Summary: Ms X complained the Council attempted to place her and her young child into unsuitable temporary accommodation and failed to consider her status as a Council employee when she applied for housing assistance. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with her housing needs.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not consider her status as a Council employee when it offered her and her young child, Z, housing assistance. Specifically, Ms X said the Council:
• did not carry out a risk assessment before offering her accommodation in a shared facility;
• failed to follow the correct process when dealing with her complaint;
• did not have a policy in place for when Council employees require housing assistance; and
• treated her unfairly because of her employee status.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered her view of the case.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and reviewed the information it provided. This included a copy of Ms X’s accommodation needs form and the Council’s policy for dealing with employees or members as clients.
7. I wrote to Ms X and the Council and considered their comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law and Statutory Guidance

8. The Housing Act 1985 provides a definition of overcrowding based on the number of rooms available and the size of the rooms. These are called the space and room standards. In assessing the size of a property, the Act does not take into account a child under the age of one. It states a child aged one or over but under ten is counted as one-half of a unit.
9. The space standards say ‘a room is available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom’.
10. The space standards say a room having a floor area of less than 50 sq. ft. is not considered as a room. A room of between 50 sq. ft and 70 sq. ft can be allocated to a person equal to half a unit.
11. 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.
12. 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; and
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.
13. If the Council thinks someone is homeless and in priority need, it must, if the person asks for it, provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application. People with dependent children are considered as in priority need.
14. The law does not say what type of accommodation the Council should provide but there is a legal duty for the Council to ensure the proposed accommodation is “suitable.”
15. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast 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 and from 3 April 2018 17.30).
16. The Suitability of Accommodation Order 2003 states that bed and breakfast accommodation can only be used for a maximum of six weeks for families when no other accommodation is available.

What happened

17. Ms X is a Council employee. She has a child, Z. In late 2017, Ms X’s landlord told her he was going to evict her. Ms X then applied to the Council for housing assistance.
18. The Council accepted it had a duty to house Ms X and Z in early 2018 after her landlord carried out the eviction. The Council offered Ms X accommodation in a shared facility as an interim measure whilst it looked for more suitable housing. The Council said Ms X and Z would not have to live in this facility for more than six weeks.
19. Ms X initially accepted the offer but chose not to move in because she was concerned that her role as a Council employee could put her and Z at risk.
    She also said there was drug paraphernalia in the room she was shown.
20. Ms X asked the Council to review the suitability of the facility.
21. The Council conducted a review of the shared facility and did not uncover anything that indicated she or Z would be in danger if they lived at this property. The Council has provided a copy of the accommodation needs form which summarised Ms X and Z’s needs and confirmed it used this to carry out its assessment. The Council confirmed it sought and obtained the necessary safety certificates. It considered Ms X’s role as a Council employee but decided neither Ms X nor Z were at risk.
22. The Council offered Ms X a private rented two-bedroom property 10 days later.
    Ms X accepted this offer but later asked the Council to review the suitability of the property because she felt Z’s bedroom was too small. The Council says its surveyor measured the bedroom as 55 sq. ft. However, Ms X has provided information from an independent surveyor who measured the bedroom as 44 sq. ft.
23. The Council reviewed the property and decided it was suitable for Ms X and Z.
    Ms X disagreed and made a formal complaint.
24. Ms X said the housing offer the Council initially made was not suitable for an applicant with a child. She alleged the Council failed to carry out a risk assessment before offering her accommodation. She also asked the Council to explain its process of determining which applicants received rental properties.
25. The Council responded just over two months later and did not uphold her complaint. The Council said it had not identified any risks in Ms X accepting the temporary placement and said there was no protocol in place for housing a Council employee. The Council explained it had offered her a place in a shared facility due to the housing shortage in her borough and confirmed it had previously placed a mother and infant in this property.
26. Ms X raised a complaint at Stage 2 to the Council. She repeated her complaint points and said the Council failed to respond to her complaint within the correct timescales. She also questioned why there was no process in place for Council employees seeking housing assistance.
27. The Council responded at Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The Council acknowledged it did not respond to Ms X’s Stage 1 complaint within the correct timescales and apologised.
28. The Council confirmed it did have a procedure in place for when council employees required housing assistance, which had been in effect since 2008. The Council apologised for previously misinforming her. Ms X says the Council did not provide her with a copy of this policy despite her asking for it several times.
29. The Council did not uphold any other aspects of Ms X’s complaint, advising that she had had the opportunity to appeal the Council’s suitability reviews and had chosen not to.
30. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

My analysis

31. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision the Council correctly made. The Council considered the accommodation needs form Ms X completed for herself and Z. The Council has also provided a copy of the policy it used to consider Ms X’s role as a Council employee before offering her the shared accommodation. The Council properly considered the information available and there was no fault in the way it reached its decision to offer Ms X this property on a temporary basis. In any event, Ms X chose not to move into the accommodation and therefore did not suffer an injustice as a result of this.
32. Ms X also said the second property the Council offered her was unsuitable and requested a review. After the Council’s review found the property was suitable, Ms X had the opportunity to appeal this decision in Court. The Ombudsman will not investigate this aspect of the complaint as it was reasonable for Ms X to refer her complaint to the Court.
33. Part of Ms X’s complaint relates to the Council’s policy on employees who are requesting housing assistance. In the Council’s stage 1 response, the Council incorrectly informed her it did not have a such a policy. However, it went on to apologise for this in its stage 2 response.
34. The Council misinformed Ms X, but the evidence shows the Council acted in line with its policy. The Council’s policy states that the employee in question should be treated with respect and discretion. The Council has confirmed it appointed a senior officer as Ms X’s sole point of contact and anonymised her housing file in order to adhere to the policy.
35. I am therefore satisfied the Council properly applied its policy. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
36. Ms X says there was evidence of drug use in the shared facility she was offered.
    I have not seen any evidence to show Ms X raised this concern with the Council. As the Council was not aware of this issue it did not have the opportunity to deal with it. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
37. Ms X has complained the Council did not respond to her complaint within the correct timescales. The Council’s complaints process is to respond to Stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and Stage 2 complaints within 25 working days. By its own admission, the Council responded to Ms X’s Stage 1 complaint six weeks later than it should have done. However, the delay in response was not so significant that it could be said to have caused Ms X an injustice.
38. Ms X has disagreed with the Council’s measurement of her son’s bedroom.
    The law says the space standards apply to all living space, including rooms that would or could usually be used as living rooms. Ms X’s property has a bedroom and living room in addition to her child’s bedroom which, under the Act, could be used for sleeping in. I therefore do not find fault with the Council’s allocation of this home to Ms X and her son as it complies with the space standards.
39. It would have been good practice for the Council to provide Ms X with a copy of its policy on how to deal with employees seeking Housing Assistance. However, the Council properly applied the policy and there is no evidence that the Council’s failure to provide her with a copy had any impact on Ms X receiving housing assistance or making her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

40. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms X’s housing application. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman