Summary: We found no fault on Ms B’s complaint about the Council failing to process her and Ms C’s homeless applications properly, about it charging rent for a previous property, or charging hotel costs. There was at fault on Ms C’s complaint about the provision of alternative accommodation following eviction. She was placed in unsuitable accommodation for 13 weeks with her child. They remained in unsuitable accommodation. The Council agreed to make a payment, provide an apology, and bring its failings to the attention of relevant staff to avoid repetition.

The complaint

1. Ms B and her daughter Ms C complained about the Council failing to:
1. process their homeless applications properly;
2. provide alternative accommodation following their eviction; and
3. accept Ms B did not owe rent for a previous property she no longer lived in.
2. As a result, they suffered a great deal of stress, anxiety, frustration, as well as financial loss, and their quality of life was affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Ms B and Ms C complained to us in December 2023 which means we would usually only investigate the Council’s actions from December 2022 as they had made a late complaint.
8. I exercised discretion to investigate their complaint from May 2022. This was because English was not Ms B’s first language, and she used to visit a library to translate documents. I also took account of her age and the fact she had moved between hotels/hostels. In addition, she also claimed to have experienced problems accessing our service. Any references to actions before this date are made purely to put the complaint I am investigating into context.
9. I did not investigate any complaint they had about the legal action the Council took to evict them from accommodation. This was because they could have raised these issues with the court at the time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered all the information Ms B sent, including the Council’s response to my enquiries on her complaint. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms B and Ms C as well as to the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

11. A person is threatened with homelessness if they are likely to become homeless within 56 days.
12. Councils must complete an assessment if satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment.
13. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for it and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household and follow from the findings of the assessment. They must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and the Code, paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

14. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness, and eligible for assistance, they must help them secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must consider their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

15. The relief duty is owed where a council is satisfied the person is homeless and eligible which means it must take reasonable steps to help them secure that accommodation becomes available for at least six months. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must tell the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). Councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer, or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if it has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and the Code, paragraph 15.39)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

17. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Bed and breakfast accommodation

18. Bed and breakfast accommodation cannot be considered suitable for an applicant with family commitments where interim accommodation is provided unless no other accommodation other than bed and breakfast is available for occupation and the applicant occupies it for a period, or total periods, not exceeding six weeks. (The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003

What happened

19. Ms B has lived in the Council’s borough for 15 years with her daughter, Ms C, and her young child. For most of this time, she was housed in temporary accommodation as in 2012, the Council accepted it owed her the main homeless duty. From that date, the Council placed her in Property 1.
20. At this point, her application included Ms C as part of her household. Ms C suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
21. In September 2022, the Council offered Ms B a property. She said the Council then sent Ms C an invoice for £2,067.31 for rent for hotels she and her child lived in.

Complaint a): Process their applications properly

Ms B homeless application

22. The main duty the Council accepted it owed Ms B in 2012 was discharged in 2019. The duty ended as she refused a reasonable offer of accommodation. It then started court proceedings to repossess Property 1.
23. In March 2022, the Court issued a Notice of Appointment (with Bailiff). This said a bailiff would execute the warrant in May. The Notice told the Council someone needed to meet the bailiff outside the premises, provide identity, along with means to gain entry.
24. The following month, the Council wrote to Ms B, warning her she would be evicted in May. The letter said, ‘ensure that you are packed and ready to leave by the above time’. It went on to say if she was in any doubt about her situation, she needed to contact a solicitor or advice agency. It ended by saying she needed to make her own arrangements for accommodation. Should she apply for local authority housing, she could be found to have been intentionally homeless because of non-payment of rent.
25. Ms B moved out of the property on the eviction day. Three days before the eviction, she contacted the Council for housing assistance.
26. In May, she applied to the Council for housing as homeless. Her application was for her only. The Council accepted it owed Ms B the relief duty at the end of the month, deciding she was eligible for assistance and homeless. It sent her a copy of her PHP.
27. The court granted the Council possession of Property 1 in September. The Council ended its relief duty the same month when Ms B secured Property 2.
28. The Council recorded Ms B as evicted in May but accepted while it was scheduled, it was not executed. The Council told Ms B this was because the court bailiffs failed to attend and execute the warrant. The Council explained it does not attend evictions, but its managing agents do on its behalf. On this occasion, the court bailiff did not sign the notice of eviction. On the same day of the eviction, the Council told her to return to Property 1.
29. An email from the agent on the day of the eviction confirmed a representative attended but the court bailiff would not sign the warrant as there was no representative from the Council present. This Council had to re-apply to court for her eviction.
30. Ms B disputed this version. She received an email from the court which said the eviction did not go ahead because the agent visiting was not from the Council. The email also said the bailiff contacted the Council about a new date.
31. The Council accepted it could have followed this up with the court to confirm whether or not the eviction had taken place. It could have sent Ms B information updating her on the situation.

My findings

32. I found no fault on this complaint. In reaching this conclusion, I note:
1. she made a homeless application three days before the due eviction. This did not take place and Property 1 remained available for her use.
2. there was no fault on the Council not arranging alternative accommodation for Ms B in advance of the May eviction. Under the Code (paragraph 15.13), any duty to provide her with accommodation would have been to secure accommodation for a period of time that would provide a reasonable opportunity for her to find her own. Ms B was aware in March the eviction would take place in two months’ time. She had this period to find alternative accommodation.
3. it decided it owed her the relief duty and told her she had the right to ask for a review of the decision. If she was unhappy with the decision, she could have asked for a review and ultimately gone to court about it on a point of law. This meant we had no jurisdiction to consider any complaint about the decision itself.
4. While the Council accepted it failed to follow up with the court about whether the eviction had taken place, I am not satisfied this caused Ms B an injustice. This was because:

• it was aware it had not taken place because it advised Ms B later the same day she could move back in to it;
• it had not changed the locks to Property 1; and
• Ms B and Ms C had moved out of Property 1 before the eviction was due to take place. While they would have to spend time moving back, along with the expense and uncertainty of not knowing how long they could remain there, they would have had a home to stay in. This would have avoided the need to stay in hotels and move around until September 2022. I also note they would have had to go to the time and trouble of moving out anyway had the eviction taken place in May as arranged.

Ms C’s homeless application

33. The Council confirmed Ms C applied as homeless in January 2022 with her own child on the application. The application said Ms C was living with Ms B in temporary accommodation and shared a room with her young child. It said Ms B had asked her to leave Property 1 by the end of the month. An officer later spoke to Ms B who agreed Ms C could stay with her until the Council found her alternative accommodation. Ms B does not accept this was correct.
34. In March, another officer called Ms C and went through the options with her about the private rented sector and temporary accommodation. Ms C would consider whether she wanted to accept the offer of interim accommodation as the offer expired that day. Ms C claimed she accepted this offer but never heard anything further about it.
35. The Council confirmed an offer of a property was made to Ms C but there are no records about whether she queried, or accepted, it.
36. In April, the Council sent Ms C her PHP which noted she refused the offer of interim accommodation.
37. In June, the Council accepted it owed her a full housing duty with a priority date back to January.

My findings

38. I found no fault on this complaint because:
1. an officer spoke to Ms B in January when Ms C made the application. During this call, Ms B agreed Ms C could stay in property 1 with her until she found her own accommodation. I am satisfied the Council took prompt action to prevent Ms C becoming homeless when it received her application; and
2. the Council offered her interim accommodation in February and then sent her the PHP the following month. In June, it accepted it owed her the full housing duty. I am not satisfied there was a delay by the Council.

Complaint b): Ms B’s and Ms C’s accommodation after eviction

39. The Council tried to evict Ms B and her family in May 2022. She left the property in anticipation of the eviction and approached the Council as having nowhere to live. The Council told her to return to Property 1. It eventually evicted her from it in September.
40. In March, the Council said it offered Ms C interim accommodation which she refused. I have seen an email from Ms C to the Council in March saying she accepted the offer but never received a response about it. I have also seen an email from the Council at the end of the month saying the officer understood Ms C refused it.
41. In April, Ms C told the officer she had accepted it but then listed her concerns with the property as she thought it unsuitable. The Council replied saying it considered it suitable and needed clarification from her about whether she was accepting it or not. I have not seen a response from Ms C to this request.
42. In May, Ms C contacted the Council saying she was told she had refused an offer, but she claimed she electronically accepted and signed for it the same day it was made. Ms B provided a copy of her acceptance dated 28 February. Ms C claimed she visited the area and spoke to a neighbour when she received the offer and emailed the Council with queries. She denied ever saying she refused the offer and had emailed about collecting the keys.
43. The Council replied later the same month agreeing she had accepted the property. It noted Ms C had raised concerns with the accommodation and the officer had asked the repairs team to investigate at the time. The Council also noted the housing provider told it at the end of March that she had refused the accommodation and failed to sign up for it as the property had no bath. As a result, the Council would not make any further offer on her application.
44. The evidence showed children’s services were now accommodating Ms C following the eviction, but she may not be offered any further placements from the housing team because of her refusal of the previous offer.
45. During May and June, children’s services provided her with hotel accommodation. The Council accepted one-bedroom hotel rooms it placed Ms C and her child in were not suitable. It confirmed, ‘Hotel accommodation is not considered suitable’. This type of accommodation was usually only used in emergency situations, such as someone fleeing domestic abuse. The Council could not explain why she was placed in it.
46. In June, the Council accepted it owed Ms C a full housing duty. The following month she was placed in a hotel.
47. The Council kept telling Ms B and Ms C that they could return to Property 1 and had not changed the locks. This option ended in September when the Council took full possession of it.
48. Ms B secured an assured shorthold tenancy (Property 2) and the Council ended the relief duty in September.
49. Up to November, Ms C and her child were housed at various hotels by the housing team.
50. Ms C contacted the Council and said she had found her own private accommodation in November. Ms B disputed this and said the Council found it for her. The Council discharged its duty to Ms C the same month.

My findings

51. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The Council was under no obligation to offer Ms B alternative accommodation in anticipation of her getting evicted in May 2022. At this point, it owed her no homelessness duty. She needed to present herself to the Council as homeless when the eviction was due to take place, which she did.
2. Ms B was told on the day of the unsuccessful May eviction, when she went to the Council’s offices seeking help for accommodation, to go back to Property 1. While I appreciate it would have caused her further time and effort moving her belongings back to Property 1, this was an option she could have taken instead of spending nights in hotels arranged by the Council on an emergency basis. It would also have provided accommodation for Ms C and her child.
3. The Council said Ms C refused an offer of interim accommodation. On balance, I am satisfied while Ms C accepted the offer, she did not complete the process with the housing provider. This was because the Council told her at the time that the housing provider said she had refused it and had not signed up for it as it had no bath. On balance, this persuades me it was more likely than not that she had failed to fully complete the acceptance process with the housing provider. I found no fault by the Council on this complaint.
4. The Council was unable to provide any evidence in support of what it said about her refusing the property. The evidence I considered was provided by Ms B. She sent copies of emails between Ms C and the Council about it at the time. The Council’s failure to retain records and provide these when requested was fault. This caused Ms C some frustration.
5. The Council confirmed it placed Ms C and her child in interim accommodation in the form of hotels between May and June. It accepted these placements were arranged by children’s services. It also accepted this was not suitable but was unable to explain why she was placed in them as usually this was only used as emergency accommodation.
6. As the Council exercised discretion to provide this accommodation under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, the legal requirement about ‘suitability’ did not apply during this period. While there is government guidance issued by the Department of Health (Circular LAC (2002 (13)) about how councils should exercise section 17 powers, which includes a reference to ensuring accommodation is suitable for the families and children for whom it is intended, this is not statutory guidance.
7. Ms C was placed in temporary accommodation between July to November in several hotels. As the Council accepted it owed her the full housing duty in June, this would usually be outside of our jurisdiction because she had the right to ask for a review of its suitability. I took account of the Council’s acceptance that single hotel rooms were not considered suitable. This meant there would be little point in her challenging the suitability of the accommodation the Council placed her in. This was why I considered this part of her complaint.
8. The law says this type of accommodation can only be used where there was no other accommodation available and then only for a maximum of six weeks.
9. The Council failed to show there was no other accommodation available when it placed her in these hotels. I am satisfied, therefore, it failed to show Bed and Breakfast accommodation was used as a last resort, as the law intended. This was fault.
10. Nor have I seen evidence of what the Council was doing during their stay there to find them other accommodation. This was fault.
11. I am satisfied the Council placed Ms C and her child in unsuitable hotel accommodation, which amounted to Bed and Breakfast, for a total period of 13 weeks (19 weeks less the 6-week legal limit). It caused her distress as she and her child lived in unsuitable accommodation during this period.

Complaint c): Ms B’s rent arrears

52. The Council confirmed there was no outstanding debt to Ms B’s rental account.
53. Ms B complained she was charged rent for Property 1 from May 2022, when she left it, to the start of her new tenancy for Property 2. I have seen a copy of a rent statement which covered this period.
54. The Council explained she was charged for this period as she failed to give it ‘vacant possession’ before September. Ms B failed to hand the key to Property 1 to the Council and on the day of the eviction, the Council had to break a window to gain access as she had changed the locks.
55. The Council provided evidence of the rent charged to Ms C for the period July to November when staying in hotels. It explained all residents have to pay rent even when unsuitable, which it accepted this was. It provided a copy of a Bed and Breakfast agreement it sent her in July about rent liability. This warned, ‘You must ensure that you pay the charges for your accommodation’. The available payment methods were explained in an attached offer letter. Due to her income, she did not qualify for full housing benefit which meant she was liable for part of the rent. She now owed £1,347.31. The Council provided a copy of the rent account.

My findings

56. I found no fault on this complaint because:
1. I have seen no evidence of the Council sending Ms B an invoice outstanding rent;
2. the rent account shows the monthly rent was charged during this period and paid by housing benefit. As it had not taken possession of the property, and it was still available for Ms B’s occupation, it was entitled to continue making the charge; and
3. Ms C was charged for the temporary accommodation and was told about the need to make payments before its provision.

Back to top

Agreed action

57. I considered our guidance on remedies.
58. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. The Council will send a written apology to Ms C for failing to: keep full records about the offered property and her response; placing her and her child in unsuitable interim accommodation between July and November 2022.
2. Make a payment to Ms C of £1,300 (13 weeks x £100) for the distress caused by her staying in unsuitable accommodation.
3. Ensure relevant officers are reminded of the need to make and retain records of contact with applicants about offers of interim accommodation and their responses.
4. Ensure children services are aware of the need to show it was reasonable to place families in Bed and Breakfast accommodation, or similar, when providing temporary accommodation.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I make the following findings on the complaint made by Ms B and Ms C against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault;
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint c): no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman