Summary: Miss B says the Council left her in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond six weeks, failed to act when a housing association delayed withdrawing a property it had offered her, misled her about the status of the property and placed her in the wrong band on the Council’s housing register. The Council delayed identifying alternative temporary accommodation for Miss B, failed to liaise with the housing association and delayed making a decision on the homeless application and in awarding her priority on the Council’s housing register. An apology, payment to Miss B, reminder to officers and commitment to keep notes of meetings is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complained the Council:
• left her in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks;
• failed to act when the housing association delayed withdrawing a property it had offered her;
• misled her about the status of a property she could have secured;
• wrongly placed her in band C on the Council’s housing register on the basis of overcrowding rather than as a homeless applicant, which prevented her bidding on properties reserved for homeless applicants; and
• placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation when it moved her out of the bed-and-breakfast.
2. Miss B says the Council’s actions meant she lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Miss B’s concerns about leaving her in bed-and-breakfast for too long, the Council’s actions in relation to the housing association property, the status of the property Miss B bid for and concerns about Miss B’s banding. I have not investigated Miss B’s concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation she is currently placed in.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

11. The homelessness code of guidance (the code) says if a housing authority has reason to believe a person applying for assistance may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, the housing authority must make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to that person under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. When a housing authority has completed its inquiries it must notify the applicant in writing of its decisions.
12. The code says where the housing authority is satisfied the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days. Housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.
13. The code says if a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation.
14. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.
15. The code says councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. Bed and breakfast accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks.
16. The Council’s allocations policy says it will allocate band C to those applicants who fall within the criteria for reasonable preference set out in the Housing Act 1996. That includes homeless applicants.

What happened

17. Miss B is a single parent with a young daughter. Until 2021 Miss B was registered on the Council’s housing register in band D. The Council allocated band C in February 2021 as Miss B was overcrowded.
18. In March 2022 Miss B bid on a housing association property. At around the same time Miss B bid on a Council property.
19. On 6 May 2022 Miss B became homeless and the Council placed her in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with her daughter.
20. In June Miss B visited the housing association property she had bid on earlier in the year and the housing association offered her that property. As a result Miss B did not pursue her application for the property she had bid for on the Council’s housing register.
21. On 14 June the Council offered Miss B alternative temporary accommodation. Miss B declined that as she had been offered the housing association property.
22. Miss B contacted the Council on 22 June as she was confused about her housing register status as she had accepted the housing association property. The Council checked with the housing association which said it was intending to sign a tenancy with Miss B with the tenancy start date being 27 June.
23. On 30 June the housing association withdrew the offer of accommodation to Miss B as it did not believe the property was affordable for her. Miss B told the Council.
24. On 10 July Miss B queried her banding position and pointed out she and her daughter had been living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than nine weeks. The Council offered Miss B alternative temporary accommodation on 18 July. Miss B had to turn that down as she had tested positive for COVID-19. Miss B moved into alternative temporary accommodation on 21 July.
25. In 16 December 2022 the Council accepted a main housing duty to Miss B and placed her into band C as a homeless applicant. The Council backdated the priority date to 16 February 2021 when she was originally awarded band C for overcrowding.
26. The Council says there is significant demand for temporary accommodation and it has a team of acquisitions officers to search for properties on a daily basis. The Council has also outlined the work it has undertaken to identify properties for temporary accommodation which includes:
• working with other partners;
• taking part in an annual landlord forum to engage with existing and new landlords;
• taking part in regional work with other councils;
• recycling units that are due for demolition;
• carrying out a property purchase scheme which has resulted in more than 150 units of accommodation being delivered as well as more than 100 units of modular housing, which Miss B currently occupies.

Analysis

27. Miss B says the Council left her in bed-and-breakfast accommodation beyond six weeks when it should not have done. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Miss B was in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with her child between 6 May 2022 and 21 July 2022. That is 11 weeks. As I say in paragraph 15, Government guidance is clear bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not suitable for families and should only be used as a last resort and for no longer than six weeks. The Council breached that six week limit in this case.
28. There are specific issues that apply in this case though. The evidence shows the Council offered Miss B alternative temporary accommodation to move her out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 14 June. That is within the six-week period. It is clear Miss B declined that offer as she had accepted a housing association property and expected to move in shortly. In addition, the Council would have provided Miss B with alternative temporary accommodation on 18 July after the housing association property was withdrawn but she was unable to move at that point as she had COVID-19. I therefore do not consider the Council at fault for the entire period Miss B remained in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
29. I am concerned though the Council has provided no evidence to show it reviewed Miss B's case or sought to identify alternative temporary accommodation for her until 14 June. That was only a few days before the six week period expired. The Council says it holds bed-and-breakfast meetings every fortnight to discuss the cases which remain in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. However, the Council has not kept any notes from those meetings and there are also no notes on Miss B's housing file to show what, if any, consideration the Council gave to her case. It may be at those meetings the Council prioritised families who had been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation longer than Miss B. It may also be the case that there was no alternative temporary accommodation available which the Council could offer to Miss B until 14 June, particularly given the significant issues the Council has faced with identifying enough temporary accommodation to meet demand.
30. I do not underestimate the challenge the Council faces here. I also welcome the Council’s efforts to identify additional units of temporary accommodation, which I refer to in paragraph 26. Nevertheless, it is important for the Council to evidence any attempts it makes to identify suitable temporary accommodation for families placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, given clear Government guidance about the suitability of that accommodation for families. In the absence of any records of attempts to identify alternative temporary accommodation for Miss B I could not say the Council had made any efforts to source alternative temporary accommodation for Miss B until the six weeks was almost up. That is fault.
31. I recognise though if Miss B had not accepted a housing association property she would have moved into alternative temporary accommodation on 14 June. She would therefore not have remained in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks. This is why I do not consider fault by the Council resulted in Miss B having to stay in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the entire 11 weeks. I am satisfied though the Council knew Miss B had received an offer of accommodation from the housing association on 14 June given Miss B told the Council that when she turned down the temporary accommodation offered. Given the Council knew Miss B remained in bed-and-breakfast accommodation which had now exceeded the six week limit I would have expected the Council to liaise with the housing association about when Miss B could be moved into her new property. It is possible if the Council had liaised with the housing association about that offer issues with it could have been identified at an earlier stage which would have enabled the Council to move Miss B onto alternative temporary accommodation earlier.
32. I do not criticise the Council for the delay in withdrawing the housing association property as that is a matter for the housing association, over which the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction. Where I consider the Council at fault is in failing to keep on top of Miss B's case and liaise with the housing association on timescales given she was in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
33. I am also concerned about the delay providing Miss B with alternative temporary accommodation after the housing association property fell through. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council knew the housing association property had fallen through on 30 June. However, the Council took another 18 days before it made Miss B another offer. Given Miss B had already been in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for significantly longer than the six weeks allowed I would have expected the Council to prioritise her case. Again, in the absence of any documentary records I cannot say the Council made any attempts to move Miss B to alternative temporary accommodation before 18 July. I therefore consider the Council at fault for leaving Miss B in bed-and-breakfast accommodation between 30 June and 18 July. While I recognise Miss B did not move into temporary accommodation until 21 July I am satisfied those additional three days were caused by Miss B being unwell, rather than due to any fault by the Council.
34. As remedy for the additional time Miss B remained in bed-and-breakfast accommodation longer than she should have done and to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to in pursuing her complaint and her uncertainty about whether the situation could have been resolved earlier I recommended the Council pay Miss B £600. I also recommended the Council ensure it keeps a note from the fortnightly bed-and-breakfast meetings so it can demonstrate the efforts it has made to identify alternative temporary accommodation for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In addition, I recommended the Council remind officers dealing with homeless families in bed-and-breakfast that:
• they should be seeking to move the family out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a matter of priority and it should not be left until the end of the six week period; and
• for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation that have been offered a housing association property liaison should take place with the housing association to ensure the move is expedited so families do not remain in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks while awaiting a new property.
35. The Council has agreed to those recommendations.
36. Miss B says at the same time she was bidding on a social housing property she also bid for a different Council property which she understood was temporary accommodation. Miss B says she now understands the second property was permanent accommodation. Miss B therefore says the Council misled her about the status of the property. Miss B is concerned about that because the social housing property fell through and she says she would likely have accepted the second property if she had understood it was permanent accommodation.
37. I have found nothing in the documentary records to suggest the Council told Miss B the Council property she bid on in March 2022 was temporary accommodation. Indeed, I note Miss B bid for the property on the Council’s Locata system, which is for permanent accommodation only. I am therefore satisfied Miss B should have known the property was permanent accommodation, rather than temporary. There has been some confusion about this element of the complaint though and I am aware Miss B believes the property the Council offered her in June 2022 was permanent accommodation. However, that is not the case. The property the Council offered Miss B in June 2022 was further temporary accommodation. I therefore do not consider Miss B missed out on permanent accommodation due to fault by the Council.
38. Miss B says the Council wrongly placed her in band C on the basis she is overcrowded rather than as a homeless applicant. Miss B says this prevented her bidding on properties for homeless applicants. Miss B also says she believes she should be in band B.
39. Having considered the Council’s allocations policy I am satisfied the Council has correctly placed Miss B in band C. The Council accepts though it delayed telling Miss B it had accepted her as homeless and in priority need. The Council accepts it should have told Miss B that at the beginning of July 2022 and did not do so until December 2022. That delay is fault and meant Miss B was not registered in band C as homeless until December 2022. That meant Miss B was not prioritised for the properties advertised for homeless applicants which she bid on between July and December 2022.
40. The Council has provided me with details of the applicants who were successful for those properties. That information shows each of the properties Miss B bid on between July 2022 and December 2022 were allocated to those in band B. Miss B is in band C and has been correctly banded according to the Council’s allocations policy. I therefore do not consider she has missed out on a property as a result of fault by the Council. In those circumstances I consider the apology the Council has offered, plus its decision to backdate Miss B’s homeless priority to February 2021, a satisfactory remedy for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss B;
• pay Miss B £600; and
• ensure notes are kept from the fortnightly bed-and-breakfast meetings.
42. Within two months of my decision the Council should send a reminder to officers dealing with homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation to ensure they are aware that:
• efforts should be made to move families out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation and it should not be left until the end of the six week period before attempts are made to source alternative accommodation; and
• for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation that have received an offer of a housing association property officers should liaise with the housing association to ensure moves are prioritised so families do not remain in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks when they have accepted an offer of a housing association property.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

44. I have not investigated Miss B’s concerns about the suitability of the current temporary accommodation offered by the Council. That is because Miss B has the right to request a review of the suitability of that accommodation and then appeal to a County Court on a point of law. The suitability of the accommodation is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman