Summary: Miss X complained the Council housed her family in unsuitable accommodation following a homelessness application and delayed making a decision on the application. Miss X says her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology, symbolic payment and procedural review provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council housed her family in unsuitable accommodation following a homelessness application and has delayed making a decision on the application.
2. Miss X says because of the Council’s fault her family has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (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

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I have also considered information from the Council. I have explained my draft decision to Miss X and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

Background and Legislation

8. 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.
9. There are no statutory time limits for completing inquiries. However, the Homelessness Code of Guidance recommended that councils aim to complete their inquiries within 33 working days.
10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
11. 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)
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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)
13. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
14. 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.
15. 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)
16. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)
17. 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

What happened

18. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
19. Miss X contacted the Council at the end of January 2023 to say she had been sofa surfing for two months and it was not safe to remain at her mother’s property.
20. There is a Council email of 4 April to Miss X which notes the above information and says the matter has been passed to the housing register team “and have requested that a full housing needs assessment be carried out with regard to your homeless situation.”
21. The Council has provided a copy of an undated homelessness application which appears to have been completed in early May.
22. The Council subsequently completed an assessment of Miss X’s accommodation needs which highlighted she was a single mother with a one year old son and required two bed spaces and could manage up to four flights of stairs. It was recorded Miss X was attending university and family members helped care for her son. It was also recorded that Miss X wanted to live locally to help support her mother. The Council’s assessment did not exclude the use of shared accommodation.
23. The Council offered Miss X accommodation at a hostel from 21 October. The Council completed a room inspection in November. Miss X advised the Council the room was not suitable as there was not room for a cot and her baby could not sleep in a bunk bed. The Council confirmed there was enough space to place a cot. Miss X further explained she was working some night shifts and it was difficult to bring her baby to the accommodation. Miss X advised she was staying with relatives most of the time until a suitability review could be completed. The Council advised she could not make such a review request at this stage. The Council completed a further room inspection in November and raised a repair order for some broken blinds.
24. Miss X emailed the Council in December about the suitability of the room. Miss X explained the bunk beds provided were unsafe for her baby and so they were sharing a bed and she had difficulties managing the stairs with her baby to the second floor accommodation and the kitchen was locked at night making night-time feeds for her baby difficult. The Council confirmed the accommodation was being provided under section 188 and there was no right to request a review of this type of accommodation. The Council confirmed Miss X would be able to request such a review if it accepted the main housing duty (under section 193 of the Housing Act) and provided the details to do so. The Council did not advise Miss X of her right to make a complaint about the interim accommodation under its complaint procedure.
25. Miss X contacted the Council again about the suitability of the room in January 2024. The Council completed further room inspections in January and February.
26. The Council advised Miss X by telephone towards the end of February it was likely to accept the main housing duty.
27. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 31 July 2024.
28. The Council has confirmed it owns the accommodation provided to Miss X and it was provided as s188 interim accommodation under its relief duty until 31 July 2024 when it accepted the main housing duty.
29. The Council says it seeks to provide self-contained accommodation as soon as possible but the number of families in hostel accommodation and in bed and breakfast means that families are having to stay in hostel accommodation for longer periods.
30. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council has accepted it should have acted earlier both in determining what duty was owed initially to Miss X and in issuing a main duty decision.
31. The Council has highlighted Miss X largely made her own accommodation arrangements, even after being provided with interim accommodation and this may have indicated she had accommodation that was reasonable to continue to occupy. However, the Council has acknowledged it needed to complete an assessment to determine this and did not. This accepted fault resulted in an extended period of uncertainty for Miss X and potentially delayed the offer of emergency accommodation. The Council has noted Miss X’s limited use of the accommodation.
32. The Council has explained that the delay in reaching a main duty decision resulted from an administrative error. The Council says a main duty decision was sent for approval and recorded as having been made on 26 January 2024. This was an error that prevented the case being flagging as still requiring a main duty decision. The Council has reminded relevant officers that no decision can be recorded in the Council’s homelessness system until a decision is made even if this is anticipated imminently.
33. The Council also acknowledged the above denied Miss X the opportunity to legally challenge the suitability of the accommodation by way of statutory review. The Council says it is unlikely this would have resulted in an offer of alternative accommodation when taking into account her household’s needs and the current accommodation pressures faced by the Council.
34. The Council confirmed to the Ombudsman that it would be making a decision on Miss X’s application urgently and in any event no later than 7 June.
35. The Ombudsman contacted the Council on 29 July for confirmation this action had been completed. The Council responded on 31 July to confirm a decision had been made and attached a decision letter dated that day.

My consideration

36. The Council has accepted there was delay both in determining what duty was owed to Miss X initially and in issuing a main duty decision. This accepted fault resulted in an extended period of uncertainty for Miss X and potentially delayed the offer of emergency accommodation.
37. We will not usually investigate complaints about temporary accommodation where the complainant has a statutory right of review and subsequent appeal to court on a point of law. This means I have not investigated the period following the Council’s decision to accept a main housing duty on 31 July 2024. This is because Miss X is now able to make a statutory review request about the suitability of her accommodation should she wish to do so.
38. We also recognise the reality that a shortage of available accommodation means councils are not always able to fulfil their “immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified” duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation. In these cases, we expect to see evidence of councils making efforts to fulfil their duties, at both the individual and strategic level. We also expect to see councils considering whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on the household.
39. Although the hostel had shared facilities it does not meet the legal definition of Bed & Breakfast as it is owned by the Council. However, the property still has to be legally suitable.
40. I am satisfied the Council completed a suitability assessment before offering the initial interim accommodation to Miss X and visited the property to investigate Miss X’s initial concerns. However, Miss X provided further cogent reasons to the Council why it was arguably unsuitable for her particular circumstances. The Council did not address these reasons under its complaints procedure. This is fault. There is also no evidence the Council was actively seeking to find more suitable accomodation for Miss X during this period.
41. Although a finely balanced decision, I consider there is a degree of uncertainty about the suitability of the accommodation provided to Miss X. I am satisfied this will have caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty about whether she could have received more suitable accommodation sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. The Council has agreed to take the following action to remedy Miss X’s injustice:
1. write to Miss X to apologise for the fault identified in the way it dealt with her homelessness application within one month of my final decision;
2. make a symbolic payment of £400 to Miss X to recognise her avoidable frustration and uncertainty within one month of my final decision; and
3. review its procedures within three months of my final decision to ensure complaints about interim accommodation are put through its complaints procedure.
43. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation as I have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed actions above provide a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman