The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss B complained about a delay in finding suitable accommodation for her and her children and the way in which it carried out medical assessment of their housing needs. We found fault in the actions of the Council and consider Miss B lived in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months longer than she should have done. The Council has agreed to pay her £2000 and improve its procedures for the future.
The complaint
Miss B complained that the London Borough of Hackney (the Council) in respect of her housing application: failed to recognise the extent of the children’s medical needs and their need for separate bedrooms; delayed in carrying out a medical assessment in 2023; delayed in carrying out a review of the suitability of her accommodation; failed to refer her case to the exceptional needs panel or award her application Band A priority; offered her temporary accommodation in October 2023 near an abusive ex-partner; altered her registration date on the housing register in July 2023 meaning she was unable to bid on properties with the correct priority for a short period of time; and delayed in escalating her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
These failures mean Miss B has been living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary which has caused and continues to cause her and her family significant distress and inconvenience.
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 the future 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Temporary accommodation 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) 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.
Council allocations policy The Council awards priority to applicants on the housing register in three bands according to their circumstances.
Band A is the highest priority for exceptional or extremely urgent cases. The Council says it only expects a small number of people to meet the criteria and the Council will make them a direct offer of accommodation.
Band B includes people who are living in overcrowded conditions lacking at least two bedrooms, or who have a significant medical need made worse by the condition of their current housing or who are homeless and owed the full housing duty.
What happened Miss B has been on the housing register as a homeless applicant since 2015. She currently lives in a one bedroom property with her three children, all of whom have special needs. She is in Band B for a three bedroom home.
In June 2022 she applied for a medical assessment for the children’s housing needs. She said they all needed separate bedrooms. The Council concluded that one child needed a separate bedroom, but the other two children could share. It recommended a ground floor step-free property. In respect of the current property the Council considered it was safe and suitable: it was on the ground floor and safety adaptations had been fitted for the children.
In September 2022 Miss B asked for another medical assessment requesting separate bedrooms for the children, She also reported a sewage leak in the communal corridor, damp and mould and a pest issue in the property. The Council took action in October and November 2022 to resolve these problems.
On 7 December 2022 the Council inspected the accommodation. It agreed the property was unsuitable due to the damp and mould and ongoing sewage leaks. It provided a dehumidifier and agreed to monitor the situation. It did not put the decision on suitability in writing.
In May 2023 the Council inspected the property again and concluded the damp was worse than before. It offered Miss B hotel accommodation which she declined due to the difficulties in managing the children. She submitted another medical assessment asking for separate bedrooms for the children.
On 4 July 2023 she complained to the Council about the delay in carrying out the assessment. The Council replied on 7 July 2023. It apologised for the delay but said it had a large volume of cases. Miss B escalated her complaint on 10 July 2023 and requested a suitability assessment of her current property and for her case to be considered by the exceptional cases panel for Band A priority.
On 12 July 2023 the Council sent a second stage one response. It outlined the history of her case and said she was achieving a place in the top five on her bids and was second on 24 May 2023. The availability of four bedroom properties is much less than three bedroom properties: on average people waited nine years for a three bed and 13 years for a four bed. The medical assessment was in progress.
On 15 July 2023 it decided the medical assessment. It concluded two children had a significant medical need and one child had a medical need, one child required a separate bedroom, but the others could share a double room, they needed a ground floor or first floor property, with no balcony and no open plan kitchen.
On 24 July 2023 Miss B tried to escalate her complaint again so she could bid on three and four bedroom properties. She also complained her registration date had been changed to 2023 which significantly reduced her priority on the housing register.
Also on 24 July 2023 the Council offered Miss B alternative temporary accommodation: a three bedroom property in the borough (Property X) which had been assessed as medically suitable for the family. Miss B refused it initially due to the proximity to her ex-partner. The Council discussed the case with social services and the domestic abuse intervention service. She also appealed against the medical assessment decision and tried to escalate her complaint again.
Following thorough exploration of the issues around Miss B’s ex-partner, the Council said it considered Property X was suitable and reoffered the property to Miss B on 22 August 2023. It did not consider there was sufficient evidence of a significant risk form Miss B’s ex-partner and the new property was much more suitable for the children’s needs. It said that if Miss B refused the offer, the Council’s duty to house them would end.
The Council sent a third stage one response on 14 August 2023. Miss B complained again and the Council responded again at stage one on 25 August 2023 saying the medical assessment had been carried out and if she disagreed with it, she could request an appeal with evidence to support her view that the children should have separate bedrooms. It said the Council had offered Miss B suitable temporary accommodation.
At the end of August 2023 Miss B sent a letter to multiple people at the Council refusing Property X. The Council met with social services to discuss the case and then at the beginning of September 2023 met with Miss B to discuss Property X. It offered to pay for the moving costs, install thick carpet in the property to help her children, carry out the necessary adaptations and refer her for more financial help.
Miss B made another complaint about the unsuitability of the offer and queried why the Council was now saying her property was unsuitable even though nothing had changed since June 2022. She requested again a referral to the exceptional cases panel.
On 6 September 2023 Miss B withdrew her appeal against the medical assessment outcome and shortly afterwards accepted Property X. The Council also started a stage two investigation. On 4 October 2023 it responded to her complaint noting that she had now withdrawn her medical assessment appeal and the housing needs team had no knowledge of the history of domestic abuse to say the area of Property X was unsuitable. It said Miss B had not mentioned the issue when she was referred for accommodation, there had been no police involvement or ongoing interventions. Social services said Miss B did not know where her ex-partner or family lived and while he had known her current address, he had not had any contact and there were no reported incidents.
Miss B viewed and signed up for the property on 19 October 2023, with a tenancy start date of 13 November 2023. But Miss B reported a leak when she visited in November 2023 and the Council took several months to carry out repairs. Miss B complained to us in December 2023.
The property was ready to move into by the end of February 2024. But Miss B said she did not wish to move until 18 March 2024 due to financial difficulties with moving and finding new furniture. She has now moved into Property X. The Council said in response to my enquiries that it accepted Miss B’s original accommodation was unsuitable in December 2022, so there was no need to carry out a review of suitability.
It confirmed that it had correct the registration date error within a week, by 24 July 2023.
In respect of the complaint-handling the Council said that its complaints policy required a new stage one response to be sent if the complainant’s escalation request contained new lines of enquiry. It considered Miss B’s communications between July and September contained new issues and so it did not escalate to stage two until 5 September 2023.
Analysis Suitability of accommodation The Council decided in December 2022 that Miss B’s accommodation was unsuitable, but it did not offer her alternative suitable accommodation until July 2023. This was fault.
It should also have notified Miss B in writing that it considered her accommodation was unsuitable. She clearly did not realise this decision had been made as she requested a suitability review on two later occasions in 2023. The failure to do so was fault which caused Miss B confusion and uncertainty.
The Council did not offer Miss B suitable alternative accommodation until late July 2023, seven months after it had decided the accommodation was unsuitable. This was too long and was fault which caused Miss B to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than was necessary.
Miss B took three months to decide to accept the offer. During this period the Council made extensive enquiries regarding Miss B’s concerns and met with her to discuss the issues. I have not found fault with the Council during this period.
Unfortunately, the property then was affected by a leak which caused a further three month delay between November 2023 and February 2024. The delay from the end of February 2024 until 18 March 2024 was down to Miss B’s choice. So, Miss B lived in unsuitable accommodation for a total of 10 months.
Medical assessments I have not found fault with the way the Council considered Miss B’s medical assessments. It considered all the information Miss B submitted and concluded that two children had a significant medical need, and one child required a separate bedroom due to their needs. I realise Miss B disagrees with the assessment and believes she needs a four bedroom property. The Council has considered this on three occasions but has not agreed with Miss B. She had the right on each occasion to ask for a review of the assessment. She did so in August 2023 but later withdrew.
Registration date This error was corrected within a week, and I do not consider it affected Miss B’s chances of obtaining housing.
Complaint-handling The Council has explained why it sent several follow-up stage one responses before deciding in September 2023 to escalate to stage two. The follow-up responses were prompt and I have not found fault with the Council’s actions here.
Agreed action
In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss B. I recommended the Council: Within one month of the date of my final decision: apologises to Miss B and pays her £2000 (10 months @£200 per month).
Within three months
reviews the way its suitability procedure to ensure written decisions are sent to applicants explaining the decision and providing a right of review where appropriate.
The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Miss B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman