Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr J’s complaint about how it left him in unsuitable accommodation after accepting it owed a duty to house him as he was homeless. It accepts it left him in unsuitable accommodation and failed to fully support him during a stay in a hotel. He ended up street homeless for several weeks. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains about the Council failing to:
1. move him from accommodation it decided was unsuitable;
2. support him during his temporary stays in hotel accommodation, including financial help for meals;
3. prevent him from becoming street homeless for several periods;
4. help him find alternative suitable accommodation; and
5. consider the impact moving him to a hotel in another city would have on his ability to access health and mental health support, for example, because of the time it takes for him to build up trust and relationships.
2. As a result, he suffered financially, continues to live in a hotel, and is in a stressful situation with no support.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have only investigated Mr J’s complaint from January 2020 and not before. The paragraph at the end of this statement explains why. Reference to events before this date are for background information.
4. It also explains why I have not investigated the suitability of any property Mr J was temporarily accommodated in.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
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 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. 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)

Back to top

Council housing allocation policy

9. The Council uses a points-based system for assessing applications for its housing. Those who qualify for its housing register are awarded points to measure their housing priority by their circumstances. Due to extreme shortage of social rented housing, the immediate solution for households becoming homeless is the private rented sector. Points are given to those who the Council owes the main homeless duty. The Council accepts this duty where they are: eligible for housing help; became homeless through no fault of their own; are in a priority need group.
10. An offer of suitable accommodation ends its duty towards the applicant.

Back to top

Homelessness law

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the ‘Homelessness Code of Guidance’ for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to ensure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). Councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
13. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered all the information provided by Mr J, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

15. In 2018, the Council housed Mr J in another council’s area due to concerns about his safety. This was under its main housing duty under section 193 Housing Act 1996 which required it to secure accommodation available for his occupation.
16. In 2020, the Council did a suitability review of the property and decided it was unsuitable for him. The property then flooded. Mr J says the fire brigade advised him not to stay in it because of the risk with the electrics.
17. When he told the Council about the flooding, it offered him another flat but in the same building. He was then placed in a hotel and the properties it later went on to offer him were all in London. This was despite information from his solicitor, mental health workers, and victim support, all saying he could not live in London because of the danger he faced.
18. These are key events:

2020:

• September: The Council decided Flat A in property 1 was unsuitable because of the distance to local amenities. It also decided the area was not suitable because of a potential risk of violence to him.

2021:

• January: The Council asked Mr J about temporary accommodation in a specific postcode but, he said he did not want to live there.
• July: Flat A suffered from water damage and the Council offered him Flat B in property 1 which was not water damaged.
• August: The Council moved him to temporary accommodation in a hotel in another council’s area. In its response to his formal complaint in April 2022, the Council apologised for him remaining in unsuitable Flat A and offered £528 compensation based on £50 a month he had stayed in it. Officers worked with Mr J to get help from adult social care, his GP, and mental health services.
• September: Mr J refused to move to Flat B because of leaks and disrepairs. As it was second floor, he said he could not get to it because of mobility problems. I have seen no evidence of medical mobility needs.

When it later responded to his formal complaint, the Council accepted it could not confirm it provided hotel accommodation for a 15-day period this month after it withdrew an offer of a property. It said while it did not provide hotel accommodation, he still had access to the unsuitable accommodation at property 1. For the three-week failure, it offered him £74. It apologised to him as it should have provided him with suitable housing and for its poor administration and data management that could have contributed to the mistake.

The Council also accepted it failed to support him with his additional costs while in the hotel from August until April 2022 for which it offered him £432. It also explained while it continued to charge him rent for Flat A, despite it being unsuitable, this was paid by housing benefit, and it also paid his hotel accommodation fees. This meant he was not put to any financial disadvantage.

2022:

• January: The Council was advised not to cancel property 1 because Mr J still had belongings in it. It was used as an alternative to storage. It accepted it should have offered him the chance to have his belongings placed in to storage instead.
• February: Adult social care told officers he did not meet their threshold for help, and he failed to engage with them.
• March: The Council offered him a flat and his solicitor asked for a suitability review of the offer. The police confirmed Mr J was not at risk of violence from the whole of the London area, mainly just the north. Mr J told the Council he wanted to move to another city where he had a support network. The Council withdrew an offer it made and moved him to a hotel in the city he wanted by taxi. The Council included a meal and breakfast at the hotel during his stay there.
• April: A viewing for another property was arranged in Mr J’s new city but the agent went with another tenant instead.
• May: An adult social care referral was sent to the city’s council.
• July: Mr J was referred for floating support. The Council also says it provided him with advice, help through its Find Your Own Home Scheme, and through various private rented sector schemes.

My findings

19. I make the following findings on this complaint:

Move from unsuitable accommodation to alternative

20. The Council accepted Mr J remained in unsuitable accommodation from September 2020 until it moved him to a hotel in August 2021. It made him a payment of £432 for failing to move him during this period. Leaving Mr J in accommodation it knew was unsuitable for him was fault. This caused him an injustice because he remained in accommodation which did not meet his needs. It also caused him distress (frustration and uncertainty, for example).
21. I do not consider the Council’s payment to Mr J was enough in all the circumstances. Having taken account of our guidance on remedies, I consider he was in unsuitable accommodation for 11 months. Our guidance says for the distress, hardship and inconvenience caused by not having suitable accommodation, financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. I consider Mr J’s distress should be calculated on the following basis:

• 11 months x £150 (less £528 already paid) = £1,122

22. I understand the Council offered Mr J the following:

• December 2020: It told him it had available properties in one of its postcodes, but he declined.
• January 2021: It offered him a property in another post code area but again he refused.
• July 2021: It offered him Flat B, but this was also in property 1 so the reasons it found Flat A was unsuitable would also apply for Flat B.
• March 2022: The Council offered him accommodation which his solicitor asked it to review. It withdrew the offer when Mr J asked to move to another city. It placed him in temporary accommodation there.

23. I am satisfied the Council made attempts to offer Mr J alternative accommodation. While Mr J considers he was at risk of violence should he live anywhere in London, the Council took legal advice on it. The advice it received was while there was a risk in some areas, it did not extend to the whole of London. This means the Council was entitled to look further afield when considering offering him suitable accommodation.
24. I also consider Mr J should have been given the option of storage of his belongings elsewhere than Flat A. I am not satisfied this caused him an injustice because they were stored safely there at no cost to him.

Support when in hotel

25. The Council accepted it did not support him during his stay in the hotel from August 2021 until April 2022, a period of nine months. It calculated a 263-day period amounting to £432 using a monthly rate of £50. This amounts to a contribution of £1.64 a day towards his meals.
26. Our guidance on remedies recognises a person might have incurred extra costs as a direct result of fault dealing with arranging suitable accommodation. It gives a list of examples which includes the additional cost of buying take-away food when there are no cooking facilities in accommodation provided such as a hostel or bed and breakfast, for example. I consider this also extends to hotels.
27. The type of hotel the Council placed Mr J in provides rooms only. Clearly, if Mr J was in suitable accommodation, he would still have made some payments towards his meals. The problem with the hotel accommodation is he had no cooking facilities in his room. This limits the type of food he could eat or prepare. He needed to either eat readymade meals which do not need cooking, eat in the dining room at the hotel which would be expensive, eat takeaways, or a combination of all three.
28. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied the amount paid to him to cover this additional expense was enough. I consider the Council needed to make a realistic payment to the additional costs Mr J experienced.
29. I consider the following payment should be made to Mr J which takes account of the difficulties he faced lacking provision for food storage and cooking facilities. I also note the contribution he would have made towards buying his own food even if he had these facilities.

• 263 days x £21.74 (based on the current hotel rate the Council pays) = £5,717.62 (less £432) = £5,285.62

Prevent street homelessness

30. The Council accepted there was a period of 3 weeks when it failed to arrange him with a hotel. It offered £74 as a remedy for this period.
31. Our guidance says when someone has had to sleep rough due to the fault of a council, we are likely to recommend financial redress at the top end of the monthly range of £150-£350.
32. I considered the distress, hardship, and inconvenience the fault caused Mr J. Using the top range of £350, I calculate the Council should pay Mr J the following:

• £350 divided by 4 weeks is £87.50 a week x 3 weeks = £262.50 (less £74 paid) =£188.50.

Impact of move to another city

33. I found no fault on this complaint. Mr J asked to move to another city because he had a relative there along with a support network. The Council explained what steps it took to help him move and the support it tried to arrange. For example, it made a referral to the new city’s adult social services department and referred him for floating support.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. I considered our guidance on remedies along with the action the Council has already taken before Mr J complained to us, which includes a letter of apology and payment.
35. The Council agreed to carry out the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Pay him £6,596.12 for the injustice the fault caused.
2. To ensure the following are not repeated in the future, the Council should review the case to identify:

• why Mr J was left for so long in unsuitable accommodation; and
• what administration and data errors were made which caused to him sleeping rough for three weeks.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I found fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

37. I did not investigate any complaint Mr J had about the Council’s actions since January 2020. This is because the law says 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
38. Mr J complained to us in June 2022. This would mean we usually would look at events from June 2021. I exercised discretion to investigate from January 2020. This is because of Mr J’s health, the risk of violence, and the Council’s delay offering him alternative accommodation for almost a year.
39. I did not investigate any complaint he may have had about the suitability of temporary accommodation the Council offered and arranged for him. This is because the Council accepted it owed him a full duty to house him. This means he had the right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. If he remained unhappy with the outcome of the review, he could have challenged it through the courts on a point of law. The evidence shows the Council advised him of his appeal rights when offering him accommodation.
40. There is no evidence showing it was unreasonable to expect Mr J to challenge these outcomes at court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman