The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to conduct a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. There was fault by the Council. There was a significant delay in considering her review request, which related to difficulties she had through disability. The Council also failed to properly take account of its Equality Act duties as a result. We recommended an apology, a payment and assistance with rent arrears which were partly incurred due to the delay.
The complaint
The Council failed to conduct a S202 review of the suitability of Temporary Accommodation when Miss X requested it on 19 October 2022 and when she told the Council the Temporary Accommodation was unaffordable in November 2022. This resulted in Miss X not being able to appeal the suitability of the accommodation and she had to remain in accommodation she had complained was unsuitable.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 considered Miss X’s complaint and the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
Miss X 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
Equality Act 2010 The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine listed protected characteristics. They must also have regard to general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.
Temporary Accommodation and Reviews 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) Homeless applicants may, within 21 days, request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them as Temporary Accommodation (TA) .
The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19).
Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of TA within eight weeks of the date of the review request. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
Background
The Council accepted a main duty to house Miss X in September 2022 when it found she was homeless.
The Council placed Miss X into temporary accommodation (TA) at the end of September.
Miss X’s complaint Miss X asked for a review of the suitability of her TA on 28 September. The Council says an officer tried to call her without success.
On 19 October 2022 Miss X completed a review request form. She stated the TA she had been provided with was too far from where she worked. She stated her health conditions meant that a long drive caused her severe pain and fatigue. Miss X stated her health conditions rendered her disabled and the current accommodation placed her at a substantial disadvantage. She asked the Council to find her TA nearer to her workplace as a reasonable adjustment.
The Council did not respond to the request.
On 11 November Miss X contacted the Council again. She stated her employer had granted a reduction in her working hours due to her disability. She reduced her hours by around 10 hours per week, which reduced her income by about a third. Miss X stated the current TA would be too expensive for her. Miss X referred to her review request of 19 October and repeated the other reasons she found the TA was unsuitable.
On 22 December Miss X spoke to an officer. She explained the reasons the TA was not suitable and reasons for her request for a review. While on this telephone call Miss X complained that the officer she spoke to was intimidating and abrupt. The call was not recorded and the Council’s records do not record any issues with the conduct of the call or that it was difficult.
The Council says an officer chased the outcome of the suitability review on 28 December. An email between officers on the Council’s records from 4 January noted the review request had not been acknowledged. As at 4 January the officer noted Miss X was still in the same TA and the Council had no other TA closer to her place of work. An officer stated they would speak to Miss X to ask her how she wished to proceed. They would reiterate there was limited TA availability and Miss X had the highest housing priority banding.
An officer tried to speak to Miss X on 4 January and emailed her when they could not get through. In Miss X’s email of response she indicated the review request was still outstanding and reiterated why she sought a move and what she needed. There is evidence, following the call that the officer took account of Miss X’s concerns and her circumstances and sought a direct let for Miss X as a result. The Council nominated Miss X for a property on 24 January.
Miss X provided a copy of a rent statement showing that she had accrued £770 of rent arrears at the point she left her unsuitable TA. Her rent statement indicated that Miss X was largely up to date with her rent until November when her hours reduced. Miss X continued to make payments during November and December, but made no payments in January.
On 30 January 2024 Miss X signed a tenancy for a property nearer to her workplace that the Council had nominated her for. This discharged the council’s housing duties to Miss X.
Was there fault by the Council There was fault by the Council. Miss X requested a review of her TA on 19 October. This was never carried out. The Council says its procedures are for a housing officer to consider the review request and respond. If the customer then disagrees with the decision, it is passed to a reviewing officer. The original officer who received Miss X’s review request did not look at it or flag it for attention. When a new housing officer was assigned, they did not consider the request, they sent it directly to a reviewing officer. The officers did not follow the Council’s procedures. It did not meet its legal duty to carry out reviews when requested. This led to a prolonged period during which Miss X remained at the TA and her review request and change of circumstances were not considered by the Council.
Given Miss X’s request for a suitability review concerned the impact of her disability, I also found that the Council did not have proper regard to its duties under the Equality Act. This too was fault.
As a result of the fault by the Council, Miss X remained at the property until 30 January, a period of around three and a half months after the request was made. During this time, she had been struggling to pay her rent because her salary reduced when she was forced to work less hours due to her disability. The Council was aware of this because Miss X had explained due to her disability she had to reduce her hours at work. The situation was also stressful for Miss X and the length of the journey to work caused pain and fatigue.
The Council accepted Miss X was disadvantaged between 20 November and 30 January. It stated it is unlikely that alternative TA would have become available in this period, but as the housing team were aware of the unsuitability of her TA it is likely they would have prioritised her for a permanent offer of one of a number of properties that became available in that period. So, it is likely Miss X would have been moved to a permanent property sooner.
Miss X complained about the way an officer spoke to her on the telephone. There is no evidence to demonstrate what was said on the call or whether there were issues with how she was addressed. I have not found any fault in respect of this issue.
Agreed action
Within four weeks of our final decision: The Council should send a written apology to Miss X to apologise for the fault we identified. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
The Council should make a payment to Miss X of £385. This is equivalent to half of the rent arrears she accrued when she struggled to meet her rent at her former Temporary Accommodation.
The Council should make a payment to Miss X of £300 to recognise the period Miss X was in unsuitable temporary accommodation and the distress, pain and fatigue she had travelling the longer distance to work.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman