Summary: there was significant fault in the Council’s decision to place Miss X and her young child in a bed and breakfast (B&B) hotel for ten weeks when she was homeless. This accommodation was unsuitable for her needs. She had already spent six weeks in a different B&B hotel at an earlier stage in the same homelessness application. There was also poor communication with Miss X about a proposed move to alternative temporary accommodation and a failure to inform her she had the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. These faults caused serious injustice to Miss X who is vulnerable because of mental health issues. She also incurred extra costs while she was living in the B&B hotel. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X is vulnerable because she has significant mental health conditions. She was homeless until February 2023.
2. She complained that the Council placed her and her young child in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for ten weeks in a West Midlands town. I shall refer to this accommodation as Hotel P in this statement.
3. She also complains that the Council failed to act on requests she and other professionals made for an urgent move to self-contained temporary accommodation in Birmingham. It failed to inform her about her right to request a review of the suitability of her accommodation at Hotel P and wrongly told her it was interim accommodation. It did not correct this error until late October 2022 so she did not know until then that she could request a suitability review.
4. Hotel P was outside the Council’s area and some distance from Miss X’s family and support network in Birmingham. She could not use the cooking facilities in the kitchen shared with other residents due to her severe anxiety condition. She incurred extra costs on takeaway food and taxi fares to visit her brother in Birmingham during her ten weeks stay. This left her short of money to meet other essential needs. Her mental health deteriorated while she was staying at the hotel and she suffered frequent panic attacks.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. The Ombudsman has previously investigated another complaint from Miss X about the way the Council considered this homelessness application and met her need for interim and temporary accommodation. That investigation considered what happened in the period up to July 2022. We upheld that complaint and completed the investigation in February 2023.
6. This investigation is about later events in the same homelessness application. It examines what happened between 31 August and 7 November 2022 when Miss X and her young child were staying at Hotel P.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
    
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. I have spoken to Miss X and considered all the evidence she sent me. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant case records.
10. I gave Miss X and the Council 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 law and guidance

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (“the Code”) set out councils’ powers and duties to assist people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The main housing duty

12. 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). This is called the main housing duty.(Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

13. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided for 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 housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Section 7.8 of the Code says councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end.
15. The Code also reminds councils they must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually, and case records should demonstrate that they have taken the statutory requirements into account in securing the accommodation.

Bed and breakfast accommodation

16. The Code of Guidance says councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24 and from 3 April 2018 17.30)
17. The law says B&B 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 longer than six weeks. The definition of B&B accommodation in force at the time of the events in this complaint was accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the Council or a registered provider of social housing and where either the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.32)
18. The law says the maximum time a council may accommodate a family in B&B is for a single period, or periods, not exceeding 6 weeks in the course of a single homelessness application.
19. The Ombudsman has published guidance on remedies for upheld complaints about unsuitable placements in B&B hotels. It says:

We are likely to recommend a weekly payment in the range of £100 to £200. This payment is additional to reimbursement of any specific quantifiable costs that the homeless household incurred.

Reviews of decisions

20. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. This includes a right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after the main housing duty has been accepted. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they accept the offer.

Background

21. Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council in August 2020 when she was six months pregnant. The Council initially accepted the relief duty and went on to accept the main housing duty in October 2020.
22. The Council placed Miss X in a bed and breakfast hotel. She stayed in that B&B for six weeks from 31 August until 7 November 2020. She then moved back to stay temporarily with her mother following the premature birth of her baby. The Council continued to owe her the main housing duty because her stay with her mother was a temporary arrangement.

Events in 2022

23. On 31 August 2022 Miss X’s mother asked Miss X and her child, who was then just under two years old, to move out. She said Miss X was invading her space and privacy. Miss X contacted the Council to request accommodation. On the same day it offered her a room in Hotel P, a bed and breakfast hotel in a West Midlands town.
24. The offer letter for Hotel P wrongly said it was offered as interim accommodation under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996. In fact, it was temporary accommodation because the Council owed Miss X the main housing duty. This error is significant because it means the letter did not inform Miss X about her right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
25. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed officers used the wrong letter template. The offer of accommodation was made under the section 193 main housing duty. In late October it sent Miss X an amended letter which explained her right to request a review.
26. The Council says if it had not made this error and had realised Miss X was owed the main housing duty and had already been in B&B for six weeks in 2020, it would have offered her self-contained temporary accommodation if it had been available.
27. I have seen no evidence that the Council completed an assessment of the suitability of Hotel P for Miss X and her child’s needs before making the offer.
28. Miss X and her child moved to Hotel P on 31 August. I have seen her photographs of the room. She had her own bathroom and toilet. The room had two single beds, two wardrobes and a cot. There was a small fridge but no cooking facilities in the room.
29. Miss X says she did not use the shared kitchen to cook meals because she has severe social anxiety. She told me 60 residents used the two communal kitchens. She tried to find quiet times to use the kitchen but with so many residents sharing the facilities this was not possible. She told me some residents had issues with drug or alcohol misuse and she felt vulnerable and unsafe using the shared facilities. So she bought food from a nearby supermarket and takeaway meals. She says her doctor increased her anti-depressant medication and prescribed sleeping tablets while she was staying in the hotel.
30. Miss X felt very isolated in Hotel P because she was not familiar with the town and it was some distance away from her support network in Birmingham. She told me she does not use public transport due to her severe social anxiety. She was not allowed to have visitors at the hotel. So she paid for a taxi to take her to Birmingham once a week to see her brother. Miss X has provided receipts for the fares.
31. Miss X said she managed to go to the supermarket near Hotel P to buy essential items. But she could not prepare and cook meals in the hotel because there were no cooking facilities in the room. Her severe anxiety stopped her from using the kitchen shared with other residents. She has provided several receipts to show what she spent on takeaway meals in this period.
32. On 15 September 2022 a support worker from a charity working with Miss X sent an email to the Temporary Accommodation team to request an urgent move for Miss X. She sent the email to a generic email address for the team. She said Miss X was extremely vulnerable in the B&B placement. She attached letters of support from Miss X’s GP and a Health Visitor from the NHS Trust’s Vulnerable Families team.
33. The GP confirmed Miss X was being treated for long-term anxiety and depression. It said her placement in the hotel was causing stress, increasing her anxiety and causing her low mood to get worse. He expressed concern about the unsuitability of the environment and the impact on her mental health. The Health Visitor’s letter expressed similar concerns about the impact of the hotel placement on Miss X’s mental health.
34. The support worker did not get a response. Miss X heard nothing about the request for a move to alternative accommodation. On 28 September she sent an email to the same email address to chase a reply. She said she was suffering from daily panic attacks and severe anxiety and was worried about the impact this was having on her mental health and the welfare of herself and her child.
35. I forwarded the support worker’s email to the Council. It could not trace the email and told me the Temporary Accommodation team had stopped using this email address on 15 May 2022. For a limited time, emails were redirected to the new mailbox for the Temporary Accommodation team. But it could not find the email Miss X’s support worker had sent in September. It does not know whether it was received. Miss X has since sent evidence that her support worker forwarded the 15 September email to a named housing officer on 4 October. She did not get a reply.
36. In response to concerns about Miss X’s welfare, two officers visited Miss X at Hotel P on 14 October. Miss X says they would not go to her room so she could not show them the conditions in which she lived. They met her in the communal dining room.
37. In response to our enquiries, one of the officers who visited Miss X said they spent more than an hour with her. She said they decided to contact a manager for advice when Miss X told them she was “mentally unstable”. They say Miss X refused their offer to call the police or an ambulance and make a referral to social services. Miss X says she did not object to them contacting these agencies. The officer called homeless hostels to check if there were any vacancies and found a room was available at a homeless families hostel in Birmingham. The officer said Miss X then became calmer and accepted this offer. Miss X says she felt she had no choice but to accept so she could move back to Birmingham.
38. On 17 October an officer called Miss X to confirm she would be offered a room in the Council run hostel for homeless families in Birmingham. It was waiting for a fridge to be delivered and said someone would call her to confirm a date for the move.
39. Miss X says the manager of the homeless families hostel called her on 18 October. According to her notes, he told her to pack all her belongings and be ready to move to the hostel on 22 October. Miss X packed everything but nobody contacted her on 22 October. She says she felt very disappointed and let down. The Council has not provided the manager’s record of this call.
40. On 31 October the manager of the hostel contacted Miss X to say further work was needed to the hostel room before she could move in.
41. Around the same time Miss X bid successfully on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme for a two bedroom social housing property in Birmingham. However the property needed work before she could move in.
42. Miss X left Hotel P on 7 November and went to stay temporarily with her mother. She said she was extremely worried about the impact on her and her son’s health if she stayed longer in the B&B hotel. She remained with her mother until early February 2023 when her tenancy of the social housing property started.

The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint and its proposed remedy

43. The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure.
44. At the final review stage, the Council accepted there had been fault and this had caused Miss X uncertainty, inconvenience and distress. It apologised for the poor communication with her in October 2022 about the planned move to the Council’s homeless hostel. It also offered to pay £1,000 for her ten week long stay in Hotel P.
45. Miss X decided not to accept this offer. She complained to us because she said the offer did not take into account the extra costs she incurred while she was in Hotel P. She also said the offer did not recognise the significant impact on her mental health.

My analysis

46. Miss X is a vulnerable woman who has serious mental health conditions. She was caring for a young child in a B&B hotel some distance away from family members and her support network in Birmingham. I found several serious faults in the way the Council handled her case:
• The Council did not complete a suitability assessment to decide what type of accommodation would be suitable for Miss X’s needs before it placed her in Hotel P on 31 August;
• The Council did not realise it had already accepted the main housing duty so it sent Miss X the wrong letter when it placed her in Hotel P – it said Hotel P was interim accommodation when in fact it was temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty;
• That error was significant because it means the Council failed to inform Miss X of her right to request a suitability of the accommodation in Hotel P;
• By the time the Council corrected this error, and notified Miss X of her review rights in late October 2022, she was about to leave Hotel P so there was no point in her requesting a suitability review then;
• Importantly Miss X had already spent six weeks in a B&B hotel with shared facilities in 2020 when she first became homeless. So she had already spent the maximum time permitted under the 2003 Order in a B&B with shared facilities while she was pregnant. It was therefore a clear breach of the Order to place her and her child in B&B accommodation again for a further ten weeks from 31 August 2022;
• The Council failed to reply to the support worker’s email when she forwarded it to a named officer to ask for Miss X to be moved to self-contained accommodation;
• As the Council has accepted, there was poor communication with Miss X about the arrangements for the proposed move to the Council’s homeless hostel in Birmingham. This caused her further avoidable distress, disappointment and uncertainty at a very difficult time in her life.
47. These faults caused serious injustice to Miss X and her child. She spent ten weeks in a small B&B room with her young child. She was placed outside Birmingham away from family members and her support network. As a vulnerable person with fragile mental health at risk of self-harm, this had a serious impact on her. She did not use public transport due to her severe anxiety so she paid for a weekly taxi to visit her brother for support.
48. She spent more on takeaway meals because she could not use the shared kitchen facilities in the hotel. I accept her account that she could not use the shared kitchen because of her severe social anxiety. She also had justified concerns that she could not provide a healthy and balanced diet for herself and her young child in the B&B. Paying for takeaway meals and taxi fares from her benefits also left her short of money to meet other essential needs, such as clothes for her child.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. In making my recommendations, I took into account that Miss X should not have been placed in the B&B hotel in August 2022 because she had already spent six weeks in another B&B hotel in 2020 in the same homelessness application.
50. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Arrange for a senior manager to apologise in writing to Miss X for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by the serious faults we have found;
• Pay Miss X £2,000 for the ten weeks she stayed in Hotel P. This is a weekly rate of £200 which is the upper end of the range for financial remedies for unsuitable B&B placements in our published Guidance on Remedies. The higher weekly figure is appropriate because there is an aggravating factor in this case: the written evidence from Miss X’s GP and Health Visitor shows she was particularly vulnerable and staying in Hotel P had a very detrimental effect on her mental health;
• Pay an additional £500 as a contribution to the extra expense of buying takeaway food. I did not recommend the Council reimburses the full cost of takeaway meals based on the receipts Miss X sent because she would have had to spend some money on food;
• We do not usually recommend reimbursement of taxi fares because we generally expect people to use public transport. But the circumstances in this case were exceptional: Miss X could not use public transport due to her documented severe anxiety condition. She was not allowed visitors at Hotel P so her brother could not visit her. And, in view of her fragile mental health and social isolation, it is reasonable for her to have travelled to Birmingham once a week to get support from her brother. The Council has agreed to pay an additional £168.36 for the taxi fares Miss X incurred travelling between Hotel P and her brother’s home in Birmingham in this period. This is based on the total value of the receipts Miss X sent us;

This brings the total financial remedy to £2,668.36.

51. The Council has also agreed to complete the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will use this complaint as a case study in a written briefing to officers to remind them:
1. to complete a suitability assessment for every applicant before they make an offer of accommodation;
2. to check which housing duty is owed before making an offer of accommodation to ensure applicants receive the correct letter and are informed of their right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation where appropriate;
3. to communicate clearly and keep applicants informed if there are any unforeseen delays in arranging a planned move to alternative temporary accommodation.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused significant injustice to Miss X and her child.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman