Summary: there was fault in the way the Council carried out its duties to Miss X when she was homeless. The successor authority – Dorset Council – has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by her extended stay in bed and breakfast accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way Purbeck District Council dealt with her housing needs after she became homeless in August 2017. In particular, she complains that:

1. The Council placed her in unsuitable emergency bed and breakfast accommodation outside its area for more than six weeks. There were no cooking facilities and she had to share bathroom facilities with other households;

2. The Council gave her incorrect information about her entitlement to Housing Benefit and whether temporary accommodation providers would allow her to keep her pet dog;

3. Officers departed from the housing allocations policy by placing bids for social housing properties in areas where Miss X did not want to live while she was still in the silver priority band;

4. She has rent arrears because of faults in processing her claim for Housing Benefit;

5. The Council made an unsuitable final offer of permanent accommodation in late October 2018. Three months later, it withdrew the offer after Miss X requested a suitability review. Miss X could not bid for other properties while she was being considered for this property;

6. The Council refused to provide accommodation large enough for her partner’s daughter to come and stay;

7. The Council took too long to reply to her complaint at Stage Two of its complaints procedure.

2. Following local government reorganisation in Dorset, Purbeck District Council was abolished on 1 April 2019. A new authority – Dorset Council - took over responsibility for its functions. All the events in this complaint happened before 1 April 2019.

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. 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 have spoken to Miss X and considered all the information she sent me.
6. I considered the Council’s comments and relevant documents from the housing and Housing Benefit records.
7. I have written to Miss X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Miss X and her partner, Mr Y, had been staying temporarily with Mr Y’s sister who is a Housing Association tenant in the Purbeck area. In early August 2017 Mr Y’s sister gave them 30 days’ notice to leave. Miss X and Mr Y been sleeping in the living room and Mr Y’s sister said the house was cluttered and overcrowded. Miss X was pregnant. Mr Y was self-employed and worked in another Dorset town.
9. The Council took a homelessness application from Miss X on 23 August 2017. She included Mr Y as a member of her household. She made no reference to Mr Y’s daughter from a previous relationship who lived with her mother but stayed with Mr Y on alternate weekends and during school holidays.

Complaint a) – the placement in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation

What should happen

10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. A household with a dependent child, or a pregnant woman, is in priority need.
12. Councils must ensure all accommodation arranged for homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and household members.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 )
13. Councils must take into account the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. 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 proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
14. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation.  It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24)
15. B&B accommodation can only be used for households with a pregnant woman or dependent child when there is no other accommodation is available. It must not be used for more than six weeks.  B&B is defined as accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the Council or a registered provider of social housing and where the household must share a toilet, washing, or cooking facilities with other households.  (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003)

What happened

16. On 25 August the housing needs officer called four B&B hotels to check if they had any rooms available. One was fully booked until the end of September and two only had a room available for a fortnight. There was one room available in a B&B outside its area.
17. On 31 August 2017 the Council placed Miss X and Mr Y in B&B accommodation in a Dorset town outside its area. It informed Miss X that it would make only one offer of interim accommodation. The letter said:

“In making this offer of temporary accommodation [ the Council] has considered all of your personal circumstances, and that of any members of your household, and is satisfied that the offer of accommodation is suitable and reasonable for you to accept”

18. The Council says no emergency accommodation was available in the Purbeck district. It accepts the B&B was not convenient for Mr Y’s place of work. The case officer had tried to find B&B accommodation in the Dorset town where Mr Y worked but nothing was available.
19. The officer also contacted Mr Y’s sister to ask if she would agree to let them stay until September when more accommodation may be available. The Council says she did not reply.
20. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• It did not carry out a suitability assessment because it knew the B&B was not suitable so this was a “meaningless exercise”;
• It accepts it breached the legal limit of six weeks for a B&B placement.
21. Miss X’s room in the B&B had two single beds, a toilet, a washbasin and kettle. She had to share a shower room with other residents. The room was on the third floor with no lift. There was no kitchen or cooking facilities so she could not prepare any meals. The B&B provided breakfast but they had to get takeaways for other meals. Miss X says it cost £10 to get a single train ticket to attend appointments with her midwife and GP.
22. Miss X said Mr Y’s daughter usually stayed with him on alternate weekends and in school holidays. But she could not come and stay with him while they were in the B&B.
23. On 25 September 2017 the Council notified Miss X that it owed her the main housing duty because she was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need.
24. In early October 2017 the Council told Miss X it had found a vacant mobile home with self-contained facilities in a holiday park in its area. But this fell through because the site owner would not let Mr Y, who was a former resident, move back to the site.
25. On 23 October the Council offered them a self-contained two bedroom flat in the Purbeck area. However, it was not available until mid- November because the former tenant had not returned the keys.
26. Miss X’s baby was born on 9 November. She could not return to the B&B following the birth because she could not manage the stairs to the third floor room. She also says there was not enough space in the room for the baby’s cot. After she left hospital, Miss X and the baby went to stay for about one week with Mr Y’s sister. Miss X and Mr Y moved to the temporary accommodation flat on 20 November. Miss X says they could not move earlier because they did not have a van to move their belongings.
27. The Council has taken some steps since 2013 to increase the supply of temporary accommodation in its area. It was also planning to develop a temporary accommodation strategy - this work will now be taken forward by Dorset Council.

Analysis

28. The law places a strict limit on the use of B&B accommodation with shared facilities for homeless households which include a child or pregnant woman. It should be used as a last resort and then for no more than six weeks.
29. Miss X spent just over eleven weeks in B&B at a time when she was heavily pregnant. She had to share a shower room with other residents. She had no access to cooking facilities. Clearly, this was unsuitable accommodation.
30. The accommodation was also outside the Council’s area. Miss X found it difficult and expensive to travel to appointments with her GP and midwife.
31. The Council accepts the accommodation was not suitable. It says it therefore saw no point in carrying out a suitability assessment. But the Council has a legal duty to ensure that any accommodation offered under Part 7 of the Act is suitable for the needs of the applicant and household members. It must therefore complete a suitability assessment to record the needs of the applicant and household members.
32. The Council breached its statutory duty. That is fault and staying longer in unsuitable accommodation caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has accepted my recommendation for a suitable remedy.

Complaint b)

The Council gave Miss X incorrect information about her entitlement to Housing Benefit and whether the temporary accommodation provider would let her keep her pet dog

33. I reviewed the Housing Benefit case records and found no evidence that the Council gave Miss X incorrect information about her entitlement to Housing Benefit. I shall deal with the Council’s handling of her claims for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Support under complaint f) below.
34. Miss X has a pet dog. Her mother looked after the dog while Miss X and Mr Y were in the emergency bed and breakfast accommodation.
35. When she moved to the temporary accommodation, Miss X says the Council told her the landlord would not allow her to keep a dog. She later contacted the landlord and found out this advice was wrong.
36. The Council says most temporary accommodation providers do not let residents keep dogs. It had understood the landlord of Miss X’s temporary accommodation would not permit residents to keep dogs in blocks of flats with a communal entrance. Following Miss X’s complaint, it checked the landlord’s tenancy agreement which says the resident must apply in writing for permission.

Analysis

37. Miss X obtained the landlord’s permission to bring her dog to the temporary accommodation flat when she moved in. For this reason, the fact that she was misinformed about the landlord’s policy on pets did not cause her any injustice.

Complaint c) Complaint Officers departed from the housing allocations policy by placing bids for social housing properties in areas where Miss X did not want to live while she was still in the silver priority band;

Purbeck District Council’s housing allocations policy

38. Purbeck District Council participated in Dorset Home Choice, a county-wide choice-based lettings scheme for allocating social housing.
39. The housing allocations policy explains the criteria for assessing and prioritising applications and the procedures for making bids and direct offers of accommodation.
40. Applicants are placed in one of four priority bands following an assessment of their housing needs: emergency, gold, silver and bronze. Applicants who are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, are in the silver band. Six months from the date they were accepted as homeless, they move into the emergency band. After three months in the emergency band, the application is reviewed if the applicant has not made a successful bid for housing.
41. If, after three months, an applicant in the emergency band has not made a successful bid, or has refused a suitable offer of accommodation, the Council can make a direct offer of a suitable property. Alternatively, officers will place bids for properties on behalf of the applicant. The purpose of automatic bidding is to ensure suitable accommodation is offered to high priority applicants. Applicants are only allowed to stay in the emergency band for longer than three months in exceptional circumstances.

What happened

42. On 19 September 2017 Miss X and Mr Y received a letter from Dorset Home Choice confirming it accepted their application. They were placed in the silver band from 15 September 2017 because they were homeless. They were entitled to bid for two bedroom properties.
43. Between September and December 2017 Miss X bid for nine properties. They were not ranked high enough to be shortlisted for any of them.
44. From 22 December 2017 officers in the Housing Needs team started to use the automatic bidding facility to place bids for properties. These bids were made while Miss X and Mr Y were still in the silver band. Miss X and Mr Y were not interested in any of these properties. However, none of the officers’ bids resulted in an offer of accommodation because Miss X and Mr Y were not ranked high enough.
45. On 25 March 2018 Dorset Home Choice wrote to Miss X and Mr Y to confirm they had now been moved into the emergency band. The letter explained this priority was time-limited for three months and they should bid as widely as possible during that time.
46. The letter explained what would happen if they did not bid successfully within three months. If the Council considered they had not bid for suitable and reasonable properties advertised in that time, it could remove the emergency priority and make a direct offer of the next suitable two bedroom property in the Purbeck district. This would be a final offer of accommodation to end the main housing duty. They would then have the right to request a review if they considered the property was unsuitable.
47. The bidding records provided by the Council show Miss X and Mr Y did not bid for any advertised properties in the three months between 25 March and 25 June 2018 while they were in the emergency band. Miss X wanted accommodation in an area that was convenient for her partner’s journey to work. She also wanted a property where the landlord would give permission for them to keep her dog.
48. The case was flagged for a review on 25 June when they had been in the emergency band for three months. Miss X and Mr Y did not get a further letter then to tell them the outcome of the review. In late July and August 2018 officers made bids for properties under the automatic bidding system. Miss X and Mr Y were ranked second and were not offered these properties.

Analysis

49. From late December 2017 officers started making automatic bids for properties while Miss X was still in the silver band. The allocations policy only allowed officers to auto bid for applicants who were in the emergency or gold bands. This was fault because officers acted outside the terms of the published allocations policy.
50. However, this fault did not cause any injustice. None of the early bids made by officers while Miss X was in the silver band led to offers of accommodation.
51. Under the rules of the allocations policy, Miss X’s position changed on 25 June 2018. By then she had been in the emergency band for three months. She had not bid for any properties in that time. The Council was therefore entitled to review the case and officers could start to make bids on her behalf.
52. It would have been good practice for the Council to have written to Miss X on 25 June to confirm the outcome of the review. It should have explained that officers would now make bids because she had not bid during the three months she was in the emergency band. Although communication with Miss X could have been better, it was not fault for officers to start making bids on her behalf after 25 June. The allocations policy allowed this to happen.

Complaint d)

She has rent arrears because of faults in processing her claim for Housing Benefit

Housing Benefit claim at the B&B accommodation

53. Mr Y was self-employed and working full-time when he and Miss X moved into the emergency B&B accommodation in late August 2017. According to the Council’s records, his weekly earnings were around £400.
54. On 31 August the Council received Miss X’s claim for Housing Benefit.
55. On 21 September wrote to ask Miss X to complete and return a form to give more details of Mr Y’s self-employed income. It also asked for documents and some other information. It asked her to provide this evidence immediately but did not give her a deadline.
56. Miss X provided some of the evidence by email on 22 September. On 29 September she told the Benefits Service that Mr Y was working away from home. She would ask him to complete the self-employment form when he returned.
57. On 25 October the Benefits Service sent Miss X a decision. It said her claim was defective because she had not returned the self-employment form within one month. It said Miss X was not eligible for Housing Benefit or Council Tax Support.
58. As Miss X was not entitled to Housing Benefit during her stay in the B&B, she is liable to pay the full accommodation charge. The Council says she owes £5,685.73 (including service charges for breakfast, heating and hot water).

Housing Benefit claim at the temporary accommodation

59. Miss X and Mr Y left the B&B and moved to self-contained temporary accommodation on 20 November 2017.
60. Miss X completed a claim for Council Tax Support only on 10 January 2018. She said she had only just received the Council Tax bill and asked for the claim to be backdated to 20 November.
61. On 17 January the Benefits Service wrote to ask Miss X for additional documents and evidence. It asked her to send the information as soon as possible but did not give a reply deadline. It also asked if she wanted to claim Housing Benefit to cover the rent.
62. On 19 February the Benefits Service informed Miss X she was not eligible for Council Tax Support because she had not replied within one month. A form was enclosed explaining her right to appeal against the decision.
63. A few days later Miss X contacted the team to ask what evidence she should provide to support a claim for Council Tax Support only. She sent additional evidence on 28 February. She returned a self-employed income form for Mr Y on 15 March.
64. On 19 March the Benefits Service informed Miss X she did not qualify for Council Tax Support because their joint income was too high. The letter told Miss X she could appeal within one month if she disagreed with the decision.
65. Mr X stopped working in June 2018 and claimed Universal Credit. In July 2018 the Council awarded weekly Housing Benefit of £103.22 with effect from 11 June 2018. It later considered Miss X’s request to backdate the claim to 2 May 2018. It sent her a decision letter on 3 September 2018 to say she did not qualify for benefit for the earlier period. The letter explained Miss X’s appeal rights.

Analysis

66. Miss X claimed Housing Benefit soon after she moved into the B&B. However, the Council decided the claim was defective because she did not return the self-employed form. Miss X could have appealed against this decision but she did not do so.
67. As the Council did not award Housing Benefit, and Miss X and Mr Y did not pay the full accommodation charges, they are liable to pay the substantial arrears that built up.
68. When they moved to the temporary accommodation Miss X clearly stated on the form that she wished to apply for Council Tax Support only. She did not claim Housing Benefit because she did not think they would qualify. As a result, she and Mr Y had to pay the full rent from their income.
69. In June 2018, their circumstances changed when Mr Y stopped working. In July 2018 the Council awarded Housing Benefit and backdated it to June. All the decision notices told Miss X she could appeal to an independent tribunal if she disagreed with the benefit assessment or the refusal to award benefit for an earlier period.
70. I see no evidence of fault by the Council. If Miss X had wanted to challenge the Council’s benefit decisions, she could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal.

Complaint e)

The Council made an unsuitable final offer of permanent accommodation in October 2018. It withdrew the offer in January 2019 after Miss X requested a suitability review. Miss X says she could not bid for other properties while she was being considered for this property.

71. Homeless applicants may ask for a review within 21 days of the suitability of accommodation offered after the Council has accepted the main housing duty. They can request a review whether they accept or refuse the offer of accommodation. Councils must complete the suitability review and reach a decision within eight weeks of receiving the review request.
72. On 30 October 2018 officers used the automatic bidding system to bid for a two bedroom flat for Miss X and Mr Y. The flat was not in their preferred area.
73. On 1 November a senior officer decided the property was suitable for Miss X and Mr Y’s needs. The Council informed Miss X it was a final offer to end the main housing duty. The letter explained her right to request a review.
74. On 14 November Miss X expressed concern about the location of the property. The Council sent her a form to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
75. Miss X replied the following day. She said she did not want to appeal against the offer. She asked to view the property before making a decision.
76. Miss X viewed the property on 27 November. The following day she sent an email setting out her concerns about its suitability:
• There was mould in the flat;
• There was not enough space in the second bedroom for the baby’s cot and for a bed for Mr Y’s daughter when she came to stay;
• The practical difficulties for Mr Y in travelling from the flat to his place of work;
• The cost of Mr Y attending medical appointments in another town.
77. The Council treated this as a request for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. A housing manager contacted the landlord on 5 December to make enquiries about the mould. On the same day she made an appointment for Miss X to attend a suitability review interview on 17 December. She said Miss X could explain her reasons then. Miss X responded that she had not asked for a review and she had not refused the offer. She said she could not attend the interview on 17 December.
78. On 13 December the landlord of the property informed the Council there were several leaks in the property. It would take time to identify the cause and dry out the property. The Council extended Miss X’s temporary accommodation.
79. Following a further email exchange between Miss X and the manager, Miss X confirmed on 21 December that she did want a review of the suitability of the accommodation. She also asked for a meeting. The manager confirmed she would carry out a review and invited Miss X to a meeting on 29 January.
80. On 28 January 2019 the manager contacted the landlord to ask when the property would be ready to let. The landlord said it may not be ready for at least a further four weeks. Because of this further delay, the manager decided to withdraw the offer. She wrote to Miss X on 28 January to confirm the decision and cancel the meeting.
81. The Council says it considered this offer of accommodation was suitable for Miss X’s needs. But it later decided to withdraw it when it became clear it would take longer than expected for the landlord to carry out works to rectify the defects. It felt it would not be unfair to deny Miss X the opportunity to bid for other properties.

Analysis

82. It is normal practice for councils to suspend applicants from bidding for other advertised properties while they are “under offer” for a property.
83. In this case, the Council did not know the property had defects when it allocated it to Miss X. When Miss X raised concerns, after viewing the property, the Council asked the landlord to investigate and report back its findings. That was not fault.
84. When the Council made the offer, it told Miss X she could ask for a review if she did not consider the accommodation was suitable for her needs. Miss X did not request a suitability review until 21 December. The Council then had 56 days in which to consider the suitability of the property and make a review decision.
85. In the event, the Council decided to withdraw the offer within the 56 day review period because the landlord could not give a firm date to complete works to make the property fit to let. Having withdrawn the offer, the Council did not need to complete the suitability review.
86. Miss X is upset that she could not bid for other properties for almost three months. But I have seen no evidence of fault because the Council followed the correct process for reviewing the suitability of the offer.

Complaint f)

The Council refused to provide accommodation large enough for her partner’s daughter to stay.

87. Mr Y’s daughter from a former relationship lives with her mother. She stays with Mr Y on alternate weekends and during school holidays.
88. Mr Y’s daughter was not included as a member of the household when Miss X made the homelessness application.
89. The Dorset Home Choice allocations policy says:

“With the demand for properties far exceeding the supply, landlords are required to make the best use of the housing they have available. Where there are access arrangements for a child or children, they will be expected to have a main residence with one parent, as a result the other parent will not normally have a bedroom entitlement for access visits.

It says the Council will decide, on a case by case basis, which parent has the main responsibility for the child’s day to day care. In making this decision, it takes into account which parent receives Child Benefit.

Analysis

90. Mr Y’s daughter lives with her mother but has regular contact with Mr Y. She stays with him on alternate weekends.
91. Naturally Mr Y wanted enough space for his daughter to continue staying with him regularly. But the Council is not required to provide accommodation large enough to accommodate a child who ordinarily lives with another parent. The Council correctly applied its allocations policy when it assessed their bedroom needs. I find no evidence of fault.

Complaint g)

The Council took too long to reply to her complaint at Stage Two of its complaints procedure.

92. Purbeck District Council had a two stage complaints procedure.
93. The Council replied to Miss X’s Stage One complaint on 22 June 2018. It said she could ask the Chief Executive to consider the complaint at Stage Two if she was not satisfied with the reply. It did not give a timescale to make this request.
94. On 3 September 2018 Miss X made an online complaint at Stage Two. She raised concerns about the following matters:
• the information she was given about whether pets would be accepted in the temporary accommodation;
• the suitability and affordability of the emergency accommodation;
• the advice she was given about which benefit to claim when she moved to temporary accommodation in November 2017; and
• the way in which the Housing Needs Team had applied the housing allocations policy.
95. The Chief Executive replied on 21 December 2018 and apologised for the delay. He found the Council should have done more to assist Miss X with her Housing Benefit claim while she was living in the B&B hotel. But he did not consider there had been any fault by the Housing Needs Team or that it had treated her unfairly.
96. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted there was a significant delay at Stage Two. It should have replied by 20 September 2018. It said the Chief Executive was busy working on local government reorganisation in Dorset at the time and overlooked the need to reply to Miss X’s complaint.

Analysis

97. The Council took too long to reply to Miss X’s Stage Two complaint. That was fault. But the Chief Executive has already apologised to Miss X and I consider that is a satisfactory remedy.

Agreed action

Complaint a)

98. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Miss X for breaching the six week time limit for the B&B placement. It will award £850 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the prolonged stay in unsuitable accommodation.
99. Miss X still has outstanding accommodation charges for the B&B. The Council will offset the £850 against this debt.
100. The successor authority, Dorset Council, will prepare a temporary accommodation strategy which addresses the need to ensure an adequate supply of emergency accommodation, particularly in the summer months. It has reminded staff to complete a suitability assessment in every case where it makes an offer of accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

101. I have completed the investigation and found:
• Complaint a) - fault causing injustice to Miss X.
• Complaint b) – no fault in relation to Housing Benefit. Miss X did not suffer any injustice because she was given wrong information about the landlord’s policy on keeping dogs in the temporary accommodation.
• Complaint c) – fault but no resulting injustice
• Complaint d) - no fault
• Complaint e) – no fault
• Complaint f) – no fault
• Complaint g) – fault but the Council’s apology is a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman