Summary: When Mr B and his family were homeless, the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation. It placed the family in bed and breakfast accommodation for over 26 weeks, 20 weeks over the maximum time such accommodation can be used for homeless applicants with dependent children. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to make a payment to Mr B to remedy his family’s injustice. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council placed his family in unsuitable accommodation when they became homeless in June 2023. He says that his family had to live in bed and breakfast accommodation until December 2023. For the first six weeks, he had to travel over fifty miles to Birmingham each day and they had no access to kitchen facilities until October 2023. Mr B says their living conditions have caused his family distress, have affected their health and have caused avoidable expense.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. All comments received were considered before this decision was issued.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and statutory guidance

5. 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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

6. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The assessment should include:
• the circumstances that have caused them to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• their housing needs, and what accommodation would be suitable for them, their household and anybody who might reasonably be expected to live with them; and,
• the support that would be necessary for them, and anybody who will be living with them, to have and sustain suitable accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 11.7)
7. Councils should work alongside applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant retain or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 11.18)

The relief duty

8. The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 13.2)

Ending the relief duty

9. The relief duty will end when 56 days has passed and the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(4))
10. Councils should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the council 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 councils aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 14.17)

The main housing duty

11. If homelessness is not successfully relieved, a council will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Under the main housing duty, councils must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Interim and temporary accommodation

12. 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)
13. The accommodation a council provides under the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.2)
15. 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.

Suitability of accommodation

16. 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)
17. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
18. Bed and breakfast (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 more than six weeks. B & B is accommodation which is not 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. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)

Key events

19. Mr B and his wife approached the Council in June 2023 when their family became homeless. At the time, their children were aged between 7 and 20 years old.
20. The Council accepted the relief duty to the family and placed them in bed and breakfast (B & B) accommodation in another area, around 50 miles away. There were no kitchen facilities. Mr B’s eldest child left after a few weeks.
21. The Council placed the family in alternative B & B accommodation in Birmingham at the end of July. It also did not have any kitchen facilities.
22. A charity then contacted the Council on Mr B’s behalf. It complained that the family had been living in B & B type accommodation for more than six weeks. It said the accommodation was unaffordable, overcrowded and was having an impact on their health and wellbeing.
23. The Council accepted that the accommodation was unsuitable because the family had been accommodated in B & B accommodation for more than the legal limit of six weeks. It apologised and made an offer of financial redress. It offered to make a payment of £800 for 8 weeks excess stay in B & B accommodation between 29 July and 22 September 2023 and to pay a further £100 per week until suitable accommodation was found. It also offered to make a payment of £300 to recognise the family’s distress. Mr B rejected the Council’s offer.
24. In October, the Council moved the family to alternative B & B accommodation with shared kitchen facilities. The family remained there until 18 December, when they were moved to self-contained temporary accommodation.

Analysis

25. When Mr B approached the Council for assistance, it carried out an assessment and provided him with a personalised housing plan (PHP). The assessment should include information about the housing needs of the applicant and their household, and what accommodation would be suitable for them. This section of Mr B’s PHP was not completed. The Council failed to carry out a proper assessment. This was fault.
26. The Council had a duty to secure suitable accommodation for the family. The accommodation it provided between 16 June and 31 July 2023 was around 50 miles outside of Birmingham. Before placing a family outside of its district, the Council must consider whether it would cause any significant disruption to the education of any members of the household. At the time, one of Mr B’s children was in the middle of completing their A-levels. Mr B’s younger children also attended school in Birmingham and Mr B worked in Birmingham. The Council failed to properly consider the family’s housing needs when it decided the accommodation was suitable. This was fault. If there had been no fault by the Council, I consider it would have provided accommodation in Birmingham.
27. The law says that B & B accommodation can only be used for households with dependent children when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. Mr B’s family were living in B & B accommodation for over 26 weeks, from 16 June until 18 December 2023. The Council breached its duties under the Housing Act 1996 by failing to provide suitable temporary accommodation. This was fault.
28. When the Council placed the family in B & B accommodation, it should have informed Mr B that it could only be provided for six weeks, after which it had a duty to secure alternative, suitable accommodation. It did not do so; this was fault.
29. The Council accepts that the B & B accommodation it provided between 29 July and 18 December 2023 was not suitable. It offered to make a payment of £100 for each week the family remained in B & B accommodation for more than six weeks, plus a payment of £300 for distress.
30. I have considered whether the payment offered by the Council is sufficient to remedy the family’s injustice. Our remedies guidance says that where a family has had to stay in unsuitable B & B accommodation in excess of the six-week legal limit, we are likely to recommend a weekly payment in the range of £100 to £200. This payment is in addition to the reimbursement of any specific quantifiable costs that the homeless household incurred.
31. While I do not have evidence of any additional costs the family incurred, I consider it likely that they incurred extra petrol costs of around £100 a week between 16 June and 31 July and extra food costs of around £105 a week between 16 June and 6 October because they did not have the use of a kitchen. I have decided the Council does not need to reimburse the family’s laundry costs.
32. The excessive length of their stay in B & B accommodation would have caused the family inconvenience and distress. It would also have had an impact on the children’s education, especially on that of Mr B’s son. Mr B says it also affected the health of members of the household.
33. The Council accepted the relief duty to the family in June 2023 but did not decide that it owed the family the main housing duty until April 2024. This delay was fault and caused uncertainty for Mr B.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Make a payment of £600 to Mr B for the additional travel expenses the family incurred for six weeks between 16 June and 31 July 2023.
• Make a payment of £1050 to Mr B for the impact of being placed in unsuitable accommodation outside of Birmingham between 16 June and 31 July 2023. This figure is based on a weekly payment of £175 for six weeks.
• Make a payment of £1680 to Mr B for the additional food costs the family incurred for 16 weeks between 16 June and 6 October 2023.
• Make a payment of £2400 to Mr B for the impact of being placed in unsuitable B & B accommodation between 1 August and 18 December 2023. This figure is based on a weekly payment of £120 for 20 weeks.
35. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Provide training or guidance to relevant officers to ensure they are properly considering relevant matters when carrying out homelessness assessments, in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance, and that they are completing personalised housing plans appropriately.
• Change its letter template to ensure that when the Council places a family with dependent children in bed and breakfast accommodation under the interim or main housing duty, it confirms that the Homelessness Code of Guidance states this should be limited to no more than six weeks.
36. The Council has provided us with its updated B & B elimination plan which details the actions it is taking to reduce the time families are staying in B & B accommodation, which we are continuing to monitor.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The Council agrees to take the actions I have recommended. This is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman