Summary: Mr X complains that the Council placed him and his family in bed and breakfast for five months. The Council is at fault as left Mr X and his family in bed and breakfast accommodation for 17 weeks longer than the legal limit. This caused significant distress to Mr and Mrs X including affecting their mental health and their children’s ability to do their school work. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £1700 to Mr X to acknowledge his and his family’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council placed his family of six in one room in bed and breakfast accommodation for over five months after they became homeless. Mr X says that having to stay in one room for so long had a serious and lasting impact on his family’s mental and physical health.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s decision to place Mr X and his family in bed and breakfast accommodation

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Considered our focus reports ‘No place like home’ and ‘Still no place like home – Councils’ continuing use of unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation’
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198).(Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. 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. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.32)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).

What happened

13. In early September 2020, Mr X asked the Council as he considered he and his wife and three young children were homeless. Mrs X was also due to give birth to their baby within days. The Council decided it owed the prevention duty to Mr X and his family.
14. Following the birth of their baby, the Council placed Mr X and his family in bed and breakfast accommodation. The family had to share one room which the Council says could accommodate a family of six. I understand Mr and Mrs X had access to a shared kitchen during some of their stay. The Council has said this was the only accommodation available.
15. Between September and December 2020 Mr X and support workers contacted the Council to request the family be moved to more suitable accommodation. Mr X and the support workers told the Council that Mr and Mrs X’s mental health was significantly affected by the family, including a new born baby, living in one room and it made it difficult for the children to do their school work. The Council offered a move to another hotel but this would also be bed and breakfast accommodation.
16. Following contact with the Council Mr X sought a review of the suitability of his accommodation. The Council did not carry out the review as he was not entitled to a statutory review as he was placed in interim accommodation. This is because the Council owed Mr X the relief duty at this time and had not yet decided if it owed the main housing duty.
17. In January 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X to notify him it owed the main housing duty to him and his family. The Council’s letter advised Mr X that it considered his accommodation to be suitable and invited him to contact it if he disagreed.
18. Mr X and his support workers continued to contact the Council about the suitability of his accommodation. In early February 2021 Mr X submitted a request to review the suitability of his accommodation. The next day the Council offered a three bedroom self contained property to Mr X. He and his family moved into the property in mid February.
19. Mr X made a complaint to the Council about being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation for five months. The Council explained the delay in moving Mr X and his family was due to high demand for temporary accommodation and the Covid 19 pandemic.
20. In making his complaint, Mr X has said the impact of living in one room has had a significant and lasting impact on his family’s mental health.
21. In response to my enquiries the Council has said that over recent years there had been a constant and increasing demand for temporary accommodation. It acknowledges the law provides it should aim to house families in bed and breakfast accommodation for less than six weeks. But it is sometimes necessary to accommodate them for longer in such accommodation when there is no alternative available.
22. I understand the Council has agreed an action plan to increase its supply of temporary accommodation in its area.

Analysis

Suitability of accommodation

23. The law provides that families should not be accommodated in bed and breakfast accommodation unless as a last report and for more than six weeks. On balance. I consider the placing of Mr X and his family in bed and breakfast accommodation was a last resort. However, Mr X and his family lived in bed and breakfast accommodation for 23 weeks which is 17 weeks longer than the legal limit. I am mindful the Council was struggling with a shortage of temporary accommodation. But the failure to comply with the law and move Mr X and his family to suitable accommodation after six weeks is fault.
24. We expect councils to demonstrate that all options have been explored in finding suitable accommodation for families in bed and breakfast accommodation before and after the six week legal limit is reached. There is no evidence to show the Council actively sought suitable accommodation for Mr X and his family before and after they had been there for more than six weeks. The Council only sought suitable accommodation once Mr X had submitted a suitability review request following its decision to accept the main housing duty. This is fault.
25. The Council’s main housing duty decision letter does not give sufficient information for people to understand they have a statutory right to seek a review of the suitability of their accommodation. It is a matter of good practice to inform people of their statutory right to seek a review. The Council should amend its decision letter to include details of how a person can seek a statutory review of the suitability of their accommodation.

Injustice to Mr X

26. Mr X and his family lived in unsuitable accommodation for 17 weeks longer than the legal limit. The family of six, including a new born baby, lived in one room with limited access to cooking facilities. On balance, I consider this caused significant distress to Mr X and his family. Mr X’s and his support worker’s contact with the Council clearly show the unsuitable accommodation had an impact on the family’s mental health, affected their sleep and the children’s ability to do their school work. The Council should remedy this injustice.
27. The Council’s failure to notify Mr X of his right to seek a statutory review of the suitability of his accommodation once it had accepted the main housing duty did not cause significant injustice to him. Mr X was aware of his right and sought a statutory review.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. That the Council:
1. Sends a written apology to Mr X and makes a payment of £1700 to Mr X to acknowledge the distress caused to him and his family, including the impact on their mental health and their children’s ability to do their school work, caused by living in unsuitable accommodation for 17 weeks longer than the legal limit. This payment is in accordance with our guidance for remedies. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.
2. Reviews its main housing duty decision letter (where the Council has decided it owes the main housing duty) to ensure it includes details of a person’s right to seek a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation. The Council should take this action within two months of my final decision.
3. Provides the Ombudsman with an update on the progress of its temporary accommodation shortage plan of action in April 2022.

Back to top

Final decision

29. The Council is at fault as left Mr X and his family in bed and breakfast accommodation for 17 weeks longer than the legal limit. This caused significant distress to Mr and Mrs X including affecting their mental health and their children’s ability to do their school work. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice as recommended so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

30. Mr X also complained about the Council failing to take action over disrepair in his private rented property from 2018 to 2020. I have not investigated this matter as it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.
31. Mr X has also complained that the Council’s system no longer shows he has medical need when he places bids on properties. I have not investigated this matter as this is a new and separate complaint to his complaint about the bed and breakfast accommodation. By law the Council must be aware of the complaint and had an opportunity to respond to the person complaining. Mr X should therefore make a complaint to the Council about the removal of his medical need and complete its complaints procedure. It is open to Mr X to make a further complaint to the Ombudsman about the removal of his medical need when the Council has issued its final response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman