Summary: The Council failed to act promptly to provide Ms X with temporary accommodation several times and when it did it, the accommodation it provided was often unsuitable. The Council failed to support Ms X properly while she and her children were being evicted and again when they needed to flee domestic abuse. Its communication with Ms X was poor and it significantly delayed carrying out reviews into its homelessness decisions. To recognise the injustice caused, including the period Ms X and her children spent in unsuitable accommodation, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £3,375 and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that when she and her children became homeless, the Council:
1. Delayed assessing and relieving their homelessness;
2. Failed to provide them with suitable accommodation;
3. Failed to meet its obligations to assist with the storage of her belongings; and
4. Wrongly discharged its main housing duty to the family.
2. Ms X said the Council’s actions have caused them to be with unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period and caused the family distress and uncertainty.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

What I have and have not investigated

Complaint 1d

7. I have not investigated Complaint 1d, that the Council wrongly discharged its main housing duty to the family in August 2023. The Council overturned this decision at review in October 2023. Ms X used her statutory right to request a review and in doing so, the Council changed its decision in Ms X’s favour. As this specific complaint has already been considered and resolved by the Council using the appropriate procedure, I have not re-investigated the matter here. I have investigated Complaints 1a, 1b and 1c.

Earlier events

8. Ms X has sent us some evidence from 2022 and complained about the Council’s lack of action during this time. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. I have seen no good reason Ms X did not raise a complaint earlier about these issues in 2022. Therefore I have not investigated any events that happened more than twelve months before Ms X complained to the Ombudsman – meaning any events before 19 February 2023. However some earlier events are referred to for background.

Later events (ongoing injustice)

10. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. In many cases this will include any events which happened after the date of the Council’s final complaint response.
11. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
12. I exercised discretion to investigate and remedy injustice caused to Ms X up to the date the Council offered Ms X further temporary accommodation on 7 May 2024 (several months after the Council’s final complaint response). This is because Ms X experienced injustice (unsuitable accommodation) beyond the date of the Council’s final complaint response, arising from the same faults identified in this decision. This was ongoing injustice so I exercised discretion to consider it here.
13. I have decided that any events following the 7 May 2024 accommodation offer, including the outcome of the suitability review Ms X has requested, are new matters which I am not investigating here. This is because I cannot exercise this discretion indefinitely and it is not proportionate to continue investigating events beyond this date.
14. Any complaints Ms X wishes to make regarding the outcome of this suitability review will need to be raised as a new complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
16. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
17. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
18. I considered comments made by Ms X and the Council on draft decisions before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Temporary accommodation

19. 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. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
20. 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)
21. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)
22. 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)
23. Under this duty, councils do not have to provide a permanent secure or assured tenancy. Many accepted homeless households remain in temporary accommodation with limited security of tenure for a long time while they bid for permanent housing through the authority’s housing allocations scheme.

Section 202 suitability reviews and timescales

24. If the officer decides that the temporary accommodation it has provided is suitable, that decision must be put in writing and the applicant must be notified of the right to request a section 202 review. 
25. The applicant can then use the section 202 review procedure to challenge the decision on suitability if they wish. This must be requested within 21 days of being notified of the decision. The review will then be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision.
26. Councils must complete section 202 reviews on the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
27. If a council finds the accommodation is not suitable – at any time and not just in response to section 202 reviews - the council has an immediate duty to provide the person with suitable alternative accommodation.

Evictions

28. Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows landlords to evict tenants using a section 21 notice. These are also referred to as “no fault evictions”.
29. The Code says it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation of a property until a court issues a warrant to enforce possession, and applicants should not be evicted by bailiffs because of a failure by a council to provide accommodation (6.37, 6.38).
30. Our March 2023 focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act”, expressed our concern at the number of councils that still take a “wait for bailiffs” approach in homelessness cases:
31. “Unfortunately we still see examples of councils not considering whether accommodation is reasonable to continue to occupy, and so whether the applicant is homeless, when their notice to leave a private tenancy has expired…The wait for bailiffs approach results in missed opportunities to prevent homelessness. It means both applicants and councils end up scrambling to find accommodation at the last minute… this approach is contrary to the law and guidance and causes significant and avoidable distress for people at an already difficult time in their lives.”

Protection of belongings

32. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

MARAC

A MARAC is a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference where information is shared on high-risk domestic abuse cases. These are attended usually by local police, health, child protection, housing and domestic abuse support services. These meetings are held to safeguard adults experiencing domestic abuse.

What happened

Background

33. Ms X has two children, both under ten. For several years the family lived in two-bedroom temporary accommodation. This was provided by the Council under the main housing duty after the family became homeless.
34. Ms X is on the Council’s housing register and can bid for properties but is likely to wait a long time to be matched with permanent accommodation.
35. In late 2022, Ms X received a Notice to Quit from the landlord of the temporary accommodation which would expire on 14 December 2022.
36. Ms X had been in regular contact with the Council about eviction proceedings since then and the Council put her on its “temporary accommodation transfer list”. However the Council did not make Ms X any offers of alternative accommodation during this time.

February 2023 to October 2023 – eviction proceedings

37. In February 2023, Ms X emailed the Council again as her eviction was progressing.
38. Ms X told the Council she had now received notice of a possession hearing scheduled for mid-March, since her notice to quit expired in December last year. The Council responded to say she could stay in the property until she was issued with a court order to leave the property. It did not offer her any alternative accommodation at this time.
39. The Council arranged to speak with Ms X on 27 February, as she had made a homelessness application. It said that as she was already homeless and in temporary accommodation, it did not need to take a new homelessness application. The records do not show any other action taken by the Council at this time.
40. In early March, the Council made its first offer of alternative accommodation to Ms X. It did not offer this formally in a letter setting out her review rights. Ms X said the property was not suitable as it was too far from her support network and the property’s floor height and balcony would be unsafe for her child.
41. The Council’s records are unclear, but it appears to have then withdrawn this offer. The Council offered Ms X no other properties and its temporary accommodation team did not return Ms X’s messages.
42. Ms X received an eviction warrant on 11 May 2023 which she sent to the Council three days later. The warrant said the family would be evicted from the property on 19 July 2023. The Council did not return Ms X’s messages about this or offer her any alternative accommodation.
43. Ms X continued to regularly chase the temporary accommodation team but was not offered any accommodation until the day before her eviction date, on 18 July. The Council offered her a choice of accommodation in two different boroughs. It said - at 1:30pm that day - that she must choose which property to move to by 4pm.
44. Ms X responded to say she did not have enough money to move her belongings and the Council had not given her enough time to view and consider the properties. Ms X expressed frustration that the Council had been aware she was being evicted for several months and not done more before now.
45. The next day the Council sent Ms X a letter discharging its duty to her, as it said she had refused an offer of suitable temporary accommodation. This letter was issued on the same day that bailiffs arrived to enforce the eviction. The Council provided Ms X with no assistance to store or move her belongings. Ms X arranged for storage herself which she said she could not afford to pay. Ms X stayed in hotels and sofa surfed after this date.
46. Ms X requested a section 202 review of the Council’s decision. The Council placed Ms X into temporary accommodation from 11 August 2023, pending the outcome of the review. This later emerged to be an unsafe area and Ms X began to experience domestic abuse at that property. However Ms X did not know that the area was unsafe due to domestic abuse at the time it was offered and nor did the Council.
47. The Council overturned its decision to end its duty to Ms X in October 2023. It decided she did not have a reasonable opportunity to consider the property offered in July. It said applicants should be given reasonable time to consider offers of accommodation outside their district, especially when they have young children. The Council reinstated its duty to her.

October 2023 onwards – domestic abuse and suitability reviews

48. On 20 October 2023, after Ms X had been living at the temporary accommodation for around two months, Ms X asked to be moved. She told the Council she had been experiencing domestic abuse from her ex-partner since she moved there and the area was no longer safe.
49. Her case was discussed at a MARAC meeting in late November 2023. The Council recorded that this MARAC had taken place and that Ms X had asked several times to be moved. However the Council did not offer Ms X any alternative accommodation.
50. On 1 December 2023 Ms X asked the Council again for help as she needed to flee domestic abuse. However the Council informed her it “could not tell her” when she might be transferred to different accommodation. Ms X and the children left the property shortly after to sofa surf, as the police had advised her to leave the property. Ms X alerted the Council that she had done this.
51. On 15 December 2023 the Council carried out a suitability assessment with Ms X which said Ms X was fleeing domestic abuse. It listed her unsafe areas, which included the area she was in currently.
52. On 18 December 2023 the Council offered Ms X another temporary accommodation. This was a three-bedroom house in a neighbouring county outside of London. Ms X requested a suitability review as she said the accommodation was too far away from her place of work.
53. In February 2024, Ms X could no longer keep up with the payments on her storage unit and told the Council her belongings were about to be auctioned. Not long after this, the Council began paying for Ms X’s storage and continues to do this.
54. Ms X complained to the Council about her experience with the housing team and it did not uphold her complaints. Therefore Ms X complained to the Ombudsman on 19 February 2024.

Recent offers of accommodation

55. The Council responded late, on 9 April 2024, to Ms X’s suitability review request and decided the three bedroomed property it offered in December 2023 was unsuitable as it was too far from her place of work. It placed Ms X and her children in hotel accommodation while it sought more suitable accommodation for them.
56. The Council offered Ms X alternative temporary accommodation and she accepted this on 7 May 2024 but requested a suitability review. This suitability review has not been completed yet. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 10-14, events beyond 7 May 2024, including the outcome of this suitability review are new matters that I am not investigating here.

My findings

Council’s response to the eviction proceedings

57. The Council significantly delayed making Ms X an offer of accommodation after it became aware she was being evicted. When it did, it only made one offer in March 2023 and another less than 24 hours before Ms X’s eviction date in mid-July 2023. It also routinely failed to return Ms X’s calls seeking support to be rehoused during this time.
58. This drift, delay and poor communication was fault by the Council. This led to a missed opportunity to house Ms X sooner and caused her and her children a period of significant and avoidable distress at an already uncertain and stressful time in their lives.
59. The Council also failed to record key information about Ms X’s eviction properly. The Council told the Ombudsman Ms X did not tell it about her eviction warrant until 19 July 2023. Ms X has provided us with evidence that she sent this to the Council in mid-May 2023. However this is not recorded in the Council’s case file. This poor record keeping by the Council was also fault and contributed to the delay in Ms X being provided with accommodation.

Suitability of accommodation

60. Ms X said the Council should have provided her with permanent accommodation rather than temporary accommodation when she was due to be evicted. Under the main housing duty, councils do not have to provide permanent secure or assured tenancies to homeless applicants. The Council was therefore not at fault in this regard. However the Council failed to provide Ms X with suitable temporary accommodation.
61. Due to the Council’s lack of action to find Ms X alternative accommodation after her notice to quit expired, it’s failure to carry out a new suitability assessment and its failure to give her enough time to consider the property it offered the day before the bailiffs arrived, Ms X spent approximately seven months in accommodation that was unsuitable. This is formed of the February to August 2023 she spent in the property awaiting eviction proceedings and the three weeks of sofa surfing before she was moved into alternative accommodation. I have recommended a remedy to recognise the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.
62. Ms X then lived in a property provided by the Council where she went on to experience domestic abuse. The Council was not at fault for offering this property, as Ms X accepted it and was not aware that she may be at risk there.
63. However from 20 October 2023 when Ms X informed the Council of the domestic abuse, it was under an immediate duty to find her alternative accommodation and it delayed in doing this. This caused Ms X and the children to have to flee the property, sleep on people’s sofas, and present as homeless to the Council before they were offered an alternative property in mid-December.
64. Ms X therefore spent a further almost two months, avoidably living in unsuitable accommodation. I have recommended a further remedy to recognise the injustice caused by this fault.
65. Ms X was then offered a property in mid-December 2023 which she accepted but requested a suitability review of, as it was a considerable distance from her place of work and outside London. The Council should have carried out its review within eight weeks of the request but delayed in doing this.
66. It decided several months later, in April 2024, that the property was not suitable for Ms X. It made another offer of temporary accommodation which Ms X accepted on 7 May 2024. Ms X has again requested a suitability review of this.

Failed to meet its obligations to assist with the storage of Ms X’s belongings

67. When Ms X had to leave her accommodation in August 2023, the Council did not assist Ms X with the cost of storing of her belongings. This proved to be unaffordable for Ms X and by February 2024, the storage facility said it would auction Ms X’s belongings due to non -payment of fees.
68. As the Council wrongly discharged its housing duty to Ms X and rectified this in October 2023, on the balance of probabilities, due to Ms X’s financial issues the Council would have been required to assist Ms X with the storage of her belongings from when she was evicted in August. The Council failed to contribute to storage costs until February 2024 when Ms X contacted the Council due to her belongings being at risk. Failure to do so was fault.
69. From July 2023 to February 2024 Ms X has paid for the storage of her belongings herself but this has been unaffordable for her. On balance, the Council would have had a duty to pay for her storage if not for this fault. Although it would have been able to recover the cost from Ms X, this would have been at an amount she could afford. This fault has caused financial loss and frustration to Ms X.

Recent Ombudsman investigations about the London Borough of Lambeth

70. The Ombudsman has already recommended extensive service improvements to this Council following previous complaints. This included commissioning an independent review of its homelessness service, which was carried out by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) in 2023 and producing an action plan setting out how the Council would ensure it met its statutory duties to homeless applicants. The Council has updated the Ombudsman on its progress against this action plan.
71. In late February 2024, the Council demonstrated to the Ombudsman that following our recommendation from further upheld complaints, it had also reviewed its procedures with regards to its suitability reviews and how it makes offers of accommodation. It
72. The Council said following this procedural review, it would ensure that in future it considered and recorded why the offers it made of interim, temporary and permanent accommodation were suitable at the time they were offered, rather than many months afterwards through upheld suitability reviews.
73. The Council recently also agreed to issue a short report to us regarding its plan to tackle its suitability review delays and poor communication.
74. We are awaiting the Council’s compliance with these recent recommendations so I have not repeated them here.

Back to top

Agreed action

75. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. If it has not done so already, demonstrate that it has carried out the section 202 review requested by Ms X into the suitability of the property she accepted on 7 May 2024;
3. Pay Ms X £1,325 to recognise the approximately seven months (February-August 2023) she and the children lived in accommodation that was unsuitable as it was beyond the expiration of the section 21 notice and then awaiting, or beyond, the eviction date, and then homeless and sofa surfing for a further three weeks;
4. Pay Ms X £650 to recognise the almost two months (October- December 2023) where Ms X had informed the Council she was experiencing domestic abuse at the address but due to lack of support from the Council, remained living there, or was sofa surfing as she had to flee the abuse without alternative housing;
5. Pay Ms X £1,150 to recognise the almost five months (December 2023-May 2024) she spent either in accommodation too far from her workplace, or sofa-surfing as a result of having no suitable accommodation;
6. Pay Ms X £250 to recognize the frustration and distress caused by the Council’s poor communication and delay in completing its section 202 reviews into its housing decisions; and
7. Reimburse Ms X for any payments she made, or payments outstanding, for storage that she used between July 2023 and February 2024 when the Council failed to support her with this.
76. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review how its housing officers - in particular in its temporary accommodation team - respond to and record on the applicant’s case file, any urgent contact from applicants, including notices to quit and eviction warrants;
2. Remind all housing officers - with particular focus on its temporary accommodation team - of sections 6.37 and 6.38 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance - that it is not reasonable for applicants to occupy properties until an eviction warrant is issued and they should not be evicted by bailiffs because of councils’ failure to provide accommodation;
3. Carry out training with its temporary accommodation team on the dangers domestic abuse victims face in the period when they first seek to flee abuse. This training should set out the increased risks during this time - if not provided with appropriate housing support - of victims returning to or remaining with their abuser. This case should be used – with all key individuals anonymised - to demonstrate how the temporary accommodation team avoidably missed opportunities to move a victim to safety sooner and to consider how to prevent these mistakes happening in future;
4. Demonstrate how - several months after the Council carried out its procedural review in early 2024 - officers are now carrying out suitability assessments with households before making offers of temporary and permanent accommodation, preventing the need for so many applicants to have to challenge unsuitable offers through the review process instead; and
5. Remind relevant staff – using this case as an example but anonymising key individuals - that applicants need reasonable notice and opportunity to view a property before deciding whether to accept it as temporary or permanent accommodation. It is fault for the Council to withdraw its housing duty from applicants who have not had this opportunity.
77. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
78. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman