Summary: The Council placed Mr and Mrs B in unsuitable accommodation for four months, failed to record the reasons for its decisions and failed to properly communicate with Mr and Mrs B. It also wrongly decided it no longer owed Mr and Mrs B the main housing duty and delayed carrying out reviews of its decisions. We have recommended that the Council makes a payment to Mr and Mrs B, makes an offer of suitable accommodation and makes service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s decision to reduce their housing priority and bedroom eligibility. They also complain that the Council has delayed reviewing its decisions.
2. Mr and Mrs B consider they may have been able to move out of temporary accommodation into suitable permanent accommodation if there had been no fault by the Council.

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. 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

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainants;
• discussed the issues with Mr B;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing allocations

6. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
7. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). Band A includes applicants who are homeless and owed the main housing duty and Band B includes applicants who have an urgent need to move on medical or welfare grounds.
8. Applicants who are owed a homelessness duty and refuse a reasonable allocation of accommodation are placed in Band D for 12 months.
9. Applicants have the right to request a review of a council’s housing priority decision. Government guidance suggests eight weeks as a reasonable timescale for completing reviews.

Homelessness

10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it will owe them the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. 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 paragraph 17.2)
12. 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, section 202)
13. The council will cease to be subject to the main housing duty if the applicant refuses an allocation of social housing. The main housing duty does not end unless the applicant is informed of the possible consequences of refusal and of their right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation, the offer is made in writing and states that it is a final offer, and the council is satisfied that the accommodation is suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 15.41)

Background and key events

14. Mr and Mrs B submitted a homelessness application to the Council in May 2023. At the time, they were already on the Council’s housing register. They were in Band B because the Council considered they needed to move on medical grounds.
15. The Council accepted the homeless relief duty to Mr and Mrs B and provided them with emergency accommodation in a hotel. After submitting medical evidence showing they could not sleep in the same room, the Council arranged for them to have a second room at the hotel.
16. In July 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mr and Mrs B and upgraded their housing priority to Band A, which it backdated to May 2023. It also changed their bedroom need to two bedrooms.
17. In November 2023, the Council moved the couple to alternative temporary accommodation - a two-bedroom ground-floor flat. Mr and Mrs B requested a review of the accommodation. They said that the condition and location of the accommodation was affecting their health.
18. In early January 2024, the Council decided to make a direct offer of accommodation to Mr and Mrs B because remaining in temporary accommodation was preventing Mr B from having surgery he needed.
19. A one-bedroom property was identified, but the Council’s system showed Mr and Mrs B needed a two-bedroom property. To proceed with the offer, the Council changed their bedroom need to one bedroom. When Mr and Mrs B received the Council’s letter informing them that their bedroom need had changed from two bedrooms to one bedroom, they requested a review.
20. A few days later, the Council contacted Mr B by telephone about the one-bedroom property it had identified. According to the Council’s records, Mr B declined the offer because he wanted a two-bedroom home.
21. The Council then reduced the couple’s housing priority to Band D because they had refused the offer. Mr and Mrs B requested a review of the decision. Mr B says they were not offered a property. He says that he was busy when the officer called so he asked for a callback, which he did not receive.
22. In March 2024, the Council moved Mr and Mrs B to a one-bedroom flat as alternative temporary accommodation. Mr and Mrs B subsequently submitted a change of circumstances form due to their change of address.
23. In April 2024, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs B to inform them that a review would not be carried out because their change of circumstances form had not been processed.
24. Mr and Mrs B complained in June about the delay and argued that they had not refused any offers and should not have been downgraded from Band A to Band D.
25. The Council apologised for the delay and explained that the Housing Applications and Allocations team could not carry out its review until the Homeless team had reviewed its decision that Mr and Mrs B had refused a suitable offer of social housing.
26. In November 2024, the Council changed Mr and Mrs B’s bedroom need to two bedrooms and it reinstated their Band A award, backdating it to 17 January 2023.

Analysis

27. Mr and Mrs B requested a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation which the Council provided to them in November 2023. The Council’s records indicate that it accepted the accommodation was unsuitable but it did not formally communicate this decision to the couple. This was fault. The Council had a duty to provide suitable accommodation. I consider Mr and Mrs B were living in unsuitable accommodation for four months due to the Council’s failure to comply with its duty.
28. The Council’s records fail to explain why the Homeless team made a direct offer of a one-bedroom property, rather than one with two bedrooms. The Council should have clearly documented the reasons for this decision, especially given that both the Applications and Allocations team and the Temporary Accommodation team had previously determined that the couple required a two-bedroom property. The Council says it appears the offer of one-bedroom accommodation was based on the view that Mr B would no longer need two bedrooms after surgery, but there is no supporting evidence in the records to substantiate this.
29. The Council did not explain to Mr and Mrs B why their bedroom need had been reduced from two bedrooms to one bedroom. This was fault and resulted in Mr and Mrs B not understanding why they were being contacted about a one-bedroom property.
30. The Council did not offer the accommodation to Mr and Mrs B in writing, which would have informed them of the consequences of refusing it, including the loss of the main housing duty and a reduction in their housing priority from Band A to Band D. Councils continue to owe the main housing duty if they do not inform the applicant of the possible consequences of refusal and of their right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. The Council was therefore wrong to tell Mr and Mrs B that it no longer owed them the main housing duty.
31. If there had been no fault by the Council, I consider it would have made a suitable offer of social housing to Mr and Mrs B in January 2024, which they would have accepted.
32. The Council initially declined to carry out a review because Mr and Mrs B had submitted a change of circumstances form due to their address change. However, their request for a review concerned their bedroom need and housing band, not their address. The change of address should not have been an obstacle to the review of these decisions.
33. The Housing Applications and Allocations team was unable to review its decision to place the couple in Band D until the Homeless team completed its review. This is because it depended on whether the Homeless team upheld its decision that Mr and Mrs B had refused an offer of suitable accommodation.
34. The Homeless team should have completed its review within eight weeks. Mr and Mrs B requested the review in early February 2024, but the Council did not make a decision until November 2024, more than nine months later. The review ultimately reinstated the main housing duty, acknowledging that the couple had not refused a suitable offer. However, the Council failed to inform Mr and Mrs B of the review’s outcome. This was fault.
35. Mr and Mrs B have been living in their current accommodation since March 2024. While it is a one-bedroom property, they say they would accept it as permanent accommodation due to its quiet location and proximity to the hospital where Mr B requires regular treatment. Therefore, I do not consider their current accommodation to be unsuitable. However, the Council’s failures have caused significant distress and frustration for Mr and Mrs B, and they have missed out on an offer of permanent social housing, which may have allowed Mr B to undergo surgery sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within four weeks, the Council will take the following actions:
• Make a payment of £1000 to Mr and Mrs B. This is a symbolic sum to recognise the four months they were living in unsuitable accommodation between November 2023 and March 2024.
• Make a payment of £350 to Mr and Mrs B. This is a symbolic sum to recognise their distress and frustration.
37. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
• Make Mr and Mrs B a direct offer of suitable social housing. This could be the accommodation they are currently living in.
• Remind officers that they must record the reasons for their decisions and that offers of accommodation to discharge the main housing duty must be made in writing.
• Provide an update on the action it is taking to reduce the time it is taking to carry out reviews of homelessness decisions.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr and Mrs B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman