Summary: Ms B complained about failures by the Council in dealing with her homelessness situation since November 2017. We have found fault with the Council’s actions, particularly in evicting her from her interim accommodation without any time to make alternative arrangements, leading to a month of street homelessness. It also delayed in dealing with her complaint and responding to her request for assistance with storage costs. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £1150 and review her ability to pay for the storage costs.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (the Council) failed to:
• properly consider her circumstances when she was evicted from her private tenancy in November 2017;
• allow her sufficient time to find alternative accommodation for her and her three children when it evicted her from interim accommodation in November 2017 leading to street homelessness and sofa-surfing;
• offer suitable accommodation or take into account her mother’s illness in its decision to offer her accommodation in June 2018; and
• pay for her storage costs since she was made homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have written to Ms B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

5. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, a number of duties arise, including:
• to make enquiries;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries;
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.
6. 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.  Examples of priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people with serious health problems;
• some elderly people.
7. If an applicant is subsequently found to be intentionally homeless, the code of guidance suggests that the Council should continue to provide interim accommodation for at least a few weeks after the decision is made to allow people sufficient time to make alternative arrangements.
8. The courts have held that the ending of an intentionally homeless family’s booking with immediate effect was unreasonable and seven days’ notice was not acceptable for another applicant who suffered from mental health problems. But six days’ notice was considered reasonable following a non-priority need decision in another case involving a single man.

Suitability of accommodation

9. 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)
10. The council must take into account if the accommodation is:
• affordable
• in a good enough condition
• available in a suitable location
• the right size
• suitable for any health issues or disabilities
11. The council must consider the applicant’s personal circumstances including travel time to work, disruption to children's education, caring responsibilities and support networks in the area.

Storage costs

12. The Council has a responsibility to protect an applicant’s belongings, when it has at least an interim duty to accommodate an applicant, or where an eligible applicant in priority need is threatened with homelessness.
13. The Council should take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of a person’s property, or to mitigate damage, where it has reason to believe there is danger of loss or damage because the applicant is unable to protect their property.
14. The Council may make reasonable charges in respect of the action it takes under this provision for storage and removal costs.

Council’s allocations policy

15. The Council’s policy says it will determine which size of accommodation an applicant requires, based on its bedroom standard. An adult with three children will require a three-bedroom property.

What happened

16. Ms B was living in privately rented accommodation with her three children. In June 2017 she approached the Council saying she could no longer afford the rent as her partner had left and she was getting into rent arrears. Her landlord had issued her with a notice to quit, with the intention of evicting Ms B in November 2017.
17. Ms B was evicted on 13 November 2017 and went back to the Council for assistance with housing, as she had nowhere to go. The Council placed her and her children in interim accommodation that day. Ms B put her belongings into storage on 15 November 2017 at a cost of £135 per month.

Intentionally homeless

18. The Council decided on 15 November 2017 that Ms B had made herself intentionally homeless because she had rent arrears at the time she was evicted. The Council asked her to leave the interim accommodation that day. It called the police to escort her from the Council offices in the evening. She says the Council ignored her requests to be allowed to stay in the accommodation while she requested a review.
19. Ms B says she and her children slept in her car, in the church or with friends. She then made a review request which the Council received on 4 December 2017. The Council considered the case that day and set aside the decision. It concluded the Council had not properly considered the issue of affordability in its original decision. It telephoned Ms B on four occasions without success. Ms B says she received no calls until 15 December 2017.

Interim accommodation

20. The Council housed Ms B in another interim accommodation on 15 December 2017, following contact from Ms B’s work colleague. She was staying in one family room with a bunk bed, single bed and double bed, in addition to shared bathroom and kitchen facilities.
21. The Council confirmed in writing, on 15 January 2018, that it had withdrawn the previous homeless decision and was making further enquiries into her case. A new caseworker took on her case at the end of January 2018 and met with Ms B on 22 February 2018. The notes say the intention of the meeting was to carry out an affordability assessment and work out what rent she could afford. They also say ‘Applicant case to be accepted’.
22. The Council accepted a full housing duty towards Mrs B and confirmed this to her in writing on 1 March 2018.
23. Ms B made a complaint in April 2018 about the original decision and the failure to allow her to stay in the interim accommodation which led to her street homelessness. The Council replied on 22 May 2018 and said it had acted properly.

Temporary accommodation

24. On 31 May 2018 the Council called Ms B and asked her to come into the offices regarding alternative temporary accommodation. It offered her a second floor two- bedroom flat. Ms B said she needed a three-bedroom property. The Council said she could keep her overcrowding preference, move in and request a review. Ms B asked to view the property but the Council said that was not an option. It also said she would be evicted from the temporary accommodation if she refused the offer. She initially refused the offer.
25. She asked that the Council add her mother to the application because she was terminally ill and needed care. The Council discounted this saying that her mother looked after Ms B’s children while she attended university. Ms B asked again on 4 June 2018 for accommodation large enough to accommodate her mother. The Council refused saying she had not been assessed. Ms B accepted the offer the following day but brought a letter from the hospital about her mother.
26. She raised the issue of storage and removal costs on 13 June 2018. She moved into the new temporary accommodation on 18 June 2018. Her mother died on 23 June 2018.

Complaint

27. She complained again to the Council on 28 June 2018. It responded in December 2018. It agreed that the Council was at fault in not allowing Ms B to stay in the interim accommodation In November 2017 for a reasonable period of time to allow her to make alternative arrangements. It said it couldn’t be sure she would have submitted her review sooner, but the chances would have increased had she had somewhere to live. It offered her £300 for this injustice. It also said it had taken too long to respond to her stage two complaint and offered her £150 for the confusion caused.
28. Ms B complained to the Ombudsman
29. In response to my enquiries the Council said it recognised that in terms of its allocations policy, Mrs B had a need for three-bedroom property. However, when considering the suitability of temporary accommodation under the homelessness route the law allows it to take account of the definition of statutory overcrowding (section 325 of the Housing Act 1985) and local conditions. This meant the Council could count the living room as a bedroom and so the Council considered the property was one in which Ms B and her family could manage. It recognises it was a balancing act, taking account of the available properties, a person’s needs at that time and the need to find better accommodation than one room in a hostel. It also says that Ms B was likely to have to wait for around 8 to 10 years to be housed via the housing register. It was much more likely to discharge its housing duty towards her sooner via the private sector.
30. It recognises it could have given her the option of staying in the hostel accommodation until a three-bedroom property in the private sector became available, thereby preventing her moving. But there was no guarantee that she would not have had to move again between different private sector properties during the same period she lived in the smaller two-bedroom accommodation.
31. In respect of storage costs the Council said that Mrs B made her own arrangements and did not say that she was having trouble affording the storage costs. It said that if she provides evidence to suggest the charges are not affordable it will carry out a means assessment and provide assistance if necessary.

Current situation

32. It says Ms B submitted a suitability review request in March 2019. The Council decided on 2 May 2019 that her current accommodation was unsuitable due to its condition and said it would seek alternative temporary accommodation for her.
33. Ms B says that she was offered a property on 15 May 2019 but she turned it down as it was unsuitable for her family. She says she is happy to move out of London in order to secure suitable accommodation. She said the storage costs have increased to £165 per month.

Analysis

failure to properly consider her circumstances when she was evicted from her private tenancy in November 2017

34. Ms B followed the review procedure in December 2017 which resulted in the Council setting aside the original decision and to housing her in interim accommodation. So, the review process has corrected the decision and it is not for me to comment on this further.

failure allow her sufficient time to find alternative accommodation for her and her three children when it evicted her from interim accommodation in November 2017 leading to street homelessness and sofa-surfing

35. The Council accepted in December 2017 that it had not allowed her a reasonable period of time to find alternative accommodation after the unfavourable homelessness decision. It also made this decision late in the evening and called the police to remove her from its offices without offering any alternative assistance. This was fault.
36. This caused Ms B and her children significant distress and put them at risk of harm as they slept in her car and in the church.

failure to offer suitable accommodation or take into account her mother’s illness in its decision to offer her accommodation in June 2018

37. Although Ms B has a need for three-bedroom accommodation, the Council argues that it is entitled to take into account the more generous statutory overcrowding provisions when considering the suitability of temporary accommodation. As it still owes Ms B a full housing duty and this was not an offer of accommodation to discharge its duty, I cannot find fault with its decision to make this offer to move her out of the hostel accommodation. I have also taken into account the fact that Ms B could have submitted a request to review the suitability as soon as she moved in.
38. However, I do think the information provided to Ms B could have been better, so she understood the reasons why she was being offered a smaller property. I understand that the Council was keeping her on the housing register with the overcrowding priority to recognise the property was too small. But given the length of the wait for a property, that option appears to offer little comfort or resolution to Ms B’s circumstances. The Council could have made clear that it was more likely she would be offered a private sector property sooner in order to resolve her homelessness.
39. In respect of her mother, while I accept it was a very difficult and emotional time for Ms B, I cannot criticise the Council for not including her mother in the application at the point at which it made Ms B an offer. Ms B said she asked the Council to add her mother to the application in April/May 2018. She has provided a letter from the hospital in April 2017 describing her mother’s illness and a second dated 4 June 2018 supporting the housing application. I cannot conclude from the evidence available that the Council failed to act on a request to add her mother to the application, earlier than the end of May 2018. Sadly, her mother passed away before this matter could have been considered further.

failure to pay for her storage costs since she was made homeless

40. Ms B arranged for her belongings to be stored before she approached the Council for assistance in November 2017. She did not raise any difficulties with paying the storage costs until April 2018. The Council did not address this point until the stage two response in November 2018, when it declined to pay her storage costs. This was fault. It should have responded to the issue in the stage one response in May 2018.
41. I cannot conclude Ms B has lost out financially as there is no evidence that she could not afford the storage costs. But it should have asked Ms B for more information and carried out a means assessment in May 2018.

Agreed action

42. I note the Council has already offered a payment of £450 to address the injustice caused to Ms B. Whilst welcome, I do not consider this is sufficient.
43. While the period of street homelessness was relatively short (one month) it must have been very stressful and frightening for her and her children. So, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance I recommended increasing this element of the payment from £300 to £1000: £500 for significant distress and £500 for risk of harm. I consider the payment of £150 for the delay to the complaint process is reasonable.
44. This makes a total of £1150 to replace the Council’s offer of £450.
45. I also recommended the Council, within two weeks of the date of this decision, contacts Ms B to ask for evidence of her difficulty paying storage costs. On receipt of that information, it should carry out a means assessment and if it concludes it will assist her, backdate that assistance to May 2018, or to the point at which she could not afford the storage costs.
46. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I consider this is a fair and reasonable way of resolving the complaint and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman