Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Miss X’s homelessness application and met her need for interim accommodation. There was further fault in the way it responded when she reported she had been assaulted at her temporary accommodation by neighbours. It also failed to liaise with a Housing Association that was managing works at a private leased property allocated to Miss X. These faults caused Miss X and her children significant distress and hardship. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable financial remedy for Miss X and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council did not provide adequate support to her and her children when she was homeless and approached the Council for housing assistance.
2. In particular she says the Council:
• did not give her and her children adequate support when she requested assistance in March 2022. She slept in her car for a time and lived separately from her children who went to stay with a friend;
• was slow to respond when Miss X informed her caseworker in April 2022 that her children had slept overnight in her car and the caseworker did not make a promised referral to Children’s Services;
• placed them in unsuitable interim accommodation in May 2022 which was too far from her children’s school and her workplace. One of her children has a disability but the Council did not take account of evidence she provided about her child’s need to continue attending the primary school where she received specialist support;
• did not respond properly to her reports about delays in getting repairs done in this accommodation and incidents when she was threatened and physically assaulted by neighbours in the building;
• allocated alternative accommodation in September 2022 but she had to wait three months before she could move in. During this time the Council did not communicate with her, or explain the reasons for the delay, although she reported she had been assaulted by her neighbours in this period.
3. Miss X says she had to reduce her working hours, and give up work for a period, because it took so long to drive her children to school and then travel on to her place of work. The children were tired by the long journey and found it hard to concentrate at school and do homework. Miss X incurred extra fuel costs in driving between the temporary accommodation, the children’s school and her workplace.
4. Miss X says she and her children did not feel safe in the accommodation after a neighbour assaulted her in the building. She and her children lived apart until they moved to their current accommodation in early December 2022. Miss X feels the Council let her family down by failing to support them at a very difficult time in their lives. This had a significant impact on their family life and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have spoken to Miss X and considered all the evidence she sent me. I considered the Council’s written response to my enquiries and the relevant housing records.
8. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant legal duties

Interim accommodation

9. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation but councils are encouraged to carry out a non-statutory review.

The relief duty

11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that where the council is satisfied that 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 that 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.

The main housing duty

13. 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). But 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)

Suitability of accommodation

14. 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 homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
16. A council may decide accommodation is suitable for the applicant in the short term but not in the long term.

The Council’s temporary accommodation placement policy

17. The policy highlights the shortage of affordable local temporary accommodation. It sets out the criteria officers should apply to decide which applicants are given priority for offers of accommodation within, or close to, the borough.
18. It says the Council will try to place all households within, or as close as possible, to borough of Bromley. It will assess the needs of the applicant and household members and says:

“The Council will have due regard to the principal needs of any children in the household, and the need to safeguard and promote the children’s welfare. In particular, regard will be had to any disruption to schools, medical care, social work, other key services and other support.”

19. Households which meet one or more of the criteria below are given priority for accommodation within the borough of Bromley:
• those who are being treated for a physical or mental health condition by a specialist hospital unit which cannot be transferred to another NHS service or where they are at a critical point in their treatment;
• children subject to a Child Protection Plan in Bromley which cannot be transferred to another council without causing serious detriment to the child’s welfare;
• children with a Statement of Special Educational Needs (now replaced by an Education, Care and Health Plan or EHCP) in the London Borough of Bromley which cannot be transferred to another council without causing serious detriment to the child’s welfare;
• applicants who have a longstanding arrangement to provide essential care to another resident in the borough of Bromley who is not a member of the household;
• other circumstances which demonstrate an exceptional need which cannot be met outside the London Borough of Bromley.
20. The policy sets out the following criteria for priority for accommodation close to the borough of Bromley:
• those who are continuously employed within the London Borough of Bromley for 16 hours or more per week in a role which cannot be transferred to another area. Wherever practicable the Local Authority will seek to place such households within 90 minutes travelling distance by public transport from their place of employment in line with guidelines published by the Department for Work and Pensions on reasonable travelling times for employment;
• women on maternity leave who meet the above criteria will also be prioritised for placements close to the London Borough of Bromley. Wherever practicable the Local Authority will seek to place such households within 90 minutes travelling distance by public transport from their place of employment;
• children enrolled in GCSE, AS, or A level courses in the London Borough of Bromley who are due to take public exams in the current or next academic year. Wherever practicable the Local Authority will seek to place such households within 75 minutes journey time to and from school using public transport. This is in line with timescales recommended by the Department for Education for children of secondary school age;
• other exceptional circumstances, where applicants can show an exceptional need to be housed close to the London Borough of Bromley.

The Human Rights Act

21. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. Relevant to this investigation is the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life. The Act requires all councils - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
22. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether or not a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

What happened

23. Following the breakdown of a relationship, Miss X approached Bromley Council for assistance when she was threatened with homelessness. She and her three young children had been living with her former partner in his private rented home outside London. She applied to Bromley Council because her children attended a primary school in the borough and she worked in a neighbouring borough. She had also lived in borough in the recent past.

Miss X becomes homeless – April 2022

24. On 10 and 11 April 2022 Miss X sent emails to the housing service to tell them she was homeless and sleeping in her car.
25. On 12 April Miss X sent another email stating that her children were sleeping in the car with her.
26. Miss X told me her children had slept in the car for one night in April when her son became very upset and did not want to be separated from her.
27. The Council did not reply to these emails and it did not arrange interim accommodation for the family. It has accepted this was fault.

Offer of emergency accommodation by the Out of Hours team

28. On 14 April Miss X contacted the Council’s Out of Hours service to say she had been homeless for the past four days. The duty officer offered Miss X emergency accommodation in a family room for the weekend until the Council could arrange other interim accommodation. Miss X called back later that day to say she would not take up this offer and would make her own arrangements. The duty officer asked the Temporary Accommodation to offer Miss X interim accommodation from 19 April.

Initial housing assessment and acceptance of the relief duty

29. On 20 April a case officer in the Housing Options service did a telephone interview with Miss X and completed a housing assessment. She contacted Miss X the next day to request some documents and sent her the housing assessment and a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP).
30. The assessment recorded that Miss X had become homeless due to a relationship breakdown. The housing needs section says Miss X would benefit from a three bedroom property. It noted Miss X’s wish to live in the borough of Bromley but did not record this as a housing need. The assessment did not state the location of Miss X’s workplace or her children’s school or mention her daughter’s disability.
31. The PHP said one of the agreed steps Miss X would take was:

“I understand that any accommodation offered by this council may not be located within the borough of Bromley”.

32. Miss X signed and returned the PHP. Miss X was referred to the Council’s Private Rented Sector team for assistance in finding private rented accommodation.
33. The Council sent Miss X a factsheet about Temporary Accommodation. It said 89% of emergency placements made in a six month period in 2016 were outside the borough (in Essex, North London and the Medway area). It said the Council had a one offer policy and expected the applicant to accept the property offered. The factsheet included a link to the Temporary Accommodation placement policy. It said the Council would take into account the applicant’s employment and the children’s education when making placements but the applicant may need to consider moving children to new schools.
34. On 21 April 2022 the Council sent Miss X a letter to say it owed her the relief duty because she was homeless and eligible for assistance. It decided she had a local connection to Bromley. It said it would provide her with “temporary” accommodation from that day because it had reason to believe she was homeless and in priority need.

The first offer of interim accommodation – April 2022

35. On 22 April the Council apologised to Miss X for not finding interim accommodation sooner. The case officer said she knew Miss X’s children attended a school in the borough and they would take this into account. However due to the lack of suitable properties, it may not be possible to find a property close to the school. Later on the same day it offered her a three bedroom flat in a North London borough.
36. There is nothing in the records to indicate that officers had considered whether the location of this property was suitable for Miss X and her family before making the offer. The suitability checklist for offers of accommodation under the interim accommodation and temporary accommodation duties was not completed until 13 May 2022 (paragraph 45 below). The housing assessment did not include any details of the location of the children’s school or Miss X’s workplace.
37. On 23 April Miss X contacted the Council to say the North London property was not feasible because it would be too difficult to take the children to school in Bromley and travel to work.
38. On 27 April an allocations officer, who places homeless households in temporary accommodation, told Miss X she would look for another property.
39. In late April Miss X was considered for a private rented property in a south London borough but this fell through when the landlord withdrew the property.
40. The Council says Miss X did not refuse the offer of the North London property. She did not sign and return the accommodation agreement and the housing provider later confirmed she had not moved in. The Council cancelled the booking in early May. It did not end the interim accommodation duty.

The second offer of interim accommodation – May 2022

41. On 8 May Miss X informed the Council by email that she was still homeless and sofa-surfing. She said her children could not stay with her.
42. Miss X visited the Council’s office on 9 May but nobody from the Housing Options service was available to speak to her. She also tried to make contact by telephone and sent further emails.
43. On 12 May Miss X told the Council she was still homeless and sleeping in her car. She said she had lost her job and was worried her children may be taken into care.
44. On 13 May the caseworker told Miss X she was concerned to hear Miss X’s children were sleeping in her car (this seems to be a reference to the email Miss X sent on 12 April) She said she would need to make a referral to Social Services to see if they could offer Miss X support in these circumstances. Miss X replied on the same day to say the children had spent one night in the car and had been staying with their father or her friend the rest of the time. She said she would welcome a referral and further support.
45. On the same day the Council offered Miss X interim accommodation in a town in Kent. It was a three bedroom house secured on a nightly let basis. Miss X had sent the case officer an email saying she may struggle to get the children to school but the area was fine. She accepted the property so she could be reunited with her children.
46. The Council sent me a table which lists all the temporary accommodation properties that were available on 13 May. There are 40 housing providers on the list: only five self-contained properties were available on that day. None were in the borough of Bromley. There was one other three bedroom property located in East London. The other four properties had one or two bedrooms so they were too small for Miss X’s family.
47. The allocations officer had completed a suitability of accommodation form on the day Miss X was offered the interim accommodation in Kent. She noted the location of the children’s primary school (in Bromley) and Miss X’s place of work (in another South London borough). She recorded that one of Miss X’s children had special educational needs and Miss X took the children to school by car. She said the driving time from the accommodation in Kent to the children’s school was approximately 45 minutes. She said the travelling time to Miss X’s workplace was approximately 50 minutes to one hour. It appears the journey time was calculated on the basis that Miss X would drive to work after dropping her children off at school.
48. The allocations officer said the travelling time to the children’s school presented “minor difficulties” but the accommodation was suitable as a short term placement. She said the journey to work presented “moderate difficulties” but the property was still suitable in the short term. She placed Miss X on the transfer list for a move to a more suitably located property when one became available.
49. On 17 May Miss X sent an email raising concerns about the location of the property. She also sent a letter from the Council team which supports her disabled child which said it was not in her interests to change schools because she received specialist support in her current primary school and was settled there.
50. Miss X could not request a statutory review of the suitability of the accommodation because it was provided under the interim accommodation duty. However a senior manager agreed to consider her representations as a non-statutory review.
51. On 18 May the senior manager informed Miss X of his decision. He said he was satisfied the accommodation in Kent was suitable for her needs for the time being. He commented:
• The car journey from the temporary accommodation to Miss X’s workplace would take approximately 35 minutes;
• The car journey from the property to her children’s school would take about 45 minutes and the drive from the school to Miss X’s workplace would take a further 45 minutes giving a total journey time of about 90 minutes;
• These journey times were within reasonable limits;
• Miss X could move her children to a school closer to the accommodation in Kent (it did not refer to the letter supporting the need for Miss X’s disabled child to remain in her current school);
• There was a named school in Kent near the accommodation which specialises in working with children with disabilities, including visual impairments;
• Miss X could ask her employer to transfer her to a named workplace closer to the temporary accommodation.  
52. On 20 May Miss X made further representations. She sent evidence of the journey time from the children’s school to the accommodation which showed it varied and could take just over an hour.
53. It seems the Council did not respond to this further information.
54. The Council has sent a copy of its “move-on tracker” for applicants in temporary accommodation. This shows it reviewed Miss X’s case in early July and again in early August 2022 but no suitable properties were available.
55. The Council accepts the location of the Kent property was not ideal for Miss X. However, it says that in common with other London councils, it faces challenges in procuring a supply of nightly let temporary accommodation. Many owners have withdrawn their properties from the market and the few that are available are usually some distance from Bromley. Many are in Essex or East London. The Council also uses these properties to accommodate newly homeless households which leaves few for households on the temporary accommodation transfer list. The Council has started to build new Council homes and has set up purchasing and leasing schemes to try to increase the supply.
56. Miss X returned to work on a part-time contract in late June 2022.

The Council accepts the main housing duty and offers temporary accommodation – August to September 2022

57. On 1 August 2022 the Council wrote to inform Miss X that the relief duty had ended. It now owed her the full housing duty because it had decided she was homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. The letter explained the circumstances in which the full housing duty may end and said she would get one offer of suitable accommodation.
58. The final paragraphs in the letter explained Miss X’s right to request a statutory review of certain decisions, including the decision to end the relief duty and accept the main housing duty. But it did not explain her right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation now that it had accepted the main housing duty.
59. In response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged the information about review rights was incomplete. It said it will revise the wording to ensure the letter includes information about the right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
60. On 7 September the Council made Miss X a Private Rented Sector Offer (PRSO) of a three bedroom house in an area close to the children’s school. This property was leased from a private landlord on a two year fixed term tenancy and managed by a Housing Association. However the Housing Association needed to carry out works before the house could be occupied. Miss X accepted the offer and remained in the temporary accommodation in Kent while she waited for works to be completed.

Miss X reports she has been physically assaulted at the temporary accommodation by neighbours

61. Miss X says neighbours in the same building verbally abused and assaulted her after she complained about a young adult in the family taking drugs in the entrance and common parts of the building.
62. On 24 August Miss X informed several Council officers by email that a neighbour had threatened to kill her when she complained that her son was using drugs in the entrance to the building. Miss X said one of her children had witnessed this. On 24 August and 2 September an officer in the Council’s complaints team asked the Housing allocations team to investigate this to establish if Miss X was at risk.
63. On 6 September Miss X’s case officer contacted Miss X. She said she did not consider it necessary to move Miss X to alternative accommodation. She said she would reconsider this if the police, or another professional, confirmed she was at high risk.
64. Miss X says she was verbally abused and physically assaulted by a female neighbour and two young adults on 9 September. This happened in the common parts of the block. Miss X called 999 and made a statement to the police. She was treated in hospital for her injuries.
65. Miss X reported the assault to the Council on 11 September. She said it was not safe for her and children to be in the property. She asked someone to contact her urgently.

66. There is nothing in the case records to show that the Council investigated or responded to the report Miss X made then. In late October the Council sent its final response to Miss X’s complaint. The investigating officer expressed sympathy for her situation but said the Council had no control over her neighbours and advised her to liaise with the police about the reported assault.

67. On 17 November Miss X informed an officer in the Council’s Visiting team that her neighbour had assaulted her again. She sent a separate email the following day to the housing service. She gave the name of the police officer investigating the incident and the crime reference number. She said the police had advised her not to return to the property so she was sleeping on a friend’s sofa. She said the police intended to provide a report which she would forward to the Council.
68. The Council says the police did not contact them about moving Miss X and her family. I found no evidence of any contact from the police in the Council’s records.
69. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it accepts it has a duty to ensure temporary accommodation is suitable and the applicant can live there safely;
• however any criminal matter is primarily an issue for the police to investigate;
• the police did not contact the Council about these incidents, raise concerns about Miss X’s safety or recommend a move;
• the wording in a text message Miss X sent to the housing provider suggests this may have been a two-way neighbour dispute (Miss X says the Council’s interpretation is wrong and says she did nothing to provoke her neighbours);
• Miss X did not provide any supporting evidence from the police;
• the Council has no evidence that the police took any further action and there was no solid evidence of an ongoing risk to Miss X.
70. After the second assault in November, Miss X told me she felt unsafe in the property so she sofa-surfed with a friend and her children went to stay elsewhere. They lived apart until they moved to the PRSO property in early December. Miss X said her young children had witnessed violence and drug use at the temporary accommodation. She decided to send them to stay with a friend because she did not consider it was a safe or suitable environment for them.

Miss X moves to a PRSO property

71. Miss X contacted the housing service in late October to ask when the property allocated in September would be ready. She was advised to contact the Housing Association herself.
72. On the same day Miss X contacted the Council’s complaints team to complain about the lack of communication and updates about the allocated property. An officer said she would ask managers to chase up the Housing Association which managed the property.
73. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the failure to communicate with Miss X was due to the team’s heavy workload.
74. Miss X and her children moved to the new property on 6 December, three months after it was allocated to her.

My analysis - fault

75. The Council’s failure to offer Miss X interim accommodation between 10 and 14 April when she was homeless and sleeping in her car, and her children were staying elsewhere, was fault. If the Council had offered her interim accommodation on 10 April, we cannot say where it would have been and whether she would have accepted it. But she was not given this opportunity and understandably she felt ignored and let down at a time of crisis. The failure to provide interim accommodation means the Council did not give proper consideration to the impact on the family in terms of their Article 8 right to a family life.
76. Miss X decided not to take up the emergency accommodation offered by the Out of Hours service on 14 April and made her own arrangements instead. That was her choice and I do not find fault because the Council met its duty then.
77. The Council has a legal duty to ensure all accommodation offered to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the household. This applies equally to interim and temporary accommodation. I have seen no evidence that the Council completed a suitability assessment before it offered Miss X the interim accommodation in North London on 22 April. It did not record the family’s needs and complete a suitability assessment form until 13 May when it made the second offer of interim accommodation.
78. As there is no record of a suitability assessment in April, we cannot say that the Council properly considered whether the North London property was suitable for Miss X and her children. There is no evidence that officers had calculated the journey time to Miss X’s workplace or her children’s school and decided if it was reasonable. The failure to carry out a suitability assessment and record that decision is fault.
79. The Council did not end the interim accommodation duty when it learned Miss X had not moved into the North London property. In these circumstances, it had a continuing duty to provide Miss X and her children with suitable interim accommodation. Indeed the case officer told Miss X on 27 April she would look for another property. But the Council did not make the next offer until 13 May. I recognise the issues caused by the lack of supply of properties but the delay in making another offer was fault. This had a significant impact on Miss X and her children who continued to live apart for another month. Miss X says she was sleeping in her car or sofa-surfing with friends while her children stayed with a friend or their father. The failure to provide accommodation resulting in the separation of the family was a serious injustice.
80. The Council had a duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of Miss X’s children. The case officer did not respond promptly when Miss X reported they had all slept in her car in mid-April. That was fault. She appears not to have picked this up until mid-May. She did not promise to make a referral to Children’s Services then but said she may need to consider this option. Miss X said she would welcome this intervention. However on the day the case officer responded, Miss X was offered the Kent accommodation which removed the risk.
81. The Council completed a suitability assessment on the day it offered Miss X the Kent property in May 2022. It considered the location of the property in relation to the children’s school and Miss X’s workplace. It noted the needs of Miss X’s disabled child. It calculated the approximate journey time from the temporary accommodation to the school and Miss X’s workplace. It recognised this would present some problems for Miss X but nonetheless considered the property was suitable in the short term.
82. The records show no properties were available in the borough on the day of the placement. The Kent property was the only three bedroom property apart from one in East London. The decision to place Miss X out of the borough was made in line with the criteria in the Council’s temporary accommodation placement policy. The Council put Miss X on the transfer list for a move to alternative accommodation. It also carried out a non-statutory review when Miss X challenged the suitability of the location Taking all this into account, I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council made the decision to offer Miss X the Kent property in May. Miss X had also said she would accept this offer.
83. There was delay in making the decision to accept the main housing duty. The relief duty was due to end on 16 June. But the Council did not notify Miss X the duty had ended and it owed her the main housing duty until 1 August. As far as I can see from the records, the Council did not make any further inquiries in this period so there was no good reason for the delay. That was fault. The Code of Guidance recommends the decision is made on day 57 unless further inquiries are required. The delay left Miss X in a state of uncertainty and the Council did not look for a PRSO property until it accepted the main housing duty.
84. The Council did not inform Miss X about her right to request a section 202 review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation in the letter of 1 August 2022. She did not know she could have requested a statutory review at this stage. The failure to fully inform Miss X of her review rights is fault. We cannot say what the outcome would have been if Miss X had been informed and requested a statutory review. The Council may have made the same decision on suitability as it made in May 2022 when it did the non-statutory review. However there is an important difference. Miss X would have had the right of appeal on a point of law to the County Court if she wished to challenge the statutory review decision.
85. I am likely to find fault with the Council’s apparent failure to act when Miss X reported she had been injured and assaulted twice by neighbours at the temporary accommodation. The Council correctly said the police are responsible for investigating alleged crimes. However the Council also had a duty to assess whether it was safe for Miss X and her children to remain in the temporary accommodation. From the evidence I have seen, it appears not to have done that. Instead it relied on the police to make contact or on Miss X to send supporting evidence. It should have made its own enquiries to assess if she and her children were at risk and not put the burden on her. It should have requested evidence from the police, particularly as Miss X had given details and dates of the incidents and a crime reference.
86. I am likely to find the Council did not give sufficient consideration to its duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of Miss X’s children who she says witnessed at least one assault. Miss X was sufficiently concerned about the impact on her children’s welfare after the second assault that she sent them to live elsewhere. This caused significant distress and further disruption to their family life because they lived apart until the PRSO property was ready in early December.
87. The Council did not liaise with the Housing Association until late November 2022 to find out when works would be completed at the PRSO property. In view of the serious incidents Miss X reported between August and November 2022, and the Council’s knowledge of the difficult journey to school and work, it should have done more to see whether the works could be completed faster. The failure to do that was fault.

Injustice and remedy

88. Miss X’s family lived apart for a prolonged period due to the Council’s fault. This had a significant impact on Miss X and her young children. One of the children has a disability and special educational needs which is an aggravating factor. It was distressing for the children to be separated from their mother and for them to know she was sleeping in her car for a month. Naturally they worried about her. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to recommend a remedy which recognises the impact on both Miss X and her children. I recommend £350 for the hardship caused to Miss X while she was sleeping in her car between April and May 2022 and an additional £350 for the benefit of the children to recognise the impact this had on them.
89. The Council should have accepted the main housing duty in June 2022 but did not do so until August 2022. Once it accepted the main housing duty it offered Miss X a PRSO property within one month. So Miss X must live with the uncertainty of not knowing whether, if there had been no delay, she would have moved sooner. That uncertainty is an injustice. The failure to inform her of her review rights when the Council accepted the main housing duty is a further injustice. I recommend a payment of £300 for this.
90. The assault by the neighbours in September 2022 was serious enough for Miss X to need medical treatment. She reported this incident to the Council very promptly. Its failure to properly consider whether the property was suitable for her after this incident left her at avoidable risk of harm. She was then assaulted again. The Council is not responsible for the actions of the neighbour, but it had a duty to ensure the property was suitable and to safeguard the children. It should have made enquiries of the police and satisfied itself it was meeting its duty. The failure to take appropriate action in response to the first reported assault left Miss X at avoidable risk of harm.
91. She also suffered significant distress and worry about the impact on her children who had witnessed the assault. That is also a significant injustice. Due to Miss X’s legitimate concerns about their safety in the Kent property after the assault, the family lived apart again for some months. I recommend a payment of £750 to recognise the significant distress and risk of harm arising from the failure to properly investigate these incidents and decide whether it was safe for Miss X and her family to remain in the property.
92. There was also poor communication with Miss X and a failure to chase up the Housing Association about the progress of works at the PRSO property. This added to Miss X’s distress and frustration at an already difficult time in her life. I recommend a payment of £200 for this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

93. Within one month the Council will:
• Apologise in writing to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this statement;
• Pay £1,950 to recognise the distress, hardship and avoidable risk of harm to Miss X and her children;
• Revise the wording in the template letter accepting the main housing duty to inform homeless applicants of their right to request a statutory review of the suitability of temporary accommodation;

Within two months the Council will:

• Review its guidance to officers about when to make further enquiries and, where appropriate, request evidence from the police when a household in temporary accommodation has reported a serious threat or assault;
• Review guidance to officers about the circumstances when it is appropriate to make a safeguarding referral to Children’s Services;
• Arrange a briefing with all relevant officers to make them aware of the reviewed guidance and good practice.
4. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

95. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Miss X and her children.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman