Summary: Ms C says the Council failed to accept she was in priority need of housing under s.195A of the Housing Act 1996 as it should have done and, as a result, placed her in unsuitable accommodation which caused her distress. The Council was at fault both for a failure to recognise it owed Ms C a s.195A duty and for placing the family in unsuitable accommodation but the former fault did not cause the latter. The Council has agreed to pay her £900.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Ms C, says the Council:
1. failed to apply s.195A of the Homeless Act 1996 to her case. She says it should have done because she was made involuntarily homeless less than two years after a previous assessment; and/or
2. failed to have systems in place to recognise where a s.195 duty is owed; and
3. housed her and her children in unsuitable accommodation for three months.
2. Ms C says this caused her and her family injustice because they were housed in a bedsit where she, her son and her daughter had to share a bed. Also, it was on the other side of London, far from their schools, work and medical networks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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 spoke to Ms C’s representative, Mr R, a solicitor and considered the evidence he provided. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. I considered the information I had gathered and applied the relevant law and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

6. Some of the law concerning homelessness has changed since the events in this complaint. This decision statement sets out the law at that time.
7. At the time in question, the law setting out councils’ duty to those applying for housing as a result of homelessness was the Housing Act 1996 (HA96). S.193 HA96 says that, where an applicant for housing was homeless, eligible for assistance and in ‘priority need’, councils had a duty to house them.
8. Where a council had reason to believe it owed that duty to an applicant, it had to assess them to see if they qualified. While it assessed applicants, it had to house them in ‘interim accommodation’ provided under s.188 HA1996. This had to be ‘suitable’ to the needs of the applicant and his/her family.
9. Several categories of people are automatically deemed to be in priority need and therefore owed a duty under s.193 HA96. These are set out in s.189 HA96. Among these are people, like Ms C, whose dependent children live with them.
10. S.195A HA96, introduced by the Localism Act 2011, said, if an applicant had already been found to be in priority need within the last two years and again approached a council became unintentionally homeless, the Council had to treat them as being in priority need without reassessment.
11. However, particularly in London, the supply of suitable permanent housing is greatly outstripped by demand. Councils, therefore, often have to place applicants in ‘temporary accommodation’ until permanent housing is available. Temporary accommodation is provided under s.193 HA96.
12. The Council says its housing allocation activity is ‘crisis driven’. It says it houses clients elsewhere when there is none available in the borough.

Equality Act 2010

13. Councils have a duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments to its services for those with a disability. Ms C’s representative says the Council is in breach of this duty as Ms C has children with disabilities and should have made adjustments for them.

What happened

14. Ms C has two children. Her elder child has depression for which she receives medical attention in the Council’s area. Her younger child has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Both children attend school in the Council’s area. Ms C worked in the same area starting work at 5am.
15. In June 2015, the Council accepted a duty to house Ms C. She and her children moved, with Council assistance into private sector accommodation in the Council’s area in January 2016. She received a housing benefit contribution towards the rent.
16. In May 2017, her landlord wrote to her to inform her it intended to terminate her tenancy under s.21 of the Housing Act 1988. Ms C went to the Council to inform them she feared eviction.
17. The landlord did not, in fact, issue a notice seeking possession of the property until July 2017. When this expired the landlord issued a further notice seeking possession in November 2017. The court issued a warrant for possession of the property in January 2018.
18. Ms C was due to be evicted in late January 2018. A week before the eviction, she again approached the Council for help. After an interview, the Council accepted it had a duty to house her and her children under s.193 HA96 because she was in priority need.
19. The caseworker recorded that three-bedroom accommodation would be suitable. The Council agreed to provide temporary accommodation from the date of eviction until it could find suitable permanent, private sector accommodation.
20. On the date of eviction, the Council moved Ms C and her children into temporary accommodation. The Council accepts it was not suitable. It was a studio flat which meant Ms C and her two children, one male and one female, had to share a bed. The flat was on the other side of London and more than an hour away on public transport from the relevant school, medical centre and Ms C’s work. She also says it was noisy and cold and she could not afford it.
21. Ms C contacted the Council and thanked the caseworker for the accommodation but explained why she felt it was unsuitable. Shortly after the move, Ms C was signed off work with anxiety. Her younger child could not travel for nearly three hours alone to and from school each day because of their age and ADHD.
22. Ms C took legal advice from a community legal service which wrote to the Council on her behalf. A doctor from the local children’s mental health NHS service wrote to the Council to express concern about the negative effect the move had had on the children. She also said the younger child’s condition worsened and they had to begin taking medication over the weekend.
23. In early March 2018, the Council replied saying it had forwarded Mrs C’s letter to the Housing Solutions team. Two weeks later, she instructed solicitors who wrote to the Council saying it had a duty to house her under s.193(2) of the HA96.
24. The next day, the Council found the family alternative accommodation. This accommodation was not ideal. It was 8 miles and an hour away on public transport from the children’s schools. However, it was a three-bedroom property. Ms C makes no complaint about this property.
25. In July 2018, Ms C’s solicitors complained on her behalf to the Council about:
1. The Council’s ‘failure to identify our client as eligible for assistance under s193(2) HA96’;
2. The Council’s ‘failure to take account of the suitability of accommodation for client and her family’; and
3. The Council’s ‘failure to deal with our client’s request for a change in accommodation without delay’.
26. In late July the Council replied saying it had accepted it had a s.193 duty to house the family. It still accepted that duty and was housing her because of it. She was eligible to bid for permanent accommodation on its website.
27. It did not address the suitability of the original temporary accommodation.
28. Ms C’s solicitor wrote asking the Council to complete its response but received no reply. He escalated the complaint to stage 2 in early October 2018. The Council responded at the end of October 2019.
29. The Council said:
1. It accepted Ms C was in priority need and she was currently on the housing list with a priority date of June 2015. Thus, the Council had clearly accepted
2. it had a housing duty to her which continued since her first application in 2015. Therefore, the first part of Ms C’s complaint was dismissed.
3. It had placed Ms C in a studio flat which was clearly unsuitable for her family’s needs. The Council therefore placed her in alternative accommodation on 17 March 2018. The Council therefore awarded her £190 compensation. (£140 for 47 days in unsuitable accommodation and £50 for time and trouble).
4. Ms C’s solicitor brought the matter to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault causing injustice?

S.195A HA96

30. Ms C’s solicitor says the Council:
1. failed to treat Ms C as a person owed a duty under s195A Housing Act 1996;
2. failed to have systems to recognise cases where such a duty is owed; and
3. failed to provide suitable accommodation from the end of January to mid-March in breach of Housing Act 1996 and Equality Act 2010 duties.
31. The Council accepted it had a duty to house Ms C as a homeless person in priority need in June 2015. It says it continues to accept that duty and her priority date for receiving permanent housing remains June 2015.
32. Ms C told the Council she feared being made homeless in May 2017, which was within two years of the acceptance of that duty. Therefore, even though she was not actually made homeless until January 2018, the Council owed her a duty under s.195A.
33. In mid-January 2018, a Council officer assessed Ms C as homeless and in priority need. This should not have happened. The Council should have accepted her as homeless by virtue of s.195A. However, the officer immediately accepted the Council owed her a duty under s.193 HA96 so any injustice was slight.

Unsuitable housing

34. However. the Council was at fault for providing Ms C and her family with unsuitable temporary housing. It has accepted it was unsuitable and apologised. It offered Ms C £190 in compensation.
35. Our remedies guidance says we should generally recommend a remedy where a council has placed a family in unsuitable accommodation of between £150 and £350 a month. It says, ‘Where a mother and three-year-old-daughter had to share a bed for a month we may propose a payment of £150; but where a family of four shared one room for a month, the appropriate payment may be £350’.
36. This case is at the more serious end of this spectrum. A family of three, with children of different sexes had to sleep for 45 nights in the same bed. The family had good educational and medical reasons to stay within the local area but were housed a long way off. Transport between the two areas required several changes of transport and the younger child would have had to travel alone for nearly three hours a day to go to school.
37. I would therefore recommend the Council should pay the family £500 for the unsuitable placement as well as a sum of £200 in recognition of the additional costs caused by having to return on an almost daily basis to the Council’s area for school and medical treatment. I also recommend a figure for distress and time and trouble of £200.

Equality Act

38. Ms C’s solicitor says the Council did not comply with its duty under the Equality Act 2010 to provide suitable housing for those with disabilities. He says the Council failed to comply with this duty.
39. While I accept the Equality Act imposes a general duty to make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities, I do not agree that, in this case, it imposed any additional duties on the Council. Councils already have a duty under HA96 to provide ‘suitable’ housing and whether a property is suitable must be judged with reference to the needs and requirements of the applicant and his/her family. In this case, the property was clearly unsuitable for the reasons stated above.

Complaint handling

40. The Council was also at fault for its failure to properly consider the full complaint at stage one. This fault was remedied by its recognition of this fault and apology for it in the stage two review.

Agreed action

41. Within one month, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms C and her children for placing them in unsuitable accommodation; and
2. Pay Ms C £900 in recognition of that fault and the time and money spent and distress caused in dealing with it (it has already paid her £190 of this); and
3. Write to the Ombudsman to say how it intends to prevent such errors in future. It says it has already introduced weekly checks for managers to address cases with staff and quality controls overseen by the Head of Supply.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have considered the evidence and decided the Council was at fault. The Council has accepted this and accepted my recommendation of a remedy. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman