Summary: Mx Y complains the Council mishandled their homelessness application and placed them in unsuitable interim accommodation. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s handling of the homelessness application. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mx Y and pay a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mx Y complains the Council mishandled their homelessness application when they fled domestic abuse. Mx Y says that because of this, they were forced to find their own accommodation and incurred costs.
2. Mx Y says they have suffered distress and trauma. They also complain the Council did not properly consider their disabilities and health needs as part of the application process.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Part of Mx Y’s complaint is the current temporary accommodation is unsuitable. I am not exercising discretion to consider this part of the complaint, as Mx Y has exercised their right to request a suitability review. The Council has carried out the review and decided the temporary accommodation remains suitable. If Mx Y remains unhappy with the outcome, it is reasonable to expect Mx Y to use the right of appeal to the County Court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered Mx Y’s complaint and information they provided. I also considered information from the Council.
8. I considered comments from Mx Y and the Council to comment on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness Legislation and guidance

9. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
10. 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)
11. 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 17.2)
12. 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

13. 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 housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
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)

Back to top

What happened

16. Mx Y approached the Council in April 2023 to make a homelessness application. They told the Council they were pregnant and fleeing domestic abuse. The Council offered to find Mx Y interim accommodation. However, this was refused, and Mx Y’s representative told the Council they would prefer to stay with friends and receive support to get a direct private rental.
17. The Council added Mx Y to its service that told applicants of local private lets. It recorded that Mx Y had physical health and mobility issues and needed level access accommodation.
18. In June 2023 Mx Y expressed their frustration that the Council had not helped them find a private rental. The Council tried to speak to Mx Y about these frustrations but was not successful and closed their case.
19. On 18th September 2023, Mx Y contacted the Council and asked to start a new application. The Council offered Mx Y an appointment on 28th September 2023.
20. The Council met with Mx Y on 28th September. Mx Y told the Council they could no longer stay with friends as they had had their baby recently. They also could not return to the previous property as they were still fleeing domestic abuse.
21. The Council accepted that Mx Y may be in priority need and offered interim accommodation out of the area. Mx Y accepted the accommodation.
22. Three days later Mx Y attended the Council offices to say the accommodation was not suitable. They met with the Council and told them this was because they could not access the services they needed for their mental health and their baby’s health and development. Their physical disabilities also meant they struggled accessing the accommodation as they needed level access, and their physical disabilities meant they could not travel between areas to access important health appointments for the baby.
23. The Council first said it had accommodation locally for Mx Y, but later in the meeting it said this accommodation was no longer available. It told Mx Y the only accommodation still available was the accommodation currently assigned to them.
24. Mx Y also said the officers treated them poorly and told them to feed their baby in a toilet.
25. Mx Y said they could not reasonably occupy the interim accommodation and paid for a hotel locally.
26. The Council carried out a non-statutory review of the accommodation and decided that it was unsuitable. On 5th October the Council withdrew the interim accommodation as Mx Y was not staying there and instead offered local accommodation, which Mx Y accepted. It considered further information from Mx Y about their needs and supporting information from professionals.
27. Mx Y complained to the Council on 4th December 2023. In their complaint they said

• The Council had at first told them they would be given accommodation in the local area and then withdrew this.
• The Council had given them unsuitable interim accommodation.
• The Council had not properly considered their disabilities and health needs.
• The Council officers had been rude and told them to feed their baby in a toilet.

28. The Council’s final response said;

• It had initially believed local accommodation was available, and apologised for misleading Mx Y.
• It believed the interim accommodation was suitable when it provided it.

Back to top

Analysis

Should the Council have offered interim accommodation sooner?

29. The Council was aware from April 2023 that Mx Y was fleeing domestic abuse, pregnant and in priority need. It tried to support Mx Y with finding private rental accommodation as this was Mx Y’s preference at the time. It closed their case in June 2023 due to non-engagement. I have seen no evidence from the Council that it followed the legally required process to close cases due to unreasonable non engagement, however, on balance, it is likely the outcome would have been the same. This was fault by the Council but did not cause Mx Y injustice.
30. I have reviewed the notes from the application on 18th September 2023. It was not clear at this point that Mx Y remained homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse, but the Council did know that they had recently been homeless due to domestic abuse and that Mx Y may still be pregnant.
31. The Council tried to speak with Mx Y on the phone, but this was declined and email requested. The Council did not clarify any information with Mx Y or considered whether there was reason to believe they may be in priority need at this point. Instead, it offered an appointment on 28th September 2023.
32. If the Council had clarified things with Mx Y, it would have had reason to believe they remained in priority need. If Mx Y was unable to remain with friends the Council should have offered interim accommodation from this point while it carried out an assessment, rather than 10 days later. If the Council had clarified Mx Y could remain with friends until the appointment under a “homeless at home” arrangement, it should have issued a decision confirming this. Not to do so was fault by the Council. This caused Mx Y to be without the opportunity for interim accommodation.
33. This was fault by the Council as it was a missed opportunity to provide interim accommodation sooner, however, it caused limited distress to Mx Y as they were able to stay with a friend.

Suitability of accommodation

34. The central part of Mx Y’s complaint is the first interim accommodation was unsuitable and it was not reasonable to expect them to occupy this. They therefore had to incur expenses to obtain alternatives until the Council provided other accommodation on 5th October 2023.
35. The Council’s records show that it reviewed the suitability of the interim accommodation and decided it was not suitable, therefore it offered the new accommodation. The Council notes show between the first offer of interim accommodation, and the revised offer, the Council received more information from Mx Y about their needs, as well as multiple emails from professionals with concerns for Mx Y and their child.
36. I have looked at the initial information the Council had when it made the decision to offer interim accommodation. The Council recorded that Mx Y had some physical health needs and received Personal Independence Payments. It did not record the information from the previous assessment which said Mx Y had physical disabilities that needed ground floor accommodation or access to a lift.
37. The Council has also given me an Occupational Therapy report which says Mx Y has some travel and housing needs for their disabilities. It is not clear when this information was given to the Council and if it was available when Mx Y made the application in September 2023.
38. The Council’s previous interactions with Mx Y acknowledged that they had physical disabilities that needed level access accommodation. The Council does not appear to have considered this in its assessment in September 2023. This was fault by the Council, and it is also not clear what information was relied upon at the point of assessment.
39. The Council had the information available and did not consider it when deciding whether the initial interim accommodation was suitable. On balance, I am satisfied that if the Council had considered the information previously available, it would not have offered the initial interim accommodation.
40. I accept that Mx Y was caused distress because of the Council’s actions, and felt they had no choice but to seek their own accessible alternative.

Communication

41. Part of Mx Y’s complaint is about how the Council communicated with them about accommodation, and officer behaviour when handling their application.
42. The Council has already upheld that it mistakenly told Mx Y there would be local accommodation on 2nd October 2023.
43. However, it failed to address parts of Mx Y’s complaint through the complaints process. Specifically, about how officers treated Mx Y and their baby throughout the application. This was fault by the Council and it should have addressed this during the complaints process.
44. Mx Y says officers told them to feed their baby in a toilet and spoke rudely to them. The Council has said it cannot confirm what happened as the officer has now left. However, it provided the officer’s notes which confirm there was a heated discussion between Mx Y and the officer about feeding the baby. The Council has said its policy is that if applicants want to breastfeed, it will make a private space available, such as a meeting room.
45. It is not possible for me to say whether Mx Y was told to feed their baby in a toilet, but it is evident the discussion became heated at a time that Mx Y and the baby were already stressed and vulnerable. The Council should have communicated its policy and options for support for breastfeeding better to Mx Y and this would have helped them avoid further distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mx Y and apologise for the fault identified above. The Council should give due regard to our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay Mx Y £350 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s mishandling of the application.
• Pay 50% of Mx Y’s accommodation costs for the week they were without suitable interim accommodation between 28th September 2023 and 5th October 2023. I have not recommended 100% of costs as Mx Y would have incurred costs for rent in any interim accommodation.

47. Within twelve weeks the Council has agreed to

• Remind staff of the guidance for closing cases due to non-engagement
• Remind staff of the Council's responsibility to provide interim accommodation at the outset, and when 'homeless at home' arrangements may be suitable for an applicant and the correct process to follow, if there is reason to believe an application may be in priority need.

48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council’s handling of Mx Y’s homeless application.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman