Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not deal with her housing properly. Based on current evidence the Council is at fault because Mrs X had to spend longer than she should have in bed and breakfast accommodation, and it has delayed a financial remedy. Mrs X has suffered avoidable distress and financial loss. The Council should apologise, pay Mrs X the financial remedy agreed and review its policies.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with her housing because it:
• did not provide suitable housing because it failed to properly consider medical circumstances.
• took too long to pay her an agreed financial remedy.
• should not have offset agreed the financial remedy against a debt
2. Mrs X says the financial remedy was inadequate, has been delayed and should not have been offset.

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. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
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 considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

9. 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)
10. 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)

What happened?

11. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
12. Mrs X and her family were placed in temporary accommodation consisting of hotels and bed and breakfast between October 2023 and April 2024.
13. Mrs X told the Council on numerous occasions that the accommodation provided was not suitable.
14. The Council provided alternative accommodation at various locations.
15. Mrs X complained the Council had not provided suitable accommodation and had not properly considered the needs of her disabled husband.
16. The Council partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint and offered a financial remedy. The Council made a decision to offset part of the agreed remedy against rent arrears it said Mrs X had built up. It offset £2,100 and paid Mrs X £300.

Analysis

Suitable housing

17. I have reviewed the complaint correspondence, housing case notes, and other communication in relation to the case.
18. This evidence shows the Council:
• Provided accommodation at a hotel which included an accessible room for Mrs X’s partner.
• Transferred Mrs X and her family to accommodation that it had pre-checked was accessible and considered suitable.
• Provided accommodation which was not accessible after Mrs X had asked for her husband to be removed from her homeless application.
• Transferred Mrs X and her family to accessible accommodation in hotels after Mrs X asked for her husband to be again included in her homeless application.
• The Council completed a suitability review of Mrs X’s accommodation in April 2024 and accepted her accommodation at that point was unsuitable because the Council had provided bed and breakfast accommodation for a period of 21 weeks longer than it should have.
19. I agree with the Council that it exceeded the 6 week limit for the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation. This is fault by the Council.
20. On the balance of probabilities, the Council properly considered Mrs X’s family’s medical circumstances. This is not fault by the Council.

Financial remedy

21. The Council said, “We acknowledge that your stay in Bed and Breakfast accommodation exceeded the statutory limit of 6 weeks and the Council would like to offer an apology in relation to any distress or inconvenience that may have been caused by this matter. We would like to make you an offer of financial redress:
• A payment of £2100, 21 weeks excess stay in Bed and Breakfast accommodation from 21 November 2023 – 17 April 2024;.
• A payment of £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by this matter.”
22. The Council told me in relation to its financial remedy the main fault accepted was for the excess B&B stay and there was no evidence provided for financial loss. The remedy offered is therefore a symbolic payment in respect of the fault.
23. Having reviewed the case history and the evidence available I consider the level of financial remedy offered by the Council to be appropriate.
24. Mrs X accepted the remedy offered in May 2024. The Council took 26 working days to process the agreed payment. The Council accepts there was a delay, saying “The delay in making payment to [Mrs X] was an exception, occurring due to the combination of officers involved in the process being absent.” Based on evidence from other payments made by the Council, there was on the balance of probabilities a two week delay.
25. Mrs X says the Council did not tell her about the rent arrears.
26. The Council provided information including letter offering accommodation, history of correspondence letters and outcome of housing benefit claim period to support the following:
• The arrears debt accumulated between October 2023 and April 2024;
• Mrs X would have been advised of the temporary accommodation charges and that she should make a claim for housing benefit;
• Mrs X would have been advised by Benefit Service that she was not entitled to housing benefit because of excess income; and
• It did not advise Mrs X of the arrears.
27. On the balance of probabilities Mrs X would have been liable for accommodation charges regardless of where she lived. I am therefore satisfied the Council can recover any outstanding amount.
28. However, the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies states that, “Someone affected by fault causing injustice may still owe the organisation money. It is important our recommendations can meaningfully remedy injustice. Where we recommend a symbolic financial payment (e.g. for distress) we have set the amount to appropriately reflect the scale of injustice. That payment should not be offset against any debts. That is because doing so would stop the remedy from working as intended. Alternatively, where the injustice was quantifiable loss the organisation can, legitimately offset the payment against any debt.”
29. As identified in paragraph 22 above, the Council’s financial remedy constituted a symbolic remedy. Therefore, the Council should not have offset any debt against that financial remedy. Mrs X should have received the full financial remedy offered.

Back to top

Action

30. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the delay in paying her the financial remedy agreed. 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.
• Pay Mrs X the balance of the full financial remedy offered.
• Consider whether it is appropriate to recover any rent arrears through the correct process for this.
• Review its policies to ensure rent arrears are notified to those in temporary accommodation.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman