Summary: Miss D complains the Council placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation, delayed dealing with her homelessness application, and failed to offer her suitable temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman has found fault. The Council had already agreed to make Miss D a direct offer of accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss D complains the Council:
1. placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation after she applied as homeless
2. took too long to make a decision on her homelessness application
3. failed to offer her suitable three-bedroom temporary accommodation
2. As a result, Miss D says she and her three children who have mental health needs were living in unsuitable accommodation, causing stress, behaviour problems and difficulties in taking the children to school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I spoke to Miss D about her complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• Housing Act 1996
• Homelessness Code of Guidance 2006 (“the Code”)
6. I sent Miss D and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

7. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, the council must make enquiries to determine if the person is homeless.
8. There are no statutory time limits for completing these enquiries, however the Code recommends councils aim to complete their enquiries within 33 working days.
9. If the council thinks someone is homeless and in priority need, it must, if the person asks for it, provide emergency, interim accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. The Code says it is not reasonable for a person to live at a property if it is probable this will lead to domestic or other violence.
11. Once the enquiries are complete, the council must write to the applicant with its decision. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

12. 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 (whether temporary or permanent) provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
13. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, authorities must have regard to:
• The space and arrangement of the accommodation
• The state of repair and condition of the accommodation – as an absolute minimum it must be free of Category 1 hazards
• Location – including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care
• The specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability
• Affordability of the accommodation
• The slum clearance, overcrowding and HMO provisions of the Housing Act 1985 and Parts 1 to 4 of the Housing Act 2004 (section 210)
14. A property may be overcrowded by law if two people of a different sex aged over 10 years have to sleep in the same room. Living rooms count as rooms that can be slept in.
15. If a council places an applicant outside its area, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household;
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
16. Bromley Council completes a suitability checklist when allocating interim accommodation offered under s188 of the Housing Act 1996, and assesses suitability using guidelines set out in the Code, statutory orders issued by the Secretary of State, and the guidelines in the Council’s temporary accommodation placement policy.
17. Applicants may request a review of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) There is no right to request a review of the suitability of emergency, interim accommodation.

What happened

18. Miss D has three children, a boy aged over 10 years and two girls aged under 10. All three were subject to child protection plans and have mental health issues; one has autism. She was living in a three-bedroom housing association property in the Council’s area (Property 1).
19. Miss D applied to the Council as homeless on 22 January 2018. She said she had to leave the area as a former abuser lived nearby. A council officer interviewed Miss D and advised her to ask the housing association to transfer her to a new property.
20. The Council did not make homelessness enquiries or issue a homelessness decision. I have seen no evidence it considered whether Miss D was at risk of domestic or other violence in Property 1.
21. In February 2018 the Court granted an interim supervision order for Miss D’s children.
22. Miss D called the Council again in May 2018. She said she had been assaulted in her home and her property damaged. Her children had witnessed the incident. The Police had told her not to return to Property 1, so she had been staying with friends. The Council interviewed Miss D the next day. As Miss D was apparently homeless and in priority need, the officer requested emergency, interim accommodation. A two-bedroom, top floor flat was found in Council 2’s area (Property 2).
23. The Council completed a suitability checklist which found Property 2 to be suitable. The Council considered it would be reasonable for the children to change schools as the family was fleeing violence in Property 1’s area. Miss D’s children moved to a school in Council 2’s area, about three miles away from Property 2. The checklist says no problems were identified in the journey to school.
24. The Police told the Council there was no ongoing risk to the family and they could return to Property 1. On 5 June 2018 the Council emailed Miss D with a “not homeless” decision. It cancelled the tenancy for Property 2 with effect from 7 June 2018.
25. On 6 June 2018 the Police said that, in fact, the incident was still under investigation and it was not safe for the family to return to Property 1. Miss D continued to live at Property 2.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council said there was then no further contact from the Police, social workers or Miss D. It accepted the homelessness case remained in a backlog and was not dealt with.
27. Miss D asked for an update on her homelessness application in November 2018. I have seen no evidence the Council took any action at this point.
28. The Court granted a supervision order on 18 December 2018. This placed Miss D’s children under the supervision of Council 2, as Miss D was living in its area.
29. Miss D chased the Council again in January 2019. The Council spoke to the Police, who confirmed the investigation had been closed in August 2018 with no further action. The Council told Miss D that, as Property 1 was still available, it was considering issuing a “not homeless” decision.
30. Miss D complained to the Council on 26 January 2019. She said she did not want to move back to Property 1 and wanted to stay in Council 2’s area. This was because her children were settled and doing well. She sent supporting evidence from the court and her psychologist. Council 2’s social services department told the Council Miss D’s children were settled at Property 2. Miss D complained the Council’s children’s social care team had let her down by not supporting her to stay in Council 2’s area. I have seen no evidence the Council responded to this complaint.
31. An officer met Miss D on 28 February 2019. He said that, although the Police had confirmed there was no risk at Property 1, the Council was likely to accept Miss D as homeless as this was in the best interests of her children. It would add Miss D to the housing register, and it was likely to take two years to find a property. In the meantime, Miss D would remain in temporary accommodation.
32. It appears Miss D complained about the delay in deciding her homelessness application at this point, because on 6 March 2019, the Council called Miss D in response to her complaint. During the conversation, Miss D said Property 2 was unsuitable as it was too small and on the top floor. She said her son could not share a bedroom with his siblings due to his violent behaviour. She asked for a three-bedroom property. The Council agreed to look for one.
33. The Council issued a homelessness decision letter on 7 March 2019. This said it had accepted that Miss D was homeless. It offered Property 2 as temporary accommodation. Miss D told the Council Property 2 was not suitable as it was only two-bedrooms and on the top floor. The Council offered an alternative two-bedroom property that was on the ground floor with access to a garden. Miss D did not agree to this, so the Council withdrew the offer. It is not clear to me whether it also withdrew its decision to accept the housing duty.
34. Miss D complained to the Ombudsman.
35. On 15 May 2019 she told the Council she had moved back to Property 1. The Council found a three-bedroom property in Council 2’s area on 1 July 2019. It accepted the main housing duty for Miss D on 4 July 2019, issuing another decision letter.
36. The housing association granted a warrant for re-possession of Property 1 due to arrears and Miss D was evicted in July 2019. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it would offer Miss D temporary accommodation and make her a direct offer of a three-bedroom house in its area when one became available.

My findings

37. I have considered each part of Miss D’s complaint separately.

Placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation after she applied as homeless

38. The Council did not place Miss D in interim accommodation when she applied as homeless in January 2018. I consider this application further in the section below.
39. When Miss D approached the Council again in May 2018, it placed her in interim accommodation (Property 2) whilst it carried out homelessness enquiries. The Council completed a checklist of Property 2 in line with its policy, which found the property to be suitable.
40. I realise Miss D considers she needs a three-bedroom house, but it was not fault to place her in a two-bedroom property as she was not overcrowded by law and I have seen no evidence she required a ground floor property. I note that Miss D did not raise concerns with the Council about the property until March 2019. There was no fault by the Council, and it did not place Miss D in unsuitable interim or temporary accommodation.

Took too long to make a decision on her homelessness application

41. The Council has accepted it delayed in making a decision on the homelessness application Miss D made on 22 January 2018. It has acknowledged it should have ensured the housing association could rehouse Miss D. The Council failed to carry out enquiries until May 2018 and did not issue a homelessness decision until 7 March 2019. Although there is no statutory timescale, it took the Council a year to make a homelessness decision. This is more than seven times longer than recommended in the Code and is fault.
42. I have seen no evidence the Council considered whether Miss D was at risk of violence if she remained in Property 1, after she applied as homeless in January 2018. Given the reason for her application and the incident in May 2018, it was fault not to consider this.
43. Having identified fault, I must go on to consider whether this has caused Miss D an injustice. Whilst there was significant delay in dealing with Miss D’s homelessness application and in discharging the Council’s homelessness duty, I am not persuaded it led to a significant injustice in this case. I say this because the Council accommodated Miss D in suitable, interim accommodation from May 2018 to March 2019.
44. However, the delay in issuing a homelessness decision did prevent Miss D from being added to the housing register and being able to bid on properties. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it will make a direct offer to Miss D of a three-bedroom property when one becomes available. This is a suitable and proportionate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay.
45. Although I consider there to be fault by the Council in not considering whether Miss D was at risk of violence, I cannot say that, had it done so, the Council would have determined that Miss D was homeless in January 2018. This is because Property 1 was available to her and I cannot say what conclusion the Council would have reached on the risk of violence.

Failed to offer her suitable three-bedroom temporary accommodation

46. The Council was not required to offer Miss D a three-bedroom property, as she was not statutorily overcrowded. However, after Miss D told the Council she wanted a three-bedroom property in March 2019, it agreed to search for one. It has sent evidence that it considered 14 properties for Miss D, but none were suitable. It did not find a suitable three-bedroom house until 1 July 2019. There was no fault by the Council.

Agreed action

47. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D for the delay in making a decision on her homelessness application.
48. The Council has already agreed to make her a direct offer when a suitable property becomes available.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman