The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s concerns about the suitability of interim accommodation it placed her in when she was homeless. The Council has agreed to provide a personal remedy for the distress and uncertainty this caused and make a service improvement.
The complaint
Ms X complained that the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation outside its area and failed to respond when she reported disrepair and raised other concerns about its suitability.
She also complained that the Council repeatedly refused to investigate her complaints about the suitability of the accommodation which meant she had to make a new complaint to us.
Ms X says the accommodation had an adverse impact on her health and wellbeing because it was in a poor state of repair and too far from her GP and mental health support services in Medway.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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)
What I have and have not investigated Ms X has complained to us before about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. We made a final decision on that complaint in July 2023. This investigation has not re-examined issues covered in that investigation. This investigation is limited to Ms X’s complaint about the unsuitability of the interim and temporary accommodation she occupied between July and November 2023.
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Ms X and considered all the information she provided. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant housing records.
Ms X and the council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
The scope of this investigation We received this complaint in October 2023. It concerns the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation Ms X and her daughter occupied from mid-July until November 2023.
Further issues have arisen since Ms X and her daughter moved to alternative temporary accommodation in November 2023. But these events happened after we received this complaint so they were not considered in this investigation.
In this statement I have outlined the key events. I have not set out everything that happened between July and November 2023.
What I found
Suitability of accommodation The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided for homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies both to interim accommodation and temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9) The Code of Guidance advises housing authorities to carefully consider the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs. It says: “Physical access to and around the home, space, bathroom and kitchen facilities, access to a garden and modifications to assist people with sensory loss as well as mobility needs are all factors which might need to be taken into account. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 17.5)” Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. We refer to these rights as section 202 reviews (Housing Act 1996, s202). There is a right to appeal against a review decision on a point of law to the county court.
The Code of Guidance reminds housing authorities they have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until the accommodation duty is brought to an end.
Review rights Applicants have the right to request a statutory review of the suitability of temporary accommodation arranged under the section 193(2) main housing duty. But they cannot use the statutory review procedure to challenge the suitability of interim accommodation.
However, as councils must ensure all accommodation arranged under Part 7 is suitable for the individual needs of the household, we expect councils to keep the suitability of interim accommodation under review and to respond to any concerns the applicant raises about suitability. The Code of Guidance reminds councils they may also be subject to a judicial review challenge.
Accommodation pending the outcome of a review Councils have a discretionary power to accommodate an applicant while they consider a statutory review request. This is interim accommodation so there is no right to request a statutory review of suitability.
Ombudsman’s principles of good administrative practice The Ombudsman has published guidance on good administrative practice since 1993. We have always used this as a benchmark for the standards we expect when we investigate the actions of councils.
Principle 5 in the guidance – Putting things right – says that councils should provide clear and timely information on how and when people can appeal or complain.
What happened The background Ms X and her adult daughter became homeless in late June 2023 when they were evicted from private rented accommodation. At first they slept in Ms X’s car. One of Ms X’s relatives then paid for them to stay for a short time in a hotel. The hotel booking ended on 17 July.
Before they became homeless, the Council had completed a housing assessment and Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) to record Ms X’s housing and support needs. This noted Ms X has several chronic conditions which affect her physical and mental health. She receives a disability benefit. Her adult daughter is her carer and receives Carer’s Allowance. The housing assessment did not refer to Ms X having any mobility difficulties or continence issues.
The PHP said Ms X needed a two bedroom property. The only support need identified was for money advice and support. Ms X expressed a preference for accommodation in named locations in Medway.
In early July 2023 Ms X’s solicitor requested a review of the Council’s decision that Ms X was not in priority need. The solicitor asked the Council to arrange interim accommodation for Ms X pending the outcome of this review.
The Council initially refused but reversed the decision after considering further evidence from Ms X’s GP and submissions from her solicitor. On 11 July the Council told Ms X it would look for accommodation for her and her daughter. In an email to the Rehousing team, the Reviews Officer said: Ms X needs a two bedroom property but there were no other restrictions on the type of property that would be suitable; Ms X had told the Council she would be unsafe in two towns in Medway but had not provided any supporting evidence to confirm she was at risk in those areas; The rehousing team would look for accommodation that would accept Ms X’s dog but she should be prepared to make other arrangements if necessary.
Ms X told us she had been due to start a job in July 2023. This was not in Medway Council’s area but nearby. She said the Council knew about this offer of employment. Ms X says the employer was concerned she may not get to work on time due to the travelling time and distance from Property A. She says she lost this job opportunity as a direct result of the Council’s decision to place her outside Medway.
The Council sent us evidence that Ms X had attended a four day vocational training course which ended on 15 July. It says Ms X did not provide it with any evidence she had a job offer before it placed her in interim accommodation on 17 July.
In mid-July 2023 a community psychiatric nurse confirmed that a home treatment team based in one of the Medway towns had recently provided crisis support to Ms X. He said it would be very beneficial for Ms X to be in accommodation where she could keep her emotional support dog. A few days later, the team transferred responsibility for Ms X’s care to the Community Mental Health team.
Ms X attends hospitals in different areas in north Kent for outpatient appointments and treatment. Ms X’s GP is in Medway.
The placement in Property A Property A is in another Kent local authority area which borders Medway Council. I shall refer to this as Council Y.
Medway Council did not inspect Property A before it placed Ms X and her daughter there. It made the point that it is not required to inspect temporary accommodation. But it received a property checklist from the managing agents four days before Ms X moved in. The agents confirmed on the form that the property had been cleaned and met the relevant standards for temporary accommodation. They said the electrics and appliances were maintained and in good condition. They sent valid gas safety, electrical inspection and energy performance certificates. Having considered this information, the Council was satisfied the property met relevant standards.
On 14 July an officer offered Ms X a choice of two properties. Ms X refused a property in a Medway town where she said she would be at risk and accepted Property A.
On 17 July an officer considered whether Property A was suitable for Ms X’s needs. It was a two bedroom self-contained furnished house. The landlord was willing to accept pets subject to a deposit for damages. The property was not in Medway. It was not in an area where Ms X said she was unsafe. The officer noted Ms X has a car and could drive to medical appointments in other areas.
Ms X and her daughters moved to Property A on the same day. There are two steps to the front entrance. Both bedrooms are on the first floor. The kitchen, living room and bathroom (including the toilet) are on the ground floor.
Defects and disrepair at Property A Ms X says the heating never worked. She moved in during the summer so she did not notice until she tried to turn the heating on in October. She reported it to the managing agents who said it would be repaired but nothing was done. Ms X said the wiring on the boiler was faulty and tripped the electrics. The hot water stopped working in early October 2023 and had not been fixed by the time she moved out on 10 November.
Ms X says the oven also stopped working in late October 2023. It blew the electrics and was not repaired.
Ms X said the toilet blocked and did not flush properly. She says waste from other properties connected to the system flooded the bathroom. Eventually the water company fixed it due to the health risk but said the landlord was responsible for this work.
Ms X says she reported the disrepair directly to the managing agents who ignored her.
The Council sent us a statement made by the managing agents. It lists the repairs Ms X reported and the dates when contractors attended. The first internal repair was reported in early August 2023. A contractor attended to fix a problem with the shower. Contractors attended on two dates in September to fix a blocked bath outlet and a faulty flush on the toilet. A contractor attended in early October to inspect the wiring on the boiler and change batteries on the smoke alarms.
Sometimes the managing agents could not give Ms X sufficient notice and she was not available because she had to attend medical appointments. But they did ask her to suggest alternative dates which were convenient for her.
Ms X queried whether a particular contractor was qualified to do gas and electrical work. The Council obtained evidence from the managing agents which confirms it only used approved contractors who were registered to carry out these works.
A gas safe approved contractor inspected the boiler on 9 October. Ms X made an allegation about the contractor’s conduct and would not allow him to return to do further works. A further appointment was made for 31 October. Contractors attended but could not gain access to the property.
On 3 November a Visiting Officer from Medway’s housing service met Ms X at Property A with two contractors used by the managing agent. It was agreed that: an electrician would be booked to fix the wiring on the boiler, three electrical sockets and the oven; the boiler was working but it was noisy and Ms X was worried it may be unsafe so a gas engineer should investigate this; the contractors would fix the toilet flush and leak and another issue in the bathroom.
Ms X contacted the Private Sector Housing team at Council Y to ask it for an inspection to assess disrepair and hazards. The inspecting officer sent an initial email to the Council to say it was likely to find a Category 1 hazard due to excess cold. The full inspection report was available later and I have summarised the key findings in paragraph 56 below.
Ms X’s complaints to the Council On 3 September Ms X complained to the Council. She said she needed to move because Property A was unsuitable. She referred to being bullied and harassed by a neighbour and had reported this to the police. She said the property was unsuitable due to her physical and mental health needs. She was at risk of falling on the stairs when she went downstairs at night to use the toilet. She needed a toilet on the same level as the bedroom. She also said she needed a washing machine and tumble dryer due to the extra laundry arising from incontinence. She said she needed to move back to the Medway area to be close to her doctor and in a safe area.
At this point, Property A was still interim accommodation. So Ms X did not have the right to request a statutory section 202 review of its suitability.
The Council told Ms X it would not accept this as a new complaint. It said many of the points raised were addressed in previous correspondence. It said the housing service would deal with any new issues as a service request and contact her.
On 19 September 2023 the Council accepted the main housing duty. The notification letter to Ms X explained her right to request a review of the decision to end the relief duty. But it did not explain that, as Property A had changed from interim to temporary accommodation, Ms X now had the right to request a review of its suitability.
Ms X made a further complaint on 9 October. The Council refused to investigate because it considered some of the issues were covered in our investigation of Ms X’s previous complaint.
Ms X says the Rehousing team ignored her emails. It was only when she contacted the Private Sector Housing team at Council Y to ask it to inspect the property and then complained to us that the Council took notice.
Ms X’s statutory review request Ms X found out from her solicitor that she could request a statutory review of the suitability of the accommodation after the Council accepted the main housing duty. On 12 October her request for a statutory review was passed on to the Homeless Reviews team. The Council then had eight weeks in which to make the review decision.
Six days later, Ms X sent a statement to the Homeless Reviews team explaining why she considered the property was unsuitable. In summary, she referred to several items of disrepair including lack of heating, the unsuitability of the property because of her medical needs, and the need to be closer to her GP in Medway.
We received Ms X’s complaint in mid-October 2023. At this point, she was still in Property A and the Council was considering her request for a statutory suitability review.
The outcome of Ms X’s suitability review The following events happened after we received Ms X’s complaint. I have included them because they are relevant.
The Reviews Officer made inquiries and gathered evidence from several agencies, including adult social care services at Medway and Kent County Council, the police, Ms X’s GP and the Occupational Therapy team for the review. This included: a rehousing report from an Occupational Therapist who assessed Ms X in early November 2023. She recommended a property with level access (or at most one step with grab rails), a level access shower, level living inside the property or grab rails if there were stairs, and the potential to install a through floor lift.
new medical evidence about Ms X’s continence issues, evidence from her GP and details of upcoming medical appointments; evidence from Kent County Council’s Adult Social care service who had loaned Ms X a raised toilet seat and commode; evidence from the Council Y’s Private Sector Housing team. Officers had inspected Property A in early November and completed a Housing Health & Safety Rating System assessment to identify hazards. This identified defects, including a Category 1 hazard due to excess cold. It said Ms X did not have access to adequate heating, hot water and facilities to manage her personal hygiene.
On 10 November the Review Officer informed Ms X she had completed the review and decided the property was unsuitable. The Rehousing team would look for suitable alternative accommodation.
On the same day, Ms X and her daughter moved to a family room in a hotel Ms X had specifically requested in the Medway area.
My analysis The Council completed a housing assessment and recorded Ms X’s housing and support needs in a PHP. The case records show it assessed the suitability of Property A for Ms X’s needs on the day of the offer. It recorded the reasons why it considered it was suitable in the case notes.
The Council did not place Ms X in the two Medway towns where she said she was at risk. It secured a property where Ms X could keep her emotional support dog. It had no evidence confirming that Ms X was employed, or had a job offer, in or near Medway so this was not a relevant factor when deciding on the property location. It knew Ms X had a car and could drive to medical appointments. Based on the information the Council had at the time, I see no evidence of fault with the way the Council decided in July 2023 to place Ms X in Property A.
However, the Code of Guidance says councils have a continuing duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. They must reconsider suitability when the applicant’s circumstances change, or significant new information is presented about their housing needs.
In early September 2023 Ms X complained to the Council that the property was unsuitable. She explained why it did not meet her medical needs. The Council did not investigate and respond to these concerns at the time. That was fault. It should have considered this new evidence. It should have recorded its findings with sufficient clarity and detail to demonstrate it met the expectation in the Code to keep suitability under review. It is good administrative practice for it to tell the applicant it has considered the matter and decided whether the accommodation is suitable and give reasons if the applicant asks for them.
The Council wrongly refused to investigate Ms X’s complaints. It said the issues had either been addressed before or were under investigation by the Ombudsman. In fact, our previous investigation did not consider what happened after July 2023 when Ms X moved to Property A. It should have been clear to the Council that Ms X was making a new complaint about Property A. It was fault not to investigate when she first complained in early September 2023 or when she made a further complaint in early October.
There was further fault because the letter accepting the main housing duty did not explain the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. The law and the Code of Guidance do not require councils to notify applicants of this particular review right. But it is good administrative practice to do this and our published Guidance on Good Administrative Practice reflects that. It is very likely Ms X would have requested a statutory review sooner if she had known. She requested a review one month later when her solicitor told her she could. The failure to include full information about review rights in the decision letter delayed Ms X’s access to the review procedure.
There was a failure to intervene promptly when Ms X reported concerns about disrepair and defects in the property. There should have been earlier liaison between the Council and the managing agents. The joint property inspection did not take place until early November 2023 although Ms X had first reported issues to the Council in September.
I do not intend to find fault with the way the Homeless Review team considered the statutory review request once they received it. The Review Officer considered Ms X’s written statement, made inquiries to various agencies, and properly considered all the relevant evidence and reports provided. The Occupational Therapist’s rehousing report and evidence from Council Y’s Private Sector Housing service were crucial. They established that Property A was not suitable for Ms X. There was no delay in carrying out the review and the decision was made well within the statutory eight week timescale. The Council then moved Ms X to alternative temporary accommodation she had requested on the day the review was concluded.
The faults I have identified caused injustice to Ms X. She feels the Council ignored valid concerns she raised from September onwards about the suitability of Property A. The Council did not inform her of the right to request a statutory review and this delayed her access to the review procedure. However, it is unlikely that an earlier review would have reached the same conclusion that the property was unsuitable. I say this because the Occupational Therapy and Private Sector Housing service reports were pivotal in confirming the property was not suitable for Ms X. These reports were not available until early November. The means there was limited injustice from the Council’s failure to inform Ms X about her review rights.
Agreed action
Within one month of my final decision, the Council will: Arrange for a senior officer to make a written apology to Ms X; Pay her £150 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by its failure to take appropriate action when she complained about the suitability of Property A in September; Review and amend the template letter notifying acceptance of the main housing duty to include information about the right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation; Remind officers of the continuing duty to keep the suitability of all interim and temporary accommodation placements under review and record their decision on suitability when an applicant notifies a change in circumstances which may make an existing placement unsuitable.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman