occupational therapy (OT) assessment report to the Council as supporting evidence for his family’s housing needs assessment.
31. The Council accepted the main housing duty in 2020. The Council placed Mr X in a group 5 priority band with a high health and wellbeing need, 1,000 points and was found eligible for a three-bedroom property. The priority band awarded to Mr X was for applicants who required adapted homes and who were made direct offers according to their registration date order.
32. In late 2021, Mr X informed the Council that the TA was unsuitable for his family and particularly that it did not meet Y’s disability-related needs. Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He said it provided his family with an unfurnished TA with no downstairs toilet facility. Mr X explained he experienced difficulties with supporting Y to access the toilet located on the first floor and that their TA lacked sufficient internal storage for Y’s wheelchair and her exercise equipment. Mr X requested an immediate rehousing of his family and a refund of the money he used in furnishing their TA.
33. In January 2022, the Council completed a suitability assessment of Mr X’s TA and found the property could not be adapted to meet Mr X’s family needs. In April and July 2022, the Council accepted Mr X’s TA was unsuitable. The Council accepted it should have assessed the suitability of Mr X’s TA when he provided it with Y’s OT assessment report in August 2020.
34. The Council apologised and offered a payment of £100 per month to Mr X from August 2020 onwards. This was to compensate Mr X for the period his family continued to live in an unsuitable TA until when it could provide them with alternative suitable accommodation. Mr X said he did not want to move to another TA. He decided to remain in the TA until the Council can permanently rehouse his family. Mr X accepted the Council’s offer of the monthly £100 payment. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s request for a refund of the cost he incurred to furnish the TA.

Key events

35. Mr X’s family continued to live in their two-bedroom TA and have continued to receive the monthly £100 payment from the Council.
36. In June 2023, Mr X’s family became a family of seven (Mr X, his wife and five children).
37. Mr X continued to raise his concerns about their TA, and he reported several disrepair issues at the property to the Council. These included reports of broken garden fences, roof leaks, broken front door lock, broken bedroom window handle, toilet leaks and other problems in the kitchen.
38. In its responses to Mr X’s complaint, the Council apologised for its poor communication with Mr X and its delays with completing all the reported disrepairs. The Council explained it was due to an upgrade of its repair reporting system and it confirmed it had made arrangements to complete the outstanding disrepairs at Mr X’s TA.
39. In February 2024, the Council completed a suitability assessment of Mr X’s TA and found his household was eligible for a four-bedroom property with a maximum 1,000 points award under its housing scheme.
40. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses, and he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
41. In response to our enquiries, the Council:

• said it was unable to consider any adaptations to Mr X’s current TA because no modifications were allowed to the property. The Council said it should have assisted Mr X to move to a private rented sector (PRS) property or a council property where adaptations would have been allowed and undertaken.
• said it extended an offer to Mr X to transition from TA to PRS housing in 2022 which was more likely to have been adapted to meet his family’s needs, but he declined. The Council said Mr X decided his family would remain in the TA until a council property became available.
• provided a breakdown of the properties it had awarded to applicants with Mr X’s priority Band. The records showed the Council had awarded six properties to applicants in their registration date order and to households with five family members. It showed Mr X did not miss out on a property offer.
• provided details of the disrepairs reported by Mr X, the target completion date and the actual completion date of repairs. The records showed the Council completed some repairs while other works remain outstanding.
• said it has identified a suitable PRS which can be adapted to meet Mr X’s family's needs and that Mr X had viewed the property. The Council said it was waiting for the OT report and a quote for the adaptation work.
• said the OT adaptation recommendations will include ramped access to the front door and the garden, through floor lift, wider internal doorways, installation of a combined bathroom and toilet with a level access shower and a wash dry toilet.
• said once it receives the report, it will notify Mr X and the Council will make a decision about making a formal offer to Mr X.
• estimated there are at least 600 households in unsuitable TA in its borough for a variety of reasons.

Analysis

42. The law says TAs must be suitable and this is an ongoing duty (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2). In Mr X’s case, the Council was at fault in discharging its legal duty to provide Mr X and his family with suitable TA.
43. From August 2022 the Council did not complete a suitability assessment of Mr X’s TA until February 2024. This was a significant delay of approximately 18 months despite Mr X repeatedly informed it of the difficulties his family was experiencing at the property. And in particular how the TA was unsuitable and did not meet Y’s disability‑related needs. I find the Council lost sight of the matter and it should have been prompted of a need to complete a suitability assessment when Mr X’s family became a family of seven in 2023. This was a change in circumstances which should have alerted the Council to carry out a new suitability assessment. The Council’s delays with completing suitability assessments of Mr X’s TA were faults.
44. The Council’s failings meant Mr X and his family continued to live in an unsuitable and an overcrowded accommodation over a significant period of 18 months.
45. I find further fault by the Council after it completed its suitability assessment of Mr X’s TA in February 2024 and found it was overcrowded and unsuitable for them. I find no evidence to show the Council then provided Mr X’s family with suitable alternative accommodation in line with the Housing Act. This was fault and it caused ongoing injustice to Mr X and his family as they continued to live in the overcrowded and unsuitable TA. It also caused Mr X distress and frustration. I find an added injustice was caused particularly to Y who is a wheelchair user, and she has been put to avoidable discomfort with having to live in a property with no downstairs toilet/bathroom.
46. I note the Council had offered and has been paying Mr X £100 per month for the period his family has continued to live in unsuitable TA until when it can provide them with alternative suitable accommodation. However, this does not discharge the Council of its legal duty of housing Mr X’s family in a suitable accommodation. And while I find the injustice caused to Mr X’s family was mitigated by his decision to remain in the TA until social housing becomes available, I find the £100 per month payment is insufficient to acknowledge the injustice caused to Mr X’s family. This will be addressed in the ‘agreed action’ section below in line with our guidance on remedies.
47. I note Mr X wants the Council to make him a direct offer due to how it had dealt with his family’s housing situation. But in this case, the Council had awarded six properties to other applicants according to their registration date order and the properties were for households with a family of five members. This means Mr X did not miss out on a property offer. The Council allocated the properties in line with its housing allocation scheme, and it was not fault.
48. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. And we will not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
49. Mr X had to go to significant time and trouble reporting various disrepair issues and chasing the Council for repairs to be completed on several occasions. And the evidence the Council provided shows some repair works at Mr X’s TA remain outstanding. The Council’s delays in completing repairs to Mr X’s TA amount to fault and caused further injustice to him and his family.
50. The Council has confirmed it recently identified a suitable PRS which can be adapted to meet Mr X’s family's needs. It said it was waiting for the OT report and a quote for the adaptation work before it makes a decision to make Mr X a formal offer. This is welcome and it shows the Council is taking steps towards discharging its legal duty to provide Mr X and his family with a suitable accommodation.
51. It is concerning that the Council has estimated there are at least 600 households living in unsuitable TA in its borough for various reasons. Based on the Ombudsman’s recent investigation and decision statements about the Council providing residents with suitable TA, it shows there are ongoing issues of widespread service failure by the Council.
52. We have recently made service improvement recommendations in another decision that the Council provide the relevant scrutiny committee with an update on delivery of its strategy: ‘Homelessness in Enfield (6) Homeless Housing Schemes; A Delivery Strategy’. This is the Council’s 5-year plan to address the increasing issue of residents being placed in unsuitable accommodation. We are continuing to monitor the actions the Council takes to ensure compliance with those and similar recommendations. For this reason, I have not made any service improvement recommendation in this case about the widespread service failure. The issues I have identified are already being addressed through other cases we have investigated.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Mr X and his family to acknowledge the injustice caused to him and his family by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• increase the £100 per month payment being made to Mr X to £250 per month going forward until the Council rehouses his family to a suitable accommodation. Also, the Council should backdate and apply the £250 per month payment from June 2023 (when Mr X’s family became a family of seven and a new suitability assessment should have been completed) to date and pay Mr X the difference owed to him between that period
• make Mr X a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the injustice caused to him by the Council’s poor standard of service and poor communication provided to him
• confirm in writing to Mr X the outstanding repair works needed to be completed at his temporary accommodation with the status and expected completion dates
• identify and implement learning from this complaint to improve the time taken to address disrepairs and communication between the Council and its residents.

54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I find evidence of fault by the Council leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman