The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to move him to a different property when environmental health condemned the property he is living in, failed to consider his medical conditions when awarding him priority on the housing register and failed to respond to contact from his representative. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr B’s banding or in its communications with his representative. The Council failed to follow up on disrepair issues at Mr B’s property and misled him about what it intended to do. An apology, payment to Mr B and an inspection of Mr B’s property is satisfactory remedy.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, is represented by Ms C. Mr B complained the Council: failed to move him to a different property when environmental health condemned the property he is living in; failed to consider his medical conditions when awarding him priority on the Council’s housing register; failed to respond to contact from Ms C from 2020 onwards; provided unsuitable accommodation to him; and offered him unsuitable accommodation in 2021.
Mr B says fault by the Council has resulted in him living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than he should have been, with an impact on his health conditions.
What I have investigated I have investigated all of the complaint, with the exception of those parts which relate to whether the accommodation provided/offered to Mr B is suitable. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating those parts of the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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) If we are satisfied with a Council’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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and Mr B's comments; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
Mr B, Ms C and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened Where an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need for accommodation, the housing authority has a duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation.
Section 206(1) of the Act provides that all accommodation provided must be suitable for the applicant and their household.
The Council’s allocations scheme (the scheme) says the Council may make direct offers in certain circumstances, which includes where urgent re-housing is required due to an existing property being uninhabitable or where there are serious health and safety or personal protection issues that need to be addressed or in discharge of a statutory homelessness duty.
The scheme provides for an applicant to be placed in a band. The scheme says the Council will award one priority star for various circumstances, which includes: people owed a statutory homelessness duty; people occupying unsanitary or statutory overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions in accordance with hazards identified through the Housing Health Safety Rating Scheme; people who need to move on severe medical or severe welfare grounds.
The scheme says the Council will award moderate medical priority where it can be demonstrated that due to an illness or disability the applicant finds living in their current dwelling difficult and it is clear that remaining in that dwelling will contribute to deterioration in their health.
The scheme says where appropriate the medical advisor will also recommend the type of property most appropriate to the medical needs.
What happened The Council placed Mr B in temporary accommodation after he became homeless. At that point the Council assessed Mr B as requiring self-contained accommodation which could be on the first floor if there was no lift and on any floor if there was a lift.
Ms C contacted Mr B’s landlord at the end of December 2020 regarding outstanding repairs. Ms C copied the Council into that email. The landlord said it would deal with the outstanding repairs. Ms C contacted the landlord again later in December to report that the property was suffering from mould and the cooker was not working. Ms C again copied the Council in on that email.
As the repairs had not been completed Mr B contacted the Council in January 2021. Mr B reported the property suffered from severe damp and mould and said the place was uninhabitable. The Council agreed to transfer Mr B to alternative suitable accommodation although it advised it could not say how long it would take to identify a suitable property.
The Council offered Mr B another property in April 2021. Ms C raised concerns about the suitability of the property as it was on the fifth floor. Ms C was concerned Mr B would be unable to access the property if the lift was not working due to his medical conditions. The Council said Mr B should accept the property and request a review. Ms C said she would not advise Mr B to do that given he had also been told that about his current property and he was still there four years later. Mr B refused the accommodation offered.
Mr B applied for a medical assessment as he was concerned damp in the property was affecting his medical conditions. The Council referred the case to Now Medical. Following an assessment the Council decided Mr B had a moderate medical requirement to move. The Council placed Mr B in band 2 with two stars. The Council told Mr B it had recommended a property with no internal stairs and lift access.
Ms C chased the Council in August 2021 as Mr B had not received the letter telling him about the outcome of the medical assessment. Ms C told the Council an environmental health officer from Lambeth Council had visited and said the property was unfit to rent. Ms C told the Council Mr B had therefore stopped paying his rent and had placed the money in a separate account, pending a complaint to the Ombudsman. Ms C told the Council the landlord had not undertaken any of the repair work. The Council subsequently identified it had sent the medical assessment letter to the wrong address and reissued it.
Ms C contacted the Council again at the end of September to reiterate the environmental health officer from Lambeth had declared the property unfit for rental. Ms C outlined Mr B’s medical conditions and said the house was damp, mouldy and expensive to heat. Ms C also reported Mr B’s brother had moved back in as he had been told he would be treated as intentionally homeless otherwise.
The Council acknowledged correspondence from Ms C and said the temporary accommodation placement team would follow up with the landlord to address the repairs urgently. The Council said its temporary accommodation placement team would contact Mr B shortly about alternative temporary accommodation, which could be out of borough. The Council invited Mr B to submit a new housing application to include his brother. Mr B did that at the end of September and again in November.
Mr B contacted the Council in November to raise concerns about it failing to ensure the landlord completed the outstanding repairs. Ms C said the heating was still not working properly, rodents were accessing the property and mould and damp were an issue. Ms C told the Council Lambeth environmental health had said the property was not suitable for renting and Lambeth had told the Council that but it had done nothing to rectify the situation. In response the Council referred the case for a direct offer.
Mr B contacted the Council in November 2021 to report that his children were no longer able to stay with him due to the damp conditions in the property affecting their health.
In December 2021, following a complaint, the Council wrote to Ms C. The Council told Ms C it would provide a direct offer of accommodation to Mr B by 3 January 2022.
The Council offered Mr B alternative temporary accommodation in January 2022. Mr B refused that property as it did not have any heating except in one room and did not have hot water in the bathroom.
The Council has not offered any further properties to Mr B and had placed his housing register application on hold pending information from him about his brother’s medical conditions. That information is no longer required though as Mr B’s brother has left the property.
Analysis Mr B says the Council failed to move him to a different property once environmental health condemned the property he is living in and failed to award him adequate priority on the Council’s housing register to reflect his medical conditions and the impact the condition of the property is having on him. Mr B says the property he is living in is unsuitable for his needs and is contributing to his worsening medical conditions.
In terms of the state of the current property, I am satisfied the Council arranged for the property to be provided to Mr B as temporary accommodation. As it is temporary accommodation any concerns about whether the property is suitable for Mr B’s needs is a matter which falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. That is because Mr B could have requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation and then appealed to a court if he was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. I have, however, considered the Council’s actions in relation to the various repairs Mr B and Ms C have reported to the Council. That is because I consider that a separate matter to the overall suitability of the accommodation.
The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms C has repeatedly told the Council an environmental health officer from Lambeth has said the property is in such a state that it is not suitable for rent. Lambeth was involved in this case because the property Mr B lives in is in Lambeth. However, as the Council arranged the property as part of its consideration of Mr B’s homeless application it remains responsible for dealing with any issues with it. Given Mr B has repeatedly referred to an assessment undertaken by Lambeth and raised concerns about the effect the condition of the property is having on his health I am concerned there is no evidence the Council made any contact with Lambeth to obtain details of its assessment. I am also concerned the Council has not visited Mr B’s property to assess the repair issues he has reported and then seek to resolve them. There is also no evidence the Council contacted Mr B’s landlord to address the repair issues, as it committed to do in September 2021. All of that is fault.
Mr B’s main concern is clearly the impact the state of the property is having on his health. I am satisfied the Council carried out a medical assessment in 2021. I am satisfied that assessment took into account Mr B’s medical conditions given the Council awarded band 2 priority with two stars and said Mr B needed either ground floor properties or a property on any floor if there was a lift. Having considered the Council’s allocations policy I am satisfied neither Mr B’s medical conditions nor the current state of the property would have warranted additional priority under the Council’s current allocations policy even if the Council had visited to inspect it. So, although I consider the Council at fault for not visiting to inspect the state of the property and for not contacting Lambeth to obtain copies of any reports it has produced I do not consider that fault likely affected Mr B’s banding. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council for the banding in which it has placed Mr B.
The Council’s allocations policy though does allow for it to provide direct offers of accommodation in certain circumstances. That includes circumstances where the accommodation occupied is uninhabitable or where there are health and safety issues. Given the Council has not contacted Lambeth for a copy of its inspections and has not inspected the property itself I am concerned this part of the Council’s allocations policy has not been properly considered. In reaching that view though, I note the Council agreed at the end of December 2021 to provide Mr B with a direct offer. Although I am aware the Council offered alternative accommodation to Mr B in January 2022 it has confirmed this offer was not a direct offer. The Council has therefore not followed through on what it told Mr B it would do. That is also fault.
I cannot ignore the fact though that the Council has offered Mr B two alternative properties. The Council offered Mr B an alternative property in April 2021. The Council offered the second alternative property in January 2022. I recognise Mr B did not consider either of those offers of accommodation suitable. As I have made clear, the suitability of the accommodation offered is not a matter the Ombudsman can comment on. From the Council’s point of view though the two offers were suitable and if Mr B had wanted to challenge that he would have needed to do so in court. The fact the Council made those two offers of accommodation after Mr B reported difficulties with his housing means I cannot say the Council failed to take any action in response to the reports Mr B made, albeit the Council did not seek to resolve the repair issues.
I am concerned though about a suspension placed on Mr B’s housing register application since he applied to include his brother on the application in November 2021. I recognise the Council asked Mr B for medical information for his brother to support his contention that the property was not suitable for his brother’s needs and Mr B did not provide that information. However, I see no reason why that has resulted in a suspension of Mr B’s housing register account. Mr B already has medical priority for alternative accommodation and the Council’s own records indicate there is no reason why further evidence is required for the housing register application to be recorded for two occupants rather than just for Mr B. I therefore consider the suspension on the housing register application to be fault, although I do not consider it likely this has resulted in Mr B missing out on any offers of accommodation.
I have found no evidence to suggest the Council failed to respond to communications from Ms C. It may be Ms C is referring here to correspondence between her and the landlord of the property, which she copied the Council into. While I would have expected the Council to pick up on the disrepair issues referred to in those emails I would not expect the Council to respond to emails which were not addressed to Council officers. In the absence of any evidence to suggest the Council failed to respond to Ms C’s communications directed to the Council I have no grounds to criticise it.
So, I have found fault as the Council failed to follow up on the disrepair issues at Mr B’s property, misled him about the action it would take, failed to make a direct offer of accommodation as it had said it would do and wrongly left a suspension on his housing register application. Taking into account the fact the Council offered Mr B two alternative properties which it considered suitable I consider Mr B’s injustice is limited to his frustration that the Council did not take action to resolve the repair issues in his property and that he had to go to time and trouble to pursue the complaint. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Mr B and Ms C. I recommended the Council pay Mr B £300 to reflect his and Ms C’s time and trouble and frustration. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
At my recommendation the Council has also arranged an inspection of Mr B’s property and identified some repair issues that need following up as well as asking the managing agent for the property to arrange for a damp report to be completed. Alongside that I recommended the Council obtain from Lambeth environmental health any records it has of its inspections of the property. The Council should at that point consider whether it is appropriate to make Mr B a direct offer of accommodation and, if so, it should make such an offer.
Agreed action
Within one month of my decision the Council should: apologise to Mr B and Ms C; pay Mr B £300 to reflect his and Ms C’s time and trouble and frustration; and lift the suspension Mr B’s housing register application.
Within two months of my decision the Council should: follow up with the managing agent to ensure the repair issues are dealt with and a damp report completed. The Council should then decide whether further action is necessary; obtain from Lambeth environmental health any records it has of its inspections of the property.
Following that the Council should decide whether any further action needs to be taken to resolve the disrepair issues. The Council should also at that point consider whether it is appropriate to make Mr B a direct offer of accommodation and, if so, it should make such an offer.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council in part of the complaint which caused Mr B an injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Mr B’s concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation offered or provided to him by the Council. That is because Mr B has a right of appeal in relation to those issues.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman