Summary: We found fault on the complaint sent by Miss C on behalf of Mrs D about the Council’s failure to provide suitable interim accommodation for her and her family during 2022. The Council failed to provide her with timely advice, failed to record her son’s needs in a way that was accessible to all officers working on the case, placed her in unsuitable accommodation for seven months, initially wrongly reduced her banding, and prevented her moving to a risk area. It also failed to properly deal with her complaint. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss C complains on behalf of Mrs D about the Council’s failure to provide suitable interim accommodation for her and her family in 2022 after she was forced to leave her home because of a risk of violence: as a result, they remained in unsuitable accommodation which caused health problems.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have not investigated whether the accommodation provided by the Council actually caused harm to the health of Mrs D and her family. This is because this is an issue for the courts, not the Ombudsman, to decide.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)

Back to top

Housing law

5. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
6. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
7. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
8. As the duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation, councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. If there is a change of circumstances, the council must reconsider whether the accommodation remains suitable.
9. Section 204 gives an applicant who is dissatisfied with the section 202 review a right of appeal to the County Court. An appeal must be brought within 21 days of the applicant being notified of the review decision. The Court may give permission for a late appeal if there is a good reason why it was not made in time.
10. Where the housing authority arranges accommodation, this must be suitable for the person and those who can reasonably be expected to live with them. Accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty is called temporary accommodation. Councils meet this duty in different ways, including:

• its own housing stock;
• dedicated hostels or purpose-built accommodation;
• properties obtained from housing associations or other registered providers of social housing; and
• properties leased from private landlords.

Back to top

Council’s allocation scheme (May 2021)

11. The policy explains who is eligible to be included on HomeChoice Bristol and the band within which an applicant will be assessed based on housing need.
12. Applicants are considered in band order with Band 1 the highest, and Band 4 the lowest. They are then considered in date order within the band which will be the date of the application assessment into that band or backdated by 6 months if they have one of more composite housing needs.
13. For homeless applicants, the effective date for an applicant is the date on which the relief duty was accepted on the homelessness application. Band 3 is for those who are homeless or threatened with it.
14. The policy states all applications will be assessed from the applicant’s primary residence, which means the accommodation the household would normally occupy. If an applicant cannot occupy their home due to domestic abuse or threats of violence, the application will still be assessed from the accommodation the applicant has rights to occupy. A move to temporary/emergency accommodation will not result in the reassessment of their housing application. (paragraph 4.3)
15. Band 2 is awarded to those suffering harassment. This is where the household urgently needs to move due to domestic abuse, violence, or other harassment and is at significant risk of harm. This priority will only be awarded if a move to another property will resolve the immediate danger. (paragraph 4.5 b)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered all the information sent, including the Council’s response to our enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss C and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

17. Mrs D rented her home from the Council and had a secure tenancy. Mrs D, her partner, her daughter (aged 18 years) and son (aged 15 years old) lived there until the police advised her to leave immediately because of threats of violence. This was in March 2022. The same night, they all moved to a hotel. At the time of moving out, she was in Band 2 (harassment) under the Council’s housing allocation scheme.
18. The following day, she told the Council what happened. An officer carried out an initial assessment and contacted the police for more information.
19. From fleeing the secure accommodation, Mrs D and her family stayed in the following accommodation:

Property 1 (27 March to 28 March 2022):

20. Mrs D found and paid for this accommodation due to the urgent need to move. When she contacted the Council with a homeless application the following morning, it moved her the same day. The booking form noted it was made under s188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 and recorded six risk areas.
21. The Council confirmed the record of the assessment made that day noted: her son has autism and anxiety; he needs a shower as he will not bathe; he needs his own bedroom. It says she only provided evidence in support four months later.

Property 2 (28 March to 1 April 2022):

22. The Council accepted a relief duty to Mrs D under her homeless application and moved the family to a one-bedroom flat. Mrs D complained four of them were all sharing one room and the heating did not work. It accepted its size was not ideal but, this was all it had available.
23. The Council explained when placed under the relief duty, an applicant’s banding is changed to Band 3 as ‘standard practice’. If they are already in Band 2, officers discuss with them what will happen if they proceed with the homeless application as they will move down to Band 3. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it is carrying out an allocations review which includes changing this practice so all homeless cases are awarded Band 2. It will always consider any exceptional case and in certain circumstances, the banding of the applicant can be amended.

In its response to my draft decision, the Council claimed it considered exercising discretion when reducing her from Band 2 to Band 3. It said it exercised discretion by allowing her to keep Band 2. I note while it did exercise discretion to do so, it only did so after the involvement of her MP in May 2022.

Property 3: (1 April to 6 April 2022)

24. The Council moved her to this property which was in a risk area. This was a one-bedroom property which she says was infested with cockroaches and had no hot water or heating. She complained she could see her secure accommodation from it. The Council later accepted it should not have offered her this property as it was aware of the risk areas and this area was on the booking form as an area to avoid. It took two urgent requests before the Council moved her.
25. The Council agreed to urgently move the family and noted the identified risk areas were not recorded on its Housing Support Register. The Council noted the risk was made on the original booking check sheet. To prevent this failure from occurring again, the Council now puts the risk area alerts on the Housing Support Register. This is the system used by the service for managing all support and temporary accommodation placements. It also told her it owed her a relief duty for the next 56 days.

Property 4: (6 April to 14 April 2022)

26. The Council moved the family to a local hotel. During her stay, she said she was told to go back to property 3 but refused because it was in a high-risk area. The Council accepted she should not have been asked to go back to property 3.
27. They left the property in the morning only to have to return later the same day to a different room. In response to my draft decision, Miss C noted the Council records between 11 and 13 April show it was aware Mrs D needed suitable accommodation closer to her children’s school, was unable to cook for the family in the hotel, and that she was paying taxi fares to get to work as there were no buses.

Property 5: (14 April to 8 June 2022)

28. The Council moved Mrs D to a two-bedroom flat. Mrs D complained it only had one bedroom, a bath, and took her more than an hour and a half to get to her son’s school. She argued all this meant it was not suitable for them. The Council accepted it could have been an administrative error which caused it to record this property as two bedroom instead of one.
29. The landlord bought extra beds the same day. Mrs D updated her homeless application to include an additional family member as the Council’s records only had four members of the household recorded. Her previous application had only included four, not five members of the family. She also says when she asked a Council officer if they could move to a different flat within the block, the officer refused to do the referral as he was too busy.
30. Mrs D also contacted the Council as she was confused about whether she had to pay council tax on her secure property. The Council emailed her on 29 April confirming she would not have to pay two lots of council tax and that ‘benefits’ would cover the emergency rent.
31. At the start of May, officers requested different accommodation for her but, claimed a few days later Mrs D said she did not want to move. Later in May, Shelter acted as an advocate for Mrs D, and contacted the Council. Towards the end of the month, officers put in a request for alternative accommodation. The records show they were overcrowded, and her son struggled with the long journey to school. Her MP also contacted the Council asking why Mrs D’s banding priority on the Housing Register had been reduced since she applied as homeless. The banding date had changed from 2020 to April 2022 which impacted on her bidding position. The Council agreed to reinstate the banding as a discretionary decision. The records show the Council decided it was ‘counter intuitive to penalise a victim' fleeing their home.
32. The records show the Council had not accepted a section 193 duty to her.
33. In June, an officer contacted Mrs D about getting rent paid for the secure property and for her to make contact if she needed help with Council Tax Reduction.

Property 6: (8 June to 7 November 2022)

34. The Council moved the family to a two-bedroom flat with a living room and had a maximum permitted number of up to five occupants. It means Mrs D’s disabled son had to keep sharing a room with his sister which caused him severe distress. The property only had a bath, which her son could not use as he needed a wet floor shower. The Council also told her it now accepted a main housing duty towards her family.
35. A Council Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed the family and her son’s needs in July. The OT found the family were currently in Band 2 for housing but should be in Band 1. Her son needed his own room and a wet floor shower as he could not use a bath or over bath shower. The OT concluded the family had an urgent need for re-housing and property 6 did not meet their needs.
36. The same month, officers made a referral to the Health and Housing Team to assess her son and whether he needed a shower/wet room due to his disability. This was because of the evidence it received from her. Later that month, Miss C raised a number of issues and asked for a suitability review for the current accommodation.
37. In September, the Council carried out a review of the property’s suitability. It decided the property was not suitable for her and her family. It would try and find alternative accommodation for them. An important factor was the need for the son to have his own room. After the health information, the Council accepted the son needed his own room and amended the bedroom entitlement needed.
38. It made a direct offer of a property but withdrew it as it was in a risk area.
39. In November, the Council offered them her current home under s193 (2) Housing Act 1996, which they accepted. At the same time, the tenancy for her original home finally ended. The Council explained officers do not usually advise tenants to give up their tenancy but do advise about rent arrears, loss of security of tenure, and the need to get their own legal advice. In response, Miss C pointed out this contradicts what the Council said to her on 2 September 2022. Its email to her states it had not, ‘advised [Mrs D] to keep her Council tenancy, especially if she does not intent (sic) to return- (as this can be made better use of by another family).’
40. On a general note, the Council said:

• interim accommodation providers are responsible for making sure their accommodation meets the required standard. An applicant should notify the housing provider about disrepair or other issues in the first instance. If the housing provider fails to rectify the issue the applicant can then ask the Council to investigate;
• it inspects interim accommodation before it is added to its list of suitable properties. This ensures the correct details are registered and the accommodation is up to standard; and
• Mrs D was unhappy to receive a council tax bill in December 2022 for her secure accommodation of more than £3,000 in addition to the council tax owed for property 6. The Council explained she had more than £1,000 arrears before she left her original home.

In response to my draft decision, the Council explained it has acute pressures to meet high demands of homeless presentations but seeks to offer suitable and reasonable placements at the earliest opportunity. In the case of Mrs D, it did not neglect to seek an alternative to nightly purchased accommodation and considered property 6 was a viable, temporary solution while officers looked for settled accommodation.

My findings

41. I found fault on this complaint and in reaching this view, took the following into account:
1. Property 1: There was no fault by the Council with this accommodation because it was arranged directly by Mrs D due to the urgent need to move from their home.
2. When she made a homeless application the following day, she made the Council aware of her son’s health and need for a shower and own bedroom. There is nothing to show the Council advised her of the need to provide supporting evidence in support of this claim. Nor is there evidence of the son’s needs being recorded on file so other officers dealing with the case would be aware of them. Miss C confirmed no Housing Needs assessment document was ever produced by the Council.
3. I consider these failures caused an injustice as Mrs D has the uncertainty of not knowing whether an opportunity was lost to take these needs into account when offering alternative accommodation.
4. At the time of the homeless application, she also made the Council aware of certain areas in which they would be at risk if moved there. In response to my draft decision, the Council said the risk area information was information officers would look at as it contains detailed information about a client’s overall needs and risks. While this may be correct, it was still missed when placing her in a known risk area.
5. I am satisfied the above failures caused Mrs D avoidable injustice. This is because there was a lost opportunity of placing her in a non-risk area on one occasion.
6. Four members of her household were placed in property 2 which only had one bedroom. This was an unsuitable property as it was too small for the family’s needs. I am satisfied this caused her an avoidable injustice as her and her family were in accommodation too small for them.
7. While in property 2, the Council accepted a relief duty to Mrs D. When it did so, it moved her from Band 2 to the lower Band 3. It said officers discuss this with applicants so they are aware of it before deciding whether to continue with a homeless application. This is because it means those in Band 2, like Mrs D, would find their bidding position affected as they are moved to a lower band with lower priority. When bidding for properties, she would find it took longer to make a successful bid.
8. I note the following with this reduction:

• There is no evidence showing officers discussed this impact with Mrs D. This would have allowed her to make an informed decision about her homeless application.
• While the Council says it will always consider any exceptional case, there is nothing to show it did consider whether her circumstances were exceptional before reducing her band.
• I am not satisfied its actions complied with paragraph 4.3 of its allocation policy. This is because this says ‘All applications’ are assessed from the applicant’s primary residence. For Mrs D, this was the secure property she fled from. The policy goes on to explain if an applicant cannot occupy this property because of ‘threats of violence’, the application will still be assessed from the accommodation the applicant had rights to occupy. This means temporary/emergency accommodation will not result in their housing application being reassessed.
• In addition, I consider Mrs D should not have had her banding reduced when she made a homelessness application. This is because paragraph 4.5 b) says Band 2 is awarded where the household urgently needs to move due to violence or other harassment and is at significant risk of harm. This priority is only awarded if a move to another property will resolve the immediate danger.
9. During the period of her reduced band, I am not satisfied she lost out on the chance to successfully bid for a property. This is because the Council provided information about the properties available for this period. Mrs D would not have made a successful bid because the available properties either went to applicants with higher priority or to those in a lower banding which were adapted. Of those remaining in Band 2, four were in her risk areas and the remaining three all went to applicants with earlier effective dates than her.
10. I consider this failure caused her some injustice in the form of distress as she had the frustration and uncertainty of not knowing if it had been properly dealt with.
11. The Council was at fault for moving her to property 3. This was for two reasons. The first was its location as it was in one of the risk areas. The second was its size. It was only a one-bedroom property. These failures made the property unsuitable for Mrs D and her household. The Council accepted it should not have offered it to her because of its location. She was in this property for five days.
12. The Council then moved them to property 4. This was accommodation at a hotel. The evidence shows she had told the Council of the problems with this property making it unsuitable for her.
13. It was fault to tell her to return to property 3 at the end of the booked period. While she did not move back there, I consider she was caused some injustice because she had a stressful period of uncertainty when she was told she had to return. She was allowed to stay in property 4 but, in a different room.
14. The Council was at fault for moving them to property 5. This was because it believed this was a two-bedroom property when in fact it was only a one-bedroom. The Council said this was an administrative error recording the wrong number of bedrooms for the property.
15. By this time, there were now five members of the household recorded on her application all of whom were part of her household living in a one-bedroom property. As such, the property was unsuitable. The family had stayed in several different properties over a period of about two weeks. I consider the Council should, by this point, have been looking for accommodation that was suitable for the family, taking account of her son’s needs for a shower and his own room, for example. The family lived in this property for almost two months. I consider the failure to show it had been looking at more suitable properties for them was fault.
16. The Council then moved the family to property 6 where they stayed for five months. By now, Mrs D had the right to review its suitability because the Council accepted it owed them a full homeless duty. The Council was slow to review the decision but did agree it was unsuitable.
17. Nor have I seen any evidence of the Council advising her when she first presented herself as homeless that she might be liable for rental payments both on her secure tenancy, and for other accommodation she moved to. There is nothing to show it advised her about rent and council tax at the time she moved out of the secured accommodation. I consider this deprived Mrs D from making an informed decision about what action to take in terms of rent and council tax.
18. I am also satisfied the Council told her she would not pay two lots of council tax and benefits would cover the ‘emergency rent’.

Complaint process:

42. In August 2022, the Council received a complaint on behalf of Mrs D from Miss C which it acknowledged the following day. It would send its response by 1 September but sent it before that date. The response did not signpost her to stage 2 of its complaints process.
43. Two days later, Miss C asked the Council to progress the complaint to stage 2. She said the complaint did not address any of the grounds raised.
44. In September, the Council sent her another stage 1 response which accepted fault. It found:

• Property 3: this should not have been offered as it was in a high-risk area and nor should it have told her to go there when she was about to leave property 4; and
• Property 5: the Council accepted it wrongly thought it had two bedrooms.

45. The Council apologised for the delay and distress caused to the family. It accepted it failed to tell Mrs D to keep her original tenancy as there were occasions when it would advise tenants to claim dual housing benefit until a decision had been made about the tenancy. It also accepted making ‘multiple mistakes’ on her case and said there was ‘no excuse for the mistakes, upset and distress caused’. It advised her of the right to go to stage 2.
46. On 22 September, Miss C asked the Council to progress the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process as it failed to address several concerns in the original complaint. The Council acknowledged the request and said it would reply by 20 October.
47. During October and November, the Council told Miss C its response to her complaint would be delayed. In November, the family moved to new secure housing.
48. The Council sent its reply to her complaint in January 2023 which accepted:

• It was unable to secure accommodation in a timely manner;
• The type of property she needs is in short supply;
• It failed to show it adequately considered the accommodation provided;
• It apologised for the distress, frustration, and upset this caused;
• It would review the service practices for supplying temporary accommodation; and
• It would make a goodwill offer of £500. Mrs D noted it took almost two months for the Council to make this payment.

49. The Council also accepted its stage 1 response did not address all the key concerns, which was an error. It reminded the complaints officer about the need to address each point raised and arranged for the officer to receive in-house training about it.
50. It accepted there was a delay with the stage 2 response due to senior officer availability. The service has addressed this.
51. The Council’s complaints procedure provides a response within 15 working days under stage 1.
52. Under stage 2, the complaint can be passed back to stage 1 if there is a failure to address part or all of the complaint, or where new issues are raised. Where accepted for investigation at stage 2, no timescale is given for sending a complainant the response.

My findings

53. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. The initial stage 1 response was inadequate as it failed to address any of the main issues raised in the complaint. This is fault. I consider this caused Mrs D some avoidable injustice as she had to see Miss C again to ask for it to go to stage 2. At this point the Council decided to follow its procedure and reconsider it at stage 1. The inadequate initial response delayed the eventual outcome of the complaints process and put Mrs D to some inconvenience.
2. Referring the complaint back to stage 1 when asked for it to go to stage 2 was in line with its procedure. This was not fault.
3. In September, Miss C asked for the complaint to go to stage 2. While the Council told her the response would be delayed in October and November, the response was finally sent in January 2023. It took the Council four months to complete the stage 2 process. While I appreciate the reason was due to staff shortages, I consider this period was excessive and amounts to fault. Usually, complaints at stage 2 are dealt with within 25 working days.
4. I am satisfied the Council delayed the processing of the complaint under stage 2 by about 3 months. This caused Mrs D avoidable injustice as it caused further frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. I considered our guidance on remedies.
55. I took account of the actions the Council has already taken which includes: completing its review of its allocation practice of reducing an applicant’s banding when homeless so all homeless applicants are placed in Band 2; placing alerts about risk areas on the Housing Support Register so it is accessible and visible to all officers dealing with a case; the offer of £500 in recognition of the injustice caused by its failings which it paid her. I also took account of a copy it sent in response to my draft decision of its new ‘Guide for Households Provided with Temporary Accommodation’ which it will give to all those placed in temporary accommodation.
56. The Council confirmed it has already checked and updated records to ensure the number of bedrooms accommodation have are accurate.
57. The Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision:
1. Send Mrs D a written apology for its failure to: give her clarity from officers in asking or requesting supporting medical evidence in support of her claims about her son’s needs; record her son’s needs on its system so it was accessible to all officers dealing with the case; ensure the risk areas recorded were actually considered before offering her a property in a known risk area; place them in suitable accommodation between April and November 2022; discuss the impact of its practice of reducing bands when making a homeless application; show it considered whether her circumstances were exceptional at the time of reducing her banding; follow its allocation scheme when carrying out the reduction; prevent moving her to accommodation in one of her risk areas; prevent giving her advice about the need to move back to accommodation in a risk area; properly record as having one bedroom instead of two; promptly move her to suitable accommodation when deciding a property was unsuitable; give her advice when she first presented as homeless about liability for rent and council tax for the secure accommodation she fled from; initially deal with her complaint properly under stage 1 of its complaints procedure; promptly deal with her complaint under stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
2. Pay £2,450 (7 months x £350) to Mrs D for the time she and her family spent living in unsuitable accommodation.
3. Pay £450 to Mrs D for the distress, uncertainty, frustration, stress, inconvenience, and lost opportunity she suffered because of the identified fault which includes that found with the complaint process.
4. Pay £200 to Mrs D for the risk of harm she and her family were put to when they were moved to risk area.
5. Write off both Council Tax and rent arrears for the secure property from the date she left it.
58. The Council also agreed to carry out the following actions within three months of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Review procedures to ensure officers give early advice about the need for applicants to provide supporting evidence for claims about household’s needs.
2. Review procedures to ensure household needs are recorded on file so the information is accessible and visible to any other officer dealing with the case.
3. Review how it assesses an applicant’s needs when providing temporary accommodation.
4. Provide a copy of the banding reduction review outcome when completed.
5. Review why it took five months to move her after deciding the accommodation provided was unsuitable.
6. Review procedures to ensure officers advise homeless applicants who already have secure accommodation about the implications this might have on rent and council tax.
7. Ensure officers have clear guidance about providing consistent advice about whether to surrender a tenancy where a family has fled violence.
8. Consider what action it can take to ensure the cause of delay under stage 2 of the complaints process is not repeated in future.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I found fault on the complaint from Miss C made on behalf of Mrs D. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman