Summary: The Council delayed issuing a decision on Miss B’s homeless application, left Miss B and her children in hotel accommodation for more than six weeks, delayed responding to Miss B’s representative and failed to keep proper records. An apology, payment to Miss B, reminder to officers and a review of the Council’s processes is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained the Council:
• failed to take a homeless application from her in November 2023;
• delayed processing her homeless application;
• failed to follow the homelessness code of guidance (code of guidance) in assessing that application;
• failed to provide her with interim accommodation pending its enquiries;
• failed to carry out the relief and prevention duties or issue a personalised housing plan;
• delayed providing her with accommodation while it carried out a review;
• delayed providing her with accommodation when the court ordered the Council to do so;
• provided her with unsuitable hotel accommodation in April 2024;
• delayed responding to the law centre acting on her behalf; and
• failed to keep proper records.
2. Miss B says the Council’s actions have had a significant impact on her mental health and the welfare of her children and meant she had to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

7. I have investigated Miss B’s concerns about the failure to take a homeless application, delay processing the application, her concerns about the suitability of the hotel accommodation provided, delay responding to the law centre and failure to keep proper records.
8. I have not investigated Miss B’s concerns about the failure to follow the code of guidance, failure to provide her with interim accommodation pending enquiries, failure to carry out the relief and prevention duties or issue a personalised housing plan, delay providing her with accommodation while the Council completed a review of its decision to treat Miss B as not homeless or delay providing accommodation following a court order. I explain my reasons for that later in this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

11. 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.

The homelessness code of guidance

12. If a council has 'reason to believe' someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low.
13. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them.
14. In assessing whether someone is homeless due to domestic abuse, councils should refer to the domestic abuse statutory guidance framework (DASH) risk assessment.
15. 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.
16. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.
17. 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.
18. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. That includes decisions on homeless applications.

What happened

19. Miss B had a tenancy for a property where she lived with her children. Miss B experienced a domestic abuse incident at her home in September 2023 when she was assaulted by her then partner and another person. Both were arrested. Their bail conditions prevented them going to Miss B’s property, her mother's property and from contacting her. Miss B began staying with her mother in her two bedroom property with her children.
20. On 3 November 2023 Miss B presented to the Council as homeless. The Council says it did not take a homeless application as Miss B said she would stay with her sister over the weekend to think about her options.
21. On 27 November a law centre acting on Miss B's behalf wrote to the Council to ask it to confirm if it had accepted a relief duty and provided a personalised housing plan. The law centre also asked whether the Council was refusing to provide accommodation with cooking facilities as it said that had been suggested to Miss B when she approached the Council earlier in November.
22. The law centre chased the Council on 4, 5, 6 and 12 December. The law centre also provided the Council with a letter from a social worker.
23. On 12 December the Council wrote to the law centre to explain it did not consider it needed to provide accommodation. The Council asked the law centre to provide any documentary evidence to support its claim Miss B’s property was not suitable for her to occupy. The Council also suggested the option of the sanctuary scheme. In response the law centre told the Council it had applied the wrong test and provided evidence of the assault. The law centre made clear the Council should make its own enquiries to satisfy itself whether Miss B was homeless and said while doing that it should provide accommodation.
24. The law centre provided a supporting letter from Refuge on 14 December. That letter said the risk level was 12, which was high. Refuge said if Miss B remained in her property she would face greater risk of harm and violence as the perpetrators of the domestic abuse knew her location. In response the Council suggested sanctuary measures such as installing alarms and/or new locks. Miss B confirmed she wanted temporary accommodation.
25. The law centre chased the Council on 18 December. In response the Council said it was not satisfied there was evidence of a threat to Miss B and therefore it would not provide accommodation. The law centre issued a judicial review. That covered the Council’s failure to accept the relief duty, failure to carry out a housing assessment and failure to provide accommodation.
26. On 5 January 2024 the Council sent Miss B a section 184 decision which said the Council was not satisfied she was homeless. The law centre requested a review of that decision on 15 January and asked the Council to house Miss B while it considered it.
27. The law centre chased the Council on 19 January, issued a pre-action protocol letter on 25 January and chased the Council again on 31 January.
28. On 14 February the law centre told the Council Miss B would be applying for legal aid to issue judicial review proceedings. The law centre invited the Council to issue a decision that day to confirm whether it would provide accommodation pending review. The Council issued a decision the following day declining to provide interim accommodation. Miss B put in a judicial review application about that decision on 26 February.
29. On 21 March the court issued an interim order requiring the Council to provide Miss B with accommodation as soon as practicable. The Council referred the case to the accommodation team on 28 March to identify suitable accommodation.
30. On 4 April the Council placed Miss B and her children in hotel accommodation. The law centre raised concerns about the suitability of that as it would mean Miss B would have to buy three take-out meals per day for the whole family. The law centre also pointed out the Council could not use bed-and-breakfast accommodation unless no other accommodation was available and, even then, for a maximum of six weeks.
31. The Council moved Miss B to a different hotel on 8 April. The law centre again raised concerns about the impact on Miss B and her family of staying in hotel accommodation.
32. The law centre chased the Council for a decision on the review request on 15 and 19 April.
33. The law centre contacted the Council again on 16 May to point out Miss B had been living in hotel accommodation for six weeks. The law centre requested self-contained accommodation.
34. The Council offered Miss B a three-bedroom property on 29 May as interim accommodation. The law centre raised concerns about the suitability of the property as it was close to the perpetrators of the domestic abuse but made clear Miss B was not refusing it. There is no evidence of any further action about that property but Miss B continued to stay in hotel accommodation.
35. On 20 June Miss B told the Council she had found private rented accommodation.
36. Because of the complaint the Council has taken the following action:
• issued an apology;
• booked compulsory domestic abuse refresher training for its staff;
• offered Miss B £250 for the delay providing her with accommodation;
• arranged for an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) to be co-located in the housing solutions team once a week to support the team in their work with victims of domestic abuse;
• issued a reminder to officers about the need to record all conversations with homeless applicants.

Analysis

37. Miss B says the Council failed to take a homeless application from her when she presented as homeless on 3 November 2023. Miss B says during that visit the officer she spoke to told her the Council would place her in hotel accommodation without cooking facilities. Miss B says the Council told her that to dissuade her from making a homeless application.
38. The Ombudsman has to rely on the documentary evidence. In this case the only evidence of what was discussed on 3 November 2023 is a relatively short note kept by the officer that dealt with Miss B. That note does not record any information about advice given to Miss B about what type of accommodation the Council would provide her with if she made a homeless application. The record shows at the end of the discussion Miss B said she would stay with her sister over the weekend and revisit the situation the following Monday. I have some concerns about that note because it was not recorded contemporaneously. Instead, the note appears was added more than a month after the visit took place. That means the evidence is less reliable.
39. In response to the complaint from the law centre though the Council said the duty officer that saw Miss B on 3 November explained the homelessness procedure and the likelihood of being placed in hotel accommodation due to the lack of self-contained accommodation available. That complaint response also records the duty officer discussed the option of sanctuary measures to enable Miss B to return to her property. None of those issues are recorded in the note the Council kept of the visit on 3 November and that is fault.
40. I understand, given Miss B has children, why she would have been concerned about the information the Council’s officer provided about the lack of self-contained accommodation and the likelihood of being placed in hotel accommodation. I understand why Miss B would have viewed that as an attempt by the Council to put her off continuing her homeless application. However, I could not criticise the Council for attempting to manage Miss B’s expectations about the availability of self-contained accommodation. It is not fault for the Council to do that.
41. However, I would also have expected the Council to tell Miss B it could not leave homeless applicants with children in B&B accommodation for longer than six weeks and to give some further context to what the Council would do should it provide Miss B with B&B accommodation at first. Failure to do that is fault and meant Miss B did not have the full picture. As remedy for that I recommended the Council remind officers dealing with homeless applicants of the need to provide a full picture at homeless interviews, particularly when an applicant has children, rather than only outlining the negatives. That is so a homeless applicant can make an informed decision about how to proceed and to prevent any suggestion of gatekeeping. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
42. In this case the note the Council kept from the meeting on 3 November recorded Miss B said she wanted to stay with her sister over the weekend to decide how to proceed. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for failing to take a homeless application before 27 November when the law centre contacted the Council on Miss B’s behalf. That is because I have no evidence Miss B confirmed she wanted to make a homeless application before 27 November.
43. Miss B raised some concerns about what happened between 27 November and the Council issuing a not homeless decision in January 2024. Miss B says the Council did not make any enquiries on her application, failed to consider the evidence she provided about the property she had left being safe to return to due to domestic abuse and failed to provide her with interim accommodation.
44. How the Council assessed the application and whether it was at fault for not offering Miss B interim accommodation are matters which fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. For the assessment of the application, I consider that is inextricably linked to the Council’s decision that Miss B was not homeless. Miss B had, and exercised, her right of appeal about that decision. Also, the judicial review application Miss B put in covered her concerns about the Council’s assessment of her application. For those reasons how the Council assessed the application is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
45. Miss B’s concerns about the Council’s failure to provide her with interim accommodation is also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. That is because that matter was covered by the judicial review applications Miss B put in. Once a judicial review has been submitted, even if it is subsequently withdrawn, the issues which formed part of that judicial review application are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. For those reasons I cannot comment on how the Council assessed the application or whether it should have provided Miss B with interim accommodation.
46. I am, however, concerned about the Council’s delay issuing a decision on Miss B’s homeless application. I have seen no evidence the Council made any enquiries on the homeless application between November 2023 and January 2024. As it was also telling the law centre it did not consider Miss B was homeless during that period I consider the Council at fault for the delay issuing a decision on the homeless application. That delay meant Miss B’s right to request a review was also delayed and likely contributed to her feeling she had to put in a judicial review application.
47. Miss B says the Council failed to carry out the relief and prevention duties or issue a personalised housing plan. The Council’s relief and prevention duties come into play once the Council has accepted an applicant is eligible, in priority need and homeless. In this case the Council did not consider Miss B homeless and issued a decision to that effect in January 2024. It follows because the Council had not accepted Miss B as homeless the relief and prevention duties did not apply. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for failing to move onto the relief stage. While I appreciate Miss B disagrees with the Council’s decision that is not a matter the Ombudsman can consider. That is because Miss B had review and appeal rights, and exercised her right of review, for the decision to treat her as not homeless.
48. Miss B says the Council failed to provide her with accommodation while it carried out a review of its decision that she was not homeless. I have not investigated this part of the complaint as Miss B put in a judicial review covering that issue. That means the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider that matter.
49. Miss B says the Council delayed providing her with temporary accommodation after the court ordered it to do so. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the court issued its interim order on 21 March 2024. That order did not give the Council a specific date by which it should provide Miss B with accommodation. Instead, the court order said the Council should provide accommodation as soon as practicable. The Council then provided accommodation on 4 April. While I understand Miss B’s concern about the delay, court proceedings were still ongoing at that point. That means any delay providing accommodation following the interim order is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If Miss B believed the Council was not acting quickly enough to provide her with accommodation she had recourse back to the court. I therefore cannot comment on the delay providing accommodation following the interim court order.
50. Miss B says the Council provided unsuitable interim accommodation in April 2024. Miss B says because she has children the Council should not have provided hotel accommodation. Miss B says because she did not have any cooking facilities she spent £90 a day on take outs to feed her family and this caused her significant stress as she was concerned about running out of money. Miss B also says living in hotel accommodation for 11 weeks had an impact on her mental health as well as on her children.
51. The code of guidance is clear that B&B accommodation, such as hotels, are not suitable for homeless applicants with children. The code of guidance makes clear if B&B accommodation is provided to an applicant with children it should only be for a maximum of six weeks. The Council says it did not have any other option than to provide Miss B with hotel accommodation in April 2024 as it did not have self contained accommodation available.
52. I am satisfied the Council knew what the code of guidance said about the length of time homeless applicants with families should stay in hotel accommodation though, particularly as the law centre repeatedly reminded the Council of that. I have seen no evidence the Council made any attempts to seek alternative self-contained accommodation for Miss B while she was in the hotel until the point at which it made her an offer in May 2024. Leaving Miss B in hotel accommodation for longer than six weeks is fault. I am satisfied that had a significant impact on Miss B and her family as well as leading Miss B to incur significant costs to feed her children.
53. I am aware the Council offered Miss B alternative interim accommodation in a self-contained property on 29 May 2024. I am also aware though Miss B's representative raised concerns about the suitability of that property given it was close to where the perpetrators of domestic abuse lived. The Council has not provided me with any documentation to show what, if any, view it took about the suitability of the self-contained accommodation in light of Miss B's representations. Had the Council considered the property suitable I would have expected it to tell Miss B that. It is also clear from the legal centre's comments to the Council on Miss B's behalf that she made clear she was not turning the property down. Given the Council did not end the hotel accommodation provided to Miss B and as there is no evidence it addressed Miss B's concerns about the suitability of the self-contained accommodation I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the Council accepted Miss B's concerns about the suitability of the property.
54. So, I consider the Council at fault for leaving Miss B in hotel accommodation for longer than six weeks. In all Miss B stayed in hotel accommodation for 11 weeks. The Ombudsman will normally recommend an amount between £100 and £200 per week for each week that an applicant stays in B&B accommodation for longer than they should have. I consider a payment of £200 per week appropriate in this case given Miss B had more than one child living with her in that accommodation and given the effect this had on her own mental health. I therefore recommended the Council pay Miss B £1,000. I further recommended the Council pay Miss B an extra £150 per week to reflect the reasonable additional cost of buying take-away food for the additional five weeks she spent in hotel accommodation. That amount takes into account the fact Miss B would have had to buy food to cook for her children had she had cooking facilities. That makes a an additional £750. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
55. I also recommended, and the Council accepted, it will:
• review its procurement policy to reduce the use of B&B and increase the supply of other types of temporary accommodation;
• ensure officers carry out a suitability assessment to identify a household's needs before making a placement in B&B or other temporary accommodation;
• where a B&B placement is the only available option, notify applicants who have children, or a member of the household is pregnant, about the six-week maximum limit and their right to request a suitability review when the main housing duty has been accepted; and
• set up a procedure for monitoring cases where families are in B&B to ensure it finds alternative accommodation before the six-week limit is reached.
56. Miss B says the Council delayed responding to the law centre which was contacting it on her behalf. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the law centre continually had to chase the Council for responses throughout its involvement with Miss B’s case. Delay responding to correspondence from the law centre is fault. That is unlikely to have reassured Miss B the Council was taking her case seriously. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to the law centre and Miss B. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
57. Miss B says the Council failed to keep proper records. Miss B says she had various conversations with Council officers over the telephone for which there are no documentary records. I am satisfied Miss B had telephone conversations with Council officers as the fact conversations took place is recorded in various emails. In those circumstances I am concerned to note the Council has not kept notes from those telephone conversations. That is fault. As remedy for this part of the complaint I recommended the Council remind officers dealing with homeless applications of the need to keep detailed contemporaneous notes of any significant conversations which take place. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
58. As I have also found fault in the Council’s delay processing Miss B’s homeless application and in failing to keep proper records I recommended the Council pay Miss B an additional £500. That is to reflect her distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

59. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss B for the distress, uncertainty and frustration she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• apologise to the law centre for the delays responding to its correspondence;
• pay Miss B £1,500 to reflect the additional five weeks she spent in hotel accommodation above the six week limit and to reflect the distress she experienced as a result of the faults identified in this statement;
• pay Miss B £750 to reflect the additional costs she likely incurred buying food for her and her children for the additional five weeks they spent in hotel accommodation above the six week limit;
• remind officers dealing with homeless applicants of:
1. the need to provide a full picture at homeless interviews, particularly when an applicant has children, rather than only outlining the negatives so a homeless applicant can make an informed decision about how to proceed and to prevent any suggestion of gatekeeping;
2. the need to record contemporaneous notes from its phone conversations with housing applicants to ensure reliability;
3. the need to carry out a suitability assessment to identify the household's needs before making a placement in B&B or other temporary accommodation;
4. the need to, where a B&B placement is the only available option, notify applicants who have children, or where a member of the household is pregnant, about the six-week maximum limit and their right to request a suitability review when the main housing duty has been accepted;
• make its housing officers aware of the Ombudsman’s guide for practitioners on domestic abuse and housing decisions, published in October 2024;
• review its procurement policy to reduce the use of B&B and increase the supply of other types of temporary accommodation;
• set up a process to actively monitor cases where families are in B&B to ensure it finds alternative accommodation before the six-week limit is reached.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman