• The complaint
• What I have investigated
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing situation when he became homeless and secured employment in another local authority area. We found fault the Council failed to rebook hotel accommodation for Mr X and family causing distress and have recommended a suitable remedy in this case. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant who I shall refer to as Mr X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with his housing situation when he submitted a homeless application. In particular Mr X says the Council:
   • Delayed making a Section 213 (s213) referral to a different local authority when Mr X found employment there.
   • Moved Mr X and his family to unsuitable temporary accommodation in a hotel.
   • Failed to rebook the hotel despite agreeing to do so. Mr X had to rely on a different authority to provide emergency accommodation for his family.
   • Tried to move them back to the Council’s area and unfairly discharged its housing duty when they did not book into the unsuitable temporary accommodation the Council provided.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused distress and financial difficulties for the family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about the s213 referral and the rebooking of a hotel. I do not intend to investigate the parts of Mr X’s complaints where he has the right of appeal against the Council’s decisions. I have explained my reasons for not investigating those decisions within this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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

8. I have been reallocated the complaint to consider. I have read the papers submitted by Mr X and the notes of his telephone conversation with the previous Investigator. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and supporting documents it provided.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

11. Paragraph 10.33 of the Code allows.

“10.33 There may be instances where an applicant has a local connection to the district where they applied but the housing authority considers that there is a stronger local connection elsewhere. In such cases, a housing authority can not decide to transfer responsibility to another housing authority: however, they will still be able to seek assistance from the other housing authority in securing accommodation, under section 213.

12. Referrals are discretionary and housing authorities are not required to refer applicants to other authorities.

What happened

13. Mr and Mrs X and their two young children applied to the Council as homeless on 7 March 2018. The Council arranged interim accommodation for them at a hotel until the outcome of its enquiries about their homelessness. The Council decided they were Intentionally Homeless so had no duty to provide housing for them. The Council served notice on Mr and Mrs X to leave the hotel.
14. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decision. The Council provided interim accommodation at a hotel while it considered the review request. The Council decided Mr X and family were not Intentionally Homeless and it had a full housing duty towards them. The Council moved Mr and Mrs X into self-contained temporary accommodation on 27 July 2018.
15. Mr X says the Council did not accept him on to the Housing Register because he had no local connection to the area. So, in August 2018 Mr X found employment in a different Council’s area, some distance from Birmingham starting in October 2018. I will call the different council Authority J. Mr X asked the Council to make a section 213 referral to Authority J.
16. Mr X says the self-contained temporary accommodation provided by the Council in Birmingham became unsuitable once he began working in the different area. He had to commute and ‘sofa surf’ with friends which made it difficult for him with his employment. Mr X says it impacted on his finances and family and he needed to remove one child from a nursery school.
17. The Council made the s213 referral to Authority J on 23 January 2019 and accepted it delayed in making the referral. So, to help Mr X, while looking for accommodation in the different area, it arranged for Mr X and family to stay in hotel accommodation in the main city of the area. The Council says the accommodation was temporary accommodation and booked from 25 January to 25 March 2019 while Authority J decided on the referral.
18. Mr X considered the hotel unsuitable due to no laundry or cooking facilities. Mr X says they had to use the bathroom to wash dishes and clothes. Mr X says a health visitor was concerned about the conditions and wrote a letter of support to the Council. Mr X was concerned about impact on his children’s health, nutrition, and his finances because of buying meals out a lot.

19. Authority J responded to the Council on 28 January 2019 that due to lack of resources it could not accept the referral. But agreed to offer Mr X advice and assistance with looking for private rented accommodation in the area. Authority J told Mr X he could apply to join its housing register and it would deal with the application according to its housing policies. Authority J advised Mr X the two bedroomed accommodation he wanted was the most sought after. So, it could not guarantee he would be successful when bidding for properties.
20. Mr X made a homeless application direct to Authority J, but it decided not to regard Mr X as homeless.
21. On 25 March 2019 Mr X says he contacted the Council to try and extend the booking at the hotel. He says it took several attempts to speak to officers and the hotel manager also tried. Mr X says the Council agreed to extend the booking to the hotel manager. But the Council did not extend the booking as agreed and the hotel manager eventually had to ask them to leave as the room was needed.
22. The Council reports it has no record of conversations between its temporary accommodation team and the hotel manager about extending Mr X’s stay on 25 March 2019. It says an officer contacted the hotel on 28 March 2019 and was told Mr X had checked out of the accommodation. The Council says Mr X left the accommodation without letting officers know. When commenting on the draft decision statement Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view, he did not tell officers he had left the hotel.
23. Mr X contacted a neighbouring council to Authority J for accommodation as he had a connection to the area through his job. I will refer to this council as Authority K. Authority K provided Mr X and family with temporary accommodation on 25 March 2019 for two weeks and accepted a homeless application from him. Mr X says Authority K offered him two-bedroom accommodation and they were due to move in on 5 April 2019. But Authority K found Birmingham City Council had accepted Mr X as homeless. So, it cancelled Mr X’s application and said it could not progress it as the Council had accepted a housing duty towards him. Authority K advised Mr X he could join its housing register because of his local connection to the area.
24. As the Council still owed Mr X and family a housing duty, it says it was obliged to bring Mr X back to Birmingham. The Council arranged alternative temporary accommodation for them at a hotel in Birmingham and confirmed this with Mr X on 5 April 2019. The hotel told the Council on 6 April 2019 Mr X and family had not checked in on 5 April 2019.
25. Mr X says they could not leave Authority K’s area on 5 April 2019 due to their situation and having to collect a friend from the airport. Mr X says he told the hotel in Birmingham about the amount of belongings they had. The hotel would not allow them to bring more than three suitcases, so they had to leave most of their belongings in a friend’s garage.
26. The Council says the hotel reported Mr X planned to arrive with a removal van of belongings and visitors from another country. The hotel told Mr X the accommodation was temporary, and it could not house a removal van of belongings. The hotel said the booking was for Mr and Mrs X and their children, not their guests. The hotel confirmed Mr X did not attend the temporary accommodation arranged for them.
27. Mr X says he contacted the Council’s out of hours service about issues with the accommodation and travelling back to Birmingham that day. Mr X says an officer told him to ring the Council when they arrived in Birmingham.
28. Mr X contacted the Council when he arrived Birmingham on 6 April 2019 and it booked them into a different hotel for two nights. The Council wrote to Mr X on 8 April 2019. It said that as he had ‘refused’ the offer of accommodation available to him on 5 April 2019 by not turning up it was discharging its housing duty towards him.
29. Mr X exercised his right to request a review of the decision to discharge its homeless duty towards him. The Council said the target date for the decision was 24 June 2019. The Council decided on 9 July 2019 to reinstate its full housing duty towards Mr and Mrs X.
30. The Council says Mr and Mrs X could not join the housing register before because they had no local connection to the area. But from March 2019, they had a local connection so could now apply to the Council for housing in the Birmingham area.
31. Mr X returned to Authority K’s area and applied for housing in April 2019. Authority K accepted Mr X on a conditional duty and housed them for 2 weeks. Mr X then viewed and accepted the tenancy of a house in Authority K’s area where they are living.

My assessment

32. The Council originally considered Mr X as Intentionally Homeless. Mr X appealed against the decision and so has exercised his appeal rights. The Council overturned the decision and accepted a full housing duty towards Mr X. Mr X has not complained about the Council’s original decision on his homelessness application and in any event, he has exercised his appeal rights and has not complained about this issue. So, it is not a matter I intend to consider.
33. It was unclear why Mr X was unable to secure his own accommodation in Authority J’s area once he started working there. However, in responding to the draft decision Mr X has advised this was due to insufficient housing references and his financial situation. So, Mr X asked the Council to make a referral to Authority J. The Code of Practice and the Housing Act s 213 allow Councils to make referrals to other local authorities.
34. It is not clear whether the required circumstances existed in this case for a referral such as Mr X having a local connection to Birmingham. This is because the Council refused his application to join the housing register in August 2018 due to a lack of local connection. The Council also cannot ‘transfer’ its homelessness duty to Authority J. But even if there were any fault by the Council in making the s213 referral this has been in Mr X’s favour. So, I consider that, even if there was fault by the Council in not meeting the circumstances needed to make a referral to Authority J, it did not cause an injustice to Mr X.
35. However, the Council accepted it delayed making the referral. Mr X asked for a referral in August 2018 and the Council did not act until January 2019. So, I consider the delay in referring Mr X to Authority J is fault by the Council. Mr X claims his injustice was financial due to travel costs and having to ‘sofa surf’ with friends.
36. Mr X says the delay in making the referral also made his temporary accommodation in Birmingham unsuitable. However, Mr X had appeal rights about the suitability of his temporary accommodation. So, Mr X could have sought a suitability review of the temporary accommodation in Birmingham on the grounds that his circumstances had changed. If, following the review, Mr X remained unhappy with the outcome he could have exercised his right to appeal to the county court.
37. The Ombudsman would normally expect someone to use their review rights and will not normally investigate issues such as these where there is a right to a review and appeal. In this case it was reasonable to expect Mr X to seek a review as this is the process the law provides for people that wish to challenge the Council’s decision on the suitability of temporary accommodation provided. The Ombudsman also does not have the power to overturn the Council’s decisions on such matters. So, I do not intend to look at the suitability of the temporary accommodation while Mr X was travelling between Birmingham and Authority J’s area.
38. I appreciate the delay in making the referral was stressful for Mr X, however it was his decision to apply for work out of the Council’s area. And I consider it was open to Mr X to try to seek his own accommodation in Authority J’s area as he was working. In addition, I understand the temporary accommodation in Birmingham was still available to Mr X and his family to live in, so they were not without accommodation during that time.
39. Mr X says the hotel in Authority J’s area was unsuitable accommodation for his family. The Council still owed Mr X the duty to provide temporary accommodation, so the hotel was effectively temporary accommodation replacing the one in Birmingham. This meant Mr X had appeal rights about the hotel accommodation offered by the Council as temporary accommodation in Authority J’s area. I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal rights about the suitability of the accommodation. So, I do not intend to look at the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided in the hotel.
40. Mr X alleges the Council agreed to extend the booking at the hotel on 25 March 2019. The Council says when Mr X was staying at the hotel it was doing ‘re books on the day and not in advance’. Its normal procedure is to expect someone to ask to be rebooked on the last day of their stay. And if someone has vacated the hotel to hold any booking until contact is made.
41. The Council says it has no record of any contact from Mr X to rebook the hotel. Mr X says he contacted the Council on the last day of his stay but was unsuccessful, so the hotel manager intervened on his behalf. Mr X says the hotel manager managed to contact the Council and was told a booking would be sent shortly. Unfortunately, this was not received, as confirmed by the hotel manager and so Mr X and family had to leave the accommodation.
42. So, I consider on the balance of probabilities there is evidence to show the Council did agree to re book Mr X, as confirmed by the hotel manager but this did not happen. The Council still owed Mr X a housing duty. So, I consider it was fault by the Council not to rebook Mr X’s accommodation on 25 March 2019 when the hotel manager and Mr X made contact. And as it had the housing duty, I would have expected the Council to have followed up Mr X’s booking before or on 25 March 2019. Instead t it took the Council until 28 March 2019 to contact the hotel to follow up Mr X’s booking. I consider it was fault by Council not to contact the hotel about Mr X’s booking on or before 25 March 2019.
43. This caused an injustice to Mr X as it was a stressful time for him while he was trying to ensure his family had accommodation.
44. In the end Mr X was not without accommodation as Authority K provided accommodation on 25 March 2019 which reduces the injustice caused to Mr X as he did not become street homeless. However, Mr X was caused considerable distress. So, I consider the Council should apologise to Mr X over the failure to rebook the hotel, and to pay him £150 for the distress caused by its fault on 25 March 2019.
45. Mr X has expressed concerns about the hotel accommodation provided when he was due to return to Birmingham in April 2019. This was more temporary accommodation, so Mr X had appeal rights if he considered it was unsuitable. I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal rights. So, I do not intend to look at Mr X’s concerns. Mr X also had appeal rights about Council’s decision to discharge its housing duty. Mr X exercised those appeal rights so there are no grounds for me to look at his concerns about the Council’s decision.

Agreed action

46. To remedy the injustice, I have identified was caused to Mr X as a result of the Council’s failure to extend the hotel booking on 25 March 2019 , the Council has agreed within one month of the date of my decision to apologise to Mr X for its failure and pay him £150 to recognise the distress he was caused.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I am completing my investigation. I have found fault by the Council as it failed to re book Mr X’s hotel stay on 25 March 2019 and I have recommended a suitable remedy in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page