Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homeless application. We found there were failings in the process including that Ms X and her family had to live in hotels for three weeks longer than the law allows. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her homeless application after her landlord made her homeless. In particular, she says:
• The Council advised her to vacate her property on 21 March and present herself at its offices and it would provide her with accommodation. But, when she did so, officers refused to help her and repeatedly told her to leave the building;
• the Council repeatedly lost her children’s details and asked her to provide the same information several times;
• the Council placed her and her young children in emergency hotel accommodation for nine weeks. They frequently had to move between hotels, often staying only one or two nights. They had no kitchen facilities and had to share bathroom facilities, and many of the hotels had no working heating. They were also placed in hotel accommodation outside the city away from their support network even though alternative hotel accommodation was available in the city;
• officers withheld hotel booking information to force her into completing forms immediately or attending appointments when she or her children were ill;
• homelessness officers acted inappropriately by making a referral to Children’s Social Services when she said she was being put at risk by having to travel out of town for accommodation;
• the homelessness team delayed in forwarding her housing register application to HomeLink; and
• HomeLink have failed to respond to her housing register application.
2. Ms X says she and her children suffered distress and inconvenience because of these failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about events which took place between February 2022 and March 2023 when she complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information provided by Ms X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
7. I considered the Housing Act, and the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
8. I also considered the Ombudsman’s focus report, “Still no place like home? Councils’ continuing use of unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for families” and our guidance on remedies.
9. Ms X and the Council 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

10. 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.
11. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:

• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need; and
• not intentionally homeless.

12. 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.
13. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. Councils should only use this as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. Councils can only use B&B accommodation for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. 
14. The law defines B&B accommodation as accommodation which is not separate and self-contained, not owned by the Council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. There is no requirement for breakfast to be provided.
15. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so.
16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty.
17. HomeLink is a partnership between the Council and several registered housing providers (housing associations). HomeLink acts on behalf of the Council in administering its housing allocations scheme.

Key facts

18. Ms X and her three young children were living in private rented accommodation. On 20 January 2022 Ms X submitted a housing register application to HomeLink.
19. On 18 February 2022 Ms X contacted the Council asking for help because her landlord had served her with a notice requiring possession of her property (a S21 notice) which was due to expire on 21 March 2022.
20. The same day the case was allocated to an officer in the Council’s homelessness team (‘Officer A’) to check the validity of the section 21 notice, obtain documents and complete prevention work. Officer A attempted to contact Ms X to complete an assessment but was unable to do so.
21. On 21 February 2022 Officer A telephoned Ms X and began an assessment but this could not be completed because Ms X had to look after her children. An appointment was booked to continue the assessment the following day at 2 pm.
22. On 22 February Officer A telephoned Ms X three times but was unable to contact her.
23. On 28 February Officer A contacted Ms X to see if she still needed support. Ms X requested an office appointment rather than a telephone appointment. This was booked for 3 March 2022.
24. On 3 March Officer A completed an assessment and accepted a prevention duty to her. It drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Ms X.
25. On 10 March Officer A contacted Ms X chasing up the documents and S21 notice requested at the meeting on 3 March.
26. On 18 March the team manager contacted Ms X again requesting the documents. The Council says the team manager advised Ms X not to leave her accommodation on 21 March and attend the Council’s offices for temporary accommodation on 22 March. Ms X says the officer advised her to leave on 21 March and then attend its offices.
27. The same day the Council telephoned the landlord’s agent to attempt to prevent Ms X’s homelessness, but this was unsuccessful.
28. On 21 March Ms X vacated the property, put all her belongings in storage and handed in the keys to the landlord’s agent. She says she arrived at the Council’s offices at 4.30 pm with her children and an officer told her to come back the following day. Ms X says she explained she had handed the keys in and had nowhere to go. The officer gave her a telephone number for a rough sleepers’ charity and the security guard told her to leave the building. Ms X says she telephoned the charity which advised her the Council had a duty to provide her with accommodation so she should return to its offices. Ms X says she did this three times and each time the security guard told her to leave. Eventually, an officer agreed to help but told her to leave the building and someone would call her later. She went to a friend’s property. An officer telephoned her at 7.30 pm saying the s21 notice did not expire until the following day so she had a legal right to occupy the property and should return there. The officer told her to get the keys back from the letting agent. Ms X explained she could not do that because the office was now closed.
29. At 10 pm Ms X returned to the Council’s offices. An officer took an out of hours telephone call from her. Ms X said she was in her car with her children and had no accommodation available. Ms X says the officer called her back after 11 pm with details of a hotel booking.
30. Ms X says she had to go down a dark alley to access the hotel room. The door was broken and there was a strong smell of drugs. She felt extremely unsafe and decided to sleep in her car. The following day she telephoned the Council. The officer advised her that the Council might discharge its duty to her if she did not stay in the accommodation provided.
31. Following this the Council secured hotel accommodation for the family. But this was only for one or two nights at a time and the family had to frequently move between hotels.
32. On 22 March HomeLink wrote to Ms X saying it could not accept her recent housing application because she was classed as an adequately housed private sector tenant living in a self-contained property that was sufficient for her needs in terms of size and facilities. The letter explained that, if Ms X had been served with a section 21 notice or had nowhere to live, she should contact the homelessness team.
33. On 4 April a temporary accommodation officer (‘TA Officer’) requested documents from Ms X including birth certificates for her children and proof of income. Ms X said she had provided the documents when she initially approached the Council. The officer asked her to send the documents. Ms X did so and the Council was satisfied she was eligible for assistance.
34. On 8 April Ms X contacted the TA Officer in an emotional state saying she was struggling in hotels and had contacted children’s social care to remove her children.
35. On 11 April Ms X failed to attend an accommodation finding workshop with the private rented sector team.
36. On 13 April the Council offered Ms X accommodation in a hotel outside the city over the weekend because no accommodation was available in the city. Ms X sent an email to the Council saying she was unable to be placed outside the city. She said she was struggling with staying in hotels. Her son had got locked in the bathroom at a hotel because the lock was broken and was so distressed that he pushed paper up his nose and had to be taken to A&E. The TA Officer explored whether Ms X was able to stay with any family members.
37. On 14 April Ms X made a complaint to the Council.
38. On 19 April Ms X attended an accommodation finding workshop.
39. On 22 April the TA officer tried to arrange interim accommodation for Ms X for the weekend. She telephoned Ms X but there was no response so she sent her an email. Ms X replied saying she would not go out of the city. She said her mental health was being severely affected by moving around so much, especially being out of the city at weekends. She had support from a volunteer and daily support from friends which she was unable to access when out of the city. She said she was unable to sleep because of anxiety and her body hurt from carrying her children and luggage around so often. There was also no fridge in most of the hotel rooms. The TA Officer explained there was no availability in the city on Friday and Saturday, but she would find accommodation out of the city and ensure Ms X had train tickets and could return to the same hotel she was leaving on Friday morning on Sunday evening. Ms X said they would sleep in her car until Sunday.
40. The TA officer contacted children’s social services to raising concerns that Ms X planned to sleep in the car with her children in her car over the weekend. Social services advised that Ms X was able to make this choice.
41. On 28 April Ms X again told the Council she could not manage weekends out of the city with no support. She said the only option she had left was to stay with her children’s father who had been abusive towards her.
42. On 4 May the Council accepted a relief duty to Ms X.
43. On 9 May Ms X submitted a further complaint.
44. On 12 May Ms X sent an email to the TA Officer saying, “I’m really struggling with moving around every 1/2/3 days”. She said her mental health was suffering. She was trying to find private rented houses but there was nothing suitable within her budget. She said she was desperate for interim accommodation that would give the family a little stability.
45. On 13 May Ms X’s local councillor contacted the homelessness team on her behalf. The team manager responded explaining there was a lack of availability in hotels at weekends.
46. On 17 May the homelessness team sent a copy of Ms X’s PHP to HomeLink requesting reasonable preference for the family as a homeless household.
47. On Thursday 19 May Ms X contacted the Council saying she had been experiencing harassment from a former partner and was going to stay with a friend outside the area until Sunday.
48. The following Monday the Council made a referral to self-contained temporary accommodation which was a family house in the community. It also assigned a support worker to Ms X.
49. The same day the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage 1. Ms X attended another accommodation finding workshop. The Council suggested two properties but Ms X considered both of these to be too far away from support.
50. On 24 May Ms X moved into the self-contained temporary accommodation.
51. On 13 September the Council wrote to Ms X notifying her that the relief duty had ended because a period of 56 days had elapsed. It also said it accepted the main housing duty to her and it would be in contact once it had matched her to a suitable offer of accommodation. The Council also informed Ms X of her right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to her.
52. In November Ms X raised concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation because of mould and damp. Shortly afterwards the Council offered to move her to alternative temporary accommodation but she declined saying the property was in a risk area. She provided a list of locations across the city where she was at risk from her former partner’s family.
53. The mould issues were resolved, and on 30 November the Council sent Ms X a temporary accommodation offer letter.
54. On 8 March 2023 the Council made Ms X a final offer of accommodation. She refused the offer stating that she was at risk in that area.
55. On 28 March Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
56. On 26 May HomeLink wrote to Ms X confirming her application had been registered and she had been placed in Band B as a homeless household.

Analysis

The Council’s response to Ms X’s homelessness application

57. I find the Council acted appropriately when Ms X first presented as homeless in February 2022. It completed an assessment and accepted a prevention duty to her. It attempted to prevent her from becoming homeless by contacting her landlord’s agent, but this was unsuccessful.
58. However, I find the Council was at fault in the way it handled the situation when Ms X presented at its offices on 21 March.
59. Ms X says the Council told her to hand in the keys to her property on 21 March then go to its offices and it would provide interim accommodation or a hotel for one night if it had no other accommodation available. But, when she arrived at its offices on the afternoon of 21 March, officers refused to help her.
60. The Council says Ms X was specifically told not to vacate the property on 21 March but to remain there and present at the Council’s offices the following day. It says the notice clearly stated that it would expire after 21 March.
61. There is a clear difference between Ms X’s version and that of the Council. In the absence of any written evidence, I cannot reach a safe conclusion about what advice Ms X was given about when to vacate the property. The Council says the notice expired at midnight on 21 March, so there may have been some confusion on Ms X’s part as to when she was supposed to leave.
62. Despite this confusion, I find the Council should have looked for interim accommodation for Ms X when she first arrived at its offices as it was clear that she would not be able to get the keys back. Ms X and her children should not have had to return several times to request help and wait several hours for accommodation, ultimately having to go to a hotel at 11 pm. This was extremely distressing for the family at what was already a difficult and stressful time.

Relief duty

63. The Council accepted a relief duty on 4 May 2022. This should have expired after 56 days (on 29 June). However, the Council did not end the relief duty or notify Ms X that it had accepted a main duty to her until 13 September. This was significantly outside the 56 day timescale and was fault.
64. The Council says the relief period was extended beyond the 56 day period while it actively engaged Ms X in accommodation finding workshops and supported her with trying to look for alternative accommodation. It says the delay in accepting the main duty to her had no bearing on her accommodation situation or the permanent rehousing of the household.
65. There is no power to continue the relief duty in such circumstances. A council can only extend the relief duty if it needs more information to make a main duty decision. That was not the case here. Extending the relief duty caused Ms X uncertainty and she was unable to request a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation until the Council accepted a main duty to her.
66. The Council referred Ms X for self-contained temporary accommodation supported by a TA officer on 23 May 2022. It says there were many households waiting to access this type of accommodation who were staying in hotel-type temporary accommodation, including many households who had been waiting longer than Ms X. It says no suitable property was available for Ms X’s household and, when a suitable property became available, it prioritised her over applicants who had been waiting longer because of concerns that had been raised, including Ms X reporting harassment by her former partner and mental health issues.
67. The Council has provided evidence that other families had been waiting longer than Ms X for such accommodation. I therefore find the Council could not have placed her in supported accommodation any sooner than it did. It acted appropriately by prioritising Ms X and her family.

PHP

68. The Council is under a duty to review the PHP with every change in duty as a minimum. So, it should have reviewed Ms X’s PHP on 4 May when it accepted a relief duty and again when it accepted the main duty. I have seen no evidence that it did so. This was fault.
69. The Council arranged a telephone review for 30 May 2022 but says Ms X did not attend. Clearly, this was not the Council’s fault. But this does not alter the fact that it should also have reviewed the PHP when it accepted the relief duty and the main duty. I do not, however, consider it appropriate to recommend a remedy for any injustice caused by this given that Ms X did not attend the review arranged for 30 May 2022.

Interim accommodation

70. Ms X was placed in hotel accommodation for nine weeks, which is three weeks longer than the law allows. So, this was fault.
71. This caused Ms X and her children significant injustice. They frequently had to move between hotels, often staying only one or two nights, and were placed in a hotel accommodation outside the city at weekends, away from their support network. Ms X says the hotels had no kitchen facilities or fridge and many of them had no working heating. The family also had to share bathroom facilities. In one hotel, there was a faulty lock on the bathroom door as a result of which Ms X’s son got locked in and was so distressed that he put toilet paper up his nose and had to be taken to A&E to have it removed. The situation was very distressing for Ms X and the children. Ms X frequently told the Council she was struggling to cope.
72. Ms X was particularly distressed at having to leave the city at weekends.
73. I am satisfied the Council explained to Ms X the reasons for this. The Council says it does not offer accommodation outside the city if there is availability in the city but not all the hotels in the city are willing to accept homeless households. There are only currently four that are willing to accept bookings.
74. I am satisfied the Council booked hotels in the city where possible and, when it was not able to do so at busy times such as weekends, it provided alternative accommodation and train fares for Ms X to stay in a hotel outside the city. I accept this was away from her support networks and it was difficult for her to travel with three children, but this was outside the Council’s control. I therefore find no fault by the Council in placing Ms X outside the city at weekends.
75. The Council apologised to Ms X for the length of time the family had to live in hotel accommodation in its stage 2 response. While this goes some way towards remedying the injustice caused, the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests a weekly payment of up to £150-£200 (for each week over the six week limit) is suitable to remedy injustice from this type of fault. I have therefore made further recommendations below.

The Council repeatedly asked Ms X to provide the same information

76. Ms X says the Council lost her children’s details. I have seen no evidence in the Council’s case notes or in correspondence between Ms X and the Council to support this assertion.
77. Ms X says the Council repeatedly asked her to provide the same information.
78. The Council says there was an initial reluctance by Ms X to provide information.
79. On 4 April the Council requested documents from Ms X including birth certificates for her children and proof of income. Ms X said she had already provided these documents. It is not clear whether this was the case. However, I find no grounds to criticise the Council for requesting documents on 4 April. It was required by law to confirm that she was ‘eligible for assistance’. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council requested this information again after this date.

Withholding information

80. Ms X says officers withheld hotel booking information to force her into completing forms or attending appointments.
81. I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case.

Referral to Children’s Social services

82. The TA Officer made a referral to children’s social services because Ms X declined an offer of accommodation and said she and the children would sleep in her car over the weekend.
83. I find no grounds to criticise this. The officer was entitled to make a safeguarding referral as she was concerned about the children’s welfare given that they would be sleeping in a car for two days.

Housing register application

84. Ms X says the homelessness team delayed in forwarding her housing register application to HomeLink.
85. The homelessness team do not send an application to HomeLink. It is the applicant’s responsibility to register and, once they have an application number, the homelessness team can request that reasonable preference is awarded as a homeless household.
86. Ms X submitted a housing register application on 20 January 2022.
87. On 22 March HomeLink wrote to Ms X saying it could not accept her recent application for re-housing because she was classed as an adequately housed private sector tenant living in a self-contained property that was sufficient for her needs in terms of size and facilities. The letter explained that, if Ms X had been served with a section 21 notice or had nowhere to live she should contact the Council’s homelessness team.
88. The homelessness team sent a copy of Ms X’s PHP to HomeLink on 17 May requesting reasonable preference for Ms X as a homeless household. HomeLink awarded Ms X Band B priority as a homeless applicant and backdated her application to 21 February 2022, the date she first presented to the Council as threatened with homelessness.
89. I find there was a delay in the homelessness team requesting reasonable preference for Ms X. It could have done this in April when it had all the necessary documents and was satisfied Ms X was eligible for assistance. However, I do not consider the delay caused Ms X an injustice because her application was backdated to the date she first presented to the Council as threatened with homelessness.
90. Ms X says HomeLink failed to respond to her Housing Register application. This is incorrect. As explained above, HomeLink wrote to Ms X about her application on 22 March 2022. It also wrote to her on 26 May confirming her application had been registered and she had been placed in Band B as a homeless household.

Back to top

Agreed action

91. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will apologise to Ms X for the fault identified above and pay her:
• £200 in recognition of the distress caused by its handling of the situation when she arrived at its offices on 21 March 2022;
• £600 in recognition of the injustice caused by the family having to live in hotels for three weeks longer than the law allows; and
• £200 in recognition of the injustice caused by the delay in accepting the main housing duty.
92. The Council has also agreed that, within two months, it will:
• Review its procurement policy to reduce the use of B&B/hotel accommodation and increase the supply of other types of temporary accommodation;
• where a B&B/hotel placement is the only available option, notify applicants with children, or where a member of the household is pregnant, about the six week maximum limit and their right to request a suitability review when the main housing duty has been accepted; and
• issue a reminder to relevant staff that PHP’s should be reviewed, as a minimum, with every change in duty.
93. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

94. For the reasons set out above, I find fault causing injustice.
95. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman