Summary: Mrs D complained the Council placed her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation. We found fault causing distress and financial loss. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs D to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained the Council:
1. Placed her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation following a homelessness application from November 2023 to September 2024.
2. Placed her in an incorrect housing register band so she was unable to bid for properties marked for homeless home-seekers.
3. Repeatedly asked her for information it already had and ignored her correspondence.
4. Delayed providing an occupational therapy assessment of the accommodation.
2. Mrs D says this has caused significant distress to her and her family, disrupted her children’s education, and caused financial loss due to having to commute to schools and work.

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. 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.
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
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 not investigated part d) of Mrs D’s complaint. This is because occupational therapy is the responsibility of the NHS, which is outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mrs D about her complaint and considered the information she sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
9. Mrs D and the Council 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

Homelessness relevant law and guidance

10. 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.
11. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation and gives reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Threatened with homelessness and the prevention duty

12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
14. Once the council has accepted it owes the prevention duty, it must help the person for at least 56 days. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 14.11)

Relief duty and interim accommodation

15. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
16. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found.
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) Applicants in priority need may include people who have dependent children.
18. If the council decides the person is in priority need and not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends automatically after 56 days, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. There is no discretion to extend it. Where inquiries are not completed before the end of the relief duty, the Code advises the decision should be made within 15 working days from when the relief duty ends. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Main housing duty and temporary accommodation

19. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
20. The Code of Guidance states that people owed the main housing duty should be notified the day after the relief duty ends.
21. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation and reviews

22. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
23. The council must therefore consider if the accommodation is:
• affordable
• in good enough condition
• in a suitable location
• the right size
• suitable for any health issues or disabilities.
24. A local authority must take into account the location of the accommodation, including the significance of any disruption to employment, caring responsibilities or education of the person and their household
25. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of the Council accepting the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
26. A review about the suitability of accommodation must be completed within eight weeks of the review request. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018)
27. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
28. The person has a right to appeal the Council’s review decision to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
29. We expect people to use their review and appeal rights and therefore we usually do not investigate when someone has these rights. However, we may exercise discretion to investigate in exceptional cases. For instance, where the Council has failed to inform someone of their right to seek a review.

Hazards and disrepair

30. Accommodation is not suitable if it falls below certain minimum standards. The Code recommends that any accommodation should, as a minimum, be free of “Category One” hazards assessed under the Housing Health and Safety Rating system. A category one hazard is a hazard that poses a serious threat to someone’s health or safety, such as exposed wiring. If a council considers a category one hazard exists it must take the appropriate enforcement action. If there is a category two hazard, the council has the power to take enforcement action.
31. In relation to disrepair, in the first instance, occupiers are expected to report any defects to the landlord or managing agent. Councils should have an agreement with the landlord or agent which sets out the minimum property standards and timescales to deal with responsive repairs, including loss of heating or hot water supply. If the landlord or agent fails to respond and does not inspect the property and arrange for works to be done in a reasonable time, the applicant may then contact the council.

Housing Allocations

32. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing and how it prioritises applicants. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
33. Councils usually place housing applications into bands according to an applicant’s housing needs. In Redbridge, Band 3 (priority) is for those who are overcrowded or have a medical need or who are homeless. Band 2 (urgent) is for those who have an urgent medical need.
34. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which means once an applicant is given a priority band, they can bid on homes advertised by the Council.
35. In Redbridge, a person who is owed a homelessness duty can bid on properties labelled as “homeless homeseeker” (HH). Those who are not owed a homelessness duty can bid on “priority homeseeker” (PH) properties.

What happened

36. I have set out the key events; this is not meant to detail everything that happened.
37. Mrs D and her husband live with their four dependent children, one of whom has a diagnosis of autism and one who has received support from mental health services and is being assessed for autism. Mrs D has a health condition for which she receives personal independence payment benefit. They lived in a three-bedroom property and had been on the housing register since 2019 bidding for four-bedroom properties.
38. In October 2022, Mrs D told the Council she had received an eviction notice. The Council spoke to Mrs D on 5 January 2023. A Section 21 (no fault) eviction notice had been served and there was due to be a court hearing in May. The Council accepted the prevention duty on 10 January; the personalised housing plan gave advice on how to search for alternative private rental properties.
39. On 4 May, Mrs D emailed the Council to say the possession order had been granted. The Council replied on 10 May asking her to advise when she received the bailiff’s warrant for possession.
40. The possession order expired on 1 November. The Council ended the prevention duty and accepted the relief duty. It moved Mrs D and her family into interim accommodation as she was homeless and in priority need. The accommodation was a three-bedroom property and was out of the Council’s area.
41. Mrs D emailed the Council the next day. She said the accommodation was not suitable for her autistic son as it was not safe, it was also too far from her daughter’s school as she was in her GCSE year. She also raised disrepair issues with the landlord.
42. The relief duty ended after 56 days, on 27 December, but the Council did not accept the main housing duty until 1 February 2024. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the delay was due to it having been the Christmas period. At this point, the interim accommodation became temporary accommodation. Mrs D should have been able to start bidding on “HH” properties.
43. On 9 February, the Council started a review of the property’s suitability after receiving a report from a children’s social worker. This should have been completed by 8 April.
44. Mrs D emailed the Council on 23 March to say that she was unable to bid on HH properties as her housing register account had not been updated.
45. Mrs D made a formal complaint on 14 April that the family had been in unsuitable accommodation since November and that she had not yet had the outcome of the suitability review.
46. The local authority for the area where the property was located, found it had category 1 and category 2 hazards on 15 April. It sent a programme of works to rectify this to the landlord.
47. The Council issued the outcome of the suitability review on 22 April. It found the property was unsuitable due to its distance from school during a critical period for Mrs D’s daughter.
48. The Council responded to Mrs D’s complaint on 8 May. It said some repairs had been done and more would be done. Her property had been found to be unsuitable but she had refused a move to an alternative accommodation.
49. Mrs D remained dissatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. She said she had not refused the alternative accommodation but had queried whether it was suitable. Mrs D noted that she could still not bid on HH properties, the Council had not responded to her emails about this and it had repeatedly asked her for medical information.
50. The Council’s stage two complaint response on 24 May apologised that Mrs D had been placed in unsuitable accommodation, it hoped to move her as soon as possible. It said that although Mrs D had been unable to bid on HH properties, she had not missed out on any properties as she would not have been at the top of any shortlists for four-bedroom properties due to her length of time on the housing register.
51. Mrs D had asked to have her housing register banding reviewed for medical reasons. This decision was issued on 18 June 2024. The Council found that her banding (Band 3 (priority)) would not be changed for medical reasons. Mrs D asked for a review of this decision due to her children’s needs. She also came to the Ombudsman.
52. An occupational therapy assessment was completed on 23 July. This found Mrs D required a three- or four-bedroom property with a safe garden.
53. Following the review, the Council issued a new decision on Mrs D’s banding on 13 September. It found that her family’s medical needs placed her in Band 3. As she was already in this band, she would remain as “Band 3 homeless”.
54. The Council moved Mrs D into new, suitable temporary accommodation on 16 September.
55. Mrs D told us that her husband had had to drive 50 miles a day to take her children to their schools. This had caused problems for his business as he had only been able to work for two hours a day. She said the property and garden were not safe for her son and there was disrepair and pests. This had caused significant distress to the family, affecting their mental health and education.

My findings

56. The Council has accepted that it placed Mrs D and her family in unsuitable accommodation from 2 November 2023 to 15 September 2024 (10 and a half months). This is fault.
57. It has already apologised for this, but my view is this is not a sufficient remedy for the injustice caused. The family have been caused significant distress and disruption, the anxiety of living in a property with category 1 hazards for at least six months and the costs and inconvenience of transporting their children large distances to school and to get to work. This is injustice.
58. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might.
59. Our guidance on remedies says that where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. I consider a payment of £200 per month to be proportionate. In considering an appropriate amount, I have taken into account:
• that Mrs D had four dependent children,
• that some had disabilities or vulnerabilities,
• that one was in a key phase of her education, and
• the condition and state of repair of the accommodation.
60. In addition, we may recommend a council reimburses a homeless person for extra costs incurred as a direct result of fault in arranging suitable accommodation. For example for extra travelling costs to get to school or work if a household is inappropriately placed in accommodation outside the council’s area. Based on Mrs D’s statement of driving about an additional 50 miles a day, and the approximate cost of fuel, my view is that a reimbursement of £150 per month is appropriate. The Council noted that the schools were closed for 12 weeks during this time.
61. I therefore recommend a payment of £200 per month for 11 months and £150 per month for 7.5 months (33 school weeks). This totals £3,350.
62. We do not normally recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. This is because we cannot usually, on balance, establish a clear and causal link between the fault and the claimed injustice of lost earnings. There are frequently other factors, personal circumstances and choices involved. Such payments are therefore best resolved by the courts.
63. The Council has already apologised for poor communications and not responding to Mrs D. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
64. I also find there was a delay in accepting the main housing duty and a delay in accepting the relief duty. This meant Mrs D’s right to ask for a suitability review was delayed. But the outcome of this is that she was in unsuitable accommodation so I do not consider an additional remedy is required.
65. In addition, Mrs D’s housing register account was not updated to allow her to bid on HH properties from February 2024 to August 2024. This is fault. In response to my enquiries the Council said that Mrs D would not have reached the top of the shortlist for properties due to the time she had been on the housing register. It noted that the wait for a four-bedroom home in its area was approximately twenty years. I therefore do not consider that this fault has caused Mrs D an injustice as, on the balance of probabilities, she has not missed out on any properties.

Back to top

Agreed action

66. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Mrs D £3,350 to remedy the injustice caused by fault.
• Ensure her housing register account is up to date and working properly so that she can bid on homeless homeseeker properties.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

68. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman