Summary: Mrs X complained about the temporary accommodation the Council provided, the way the Council dealt with an offer of accommodation and a review request she made. She also complained the Council failed to give her the appropriate housing priority. Mrs X also stated the Council should not have imposed a communication plan, limiting her to email contacts. We found the Council was at fault for placing Mrs X and her family in hotel accommodation for a long period, and it should have warned her before imposing contact restrictions. However, there was either no fault or no injustice arising from the other elements of the complaint. The Council agreed to make a payment to Mrs X to recognise the impact of the Temporary Accommodation on her and her family.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that:
1. In July 2018 the Council’s call centre did not adequately respond to calls she made to report problems with the family’s temporary accommodation. She also made complaints about her temporary accommodation.
2. In August 2018 it was rude and intrusive of switchboard staff to ask what her call to a senior officer was about.
3. In October 2018 an officer from the Temporary Accommodation Team (TAT) unreasonably tried to force her to accept an offer of permanent accommodation with a Housing Association (HA). The Council nominated Mrs X for a property with the HA and Mrs X also complained the Council should not have shared her personal information with the HA.
4. In October 2018 the Council wrongly suspended her from bidding for properties because it had made the nomination to a HA. Mrs X also raised further concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation the Council had provided. She complained the family had been in hotel accommodation for too long.
5. In November 2018 the Council acted inappropriately by imposing contact restrictions on her through a communication plan. Mrs X also complained the Council had wrongly shared her personal information with a Data Guardian Assistant.
6. In December 2018 Mrs X complained about an email sent by the Temporary Accommodation team. The email included a reminder that breakfast would only be provided for people on Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness application.
7. In December 2018 Mrs X made a complaint to the Chief Executive about her housing priority and other issues.
8. In January 2019 Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the suitability review for the HA property the Council nominated for her family. She also complained the Council should not have passed on her full housing file.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated complaint a), the first part of complaints c), d) and e) and complaints g) and h). The reasons I have not investigated all of Mrs X’s complaints are set out in the last section of this statement.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered Mrs X’s complaint and the information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response to the complaint.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. In January 2018 the Council accepted a homelessness application for Mrs X, her husband and their two young children. Mrs X’s husband is disabled.
9. At the end of May 2018 the Council offered Mrs X a two‑bedroom property as temporary accommodation. Mrs X asked the Council to find an alternative because access and parking were issues. As a result of their concerns the Council booked them into a hotel. This hotel booking was later extended.
10. On 22 June Mrs X asked the Council to make a booking at a different hotel. She said there was no parking where they were and the distance from the lift to the rooms was too great. The Council says officers considered the accommodation suitable and encouraged Mrs X to remain there. Mrs X disagreed and refused the hotel. As a result of this the Council issued a letter stating it had discharged its duty to house Mrs X and her family (under S188 of the Housing Act).
11. Mrs X arranged her own accommodation at a different hotel from 22 to 25 June and decided she wished to remain there. She asked the Council to arrange this and to refund the £350 she had spent in the meantime. The Temporary Accommodation Team (TAT) made a booking there from 26 June to 9 July. The Council agreed to exercise discretion to refund the £350 this time, but stated if Mrs X booked her own accommodation in future, it was unlikely to do so again.
12. In July the Council moved Mrs X into a different hotel in the same chain as a result of room availability. The branch Mrs X was booked into was advertised as accessible. However, it turned out not to have a wet room. When Mrs X made the Council aware, they moved her the following day to a different branch. This was booked from 10 July to 23 July.
13. The Council continued to place Mrs X and her family in hotel accommodation between September 2018 and February 2019. The vast majority of the bookings were with the same chain, in different hotels in and around the Greenwich area. Up until September 2018 the Council only paid for the hotel rooms. From September 2018 the Council paid for breakfast for the family also.

Complaint A - In July 2018 the Council’s call centre did not adequately respond to calls she made to report problems with the family’s temporary accommodation.

14. In July 2018 Mrs X contacted the Council’s call centre to complain the temporary accommodation from May and June had been unsuitable for her husband. She also complained about the service received from council officers on the telephone.
15. The Council stated it did not have records of Mrs X’s contacts with the call centre in July 2018. However, it noted her contacts with the TAT. The Council stated in May it had assessed the medical evidence and decided the temporary accommodation was suitable. However, due to Mrs X’s concerns it moved the family to a hotel in June.

Medical Advice

16. There is evidence the Council obtained medical advice in Mr X’s case. The Council provided a copy of its medical advice from January 2018. It referenced various letters from Mr X’s GP and other areas of the NHS from March 2017 to November 2017. It also took account of a medical questionnaire he completed in December 2018.
17. The medical evidence noted Mr X had mobility impairment and pain. He also suffered with depression. The advice set out Mr X’s future housing needs. This was a property with a lift, or ground floor property (if it had no lift), a shower or bath with bath board. It acknowledged Mr X’s mobility difficulties but stated he could manage one or two steps or internal steps. A fully adapted property was not specified as Mr X was only intermittently in need of a wheelchair.

Hotel Accommodation

18. The Council provided hotel accommodation for Mr X because of the need for adapted facilities. It stated it did not have other adapted temporary accommodation to place Mr and Mrs X in.
19. All the hotel accommodation had bedroom and bathroom facilities. These were self-contained and not shared with any other residents. However, the family had no access to any kitchen facilities at any of the hotels. All the hotel accommodation provided had a lift if access to the upper floors was needed.
20. The Council told us it continued to monitor the availability of other accommodation for Mrs X and her family but none became available, so it continued to pay for them to stay in hotels.
21. In comments to the Council during her complaint, Mrs X raised concerns that her son had been away from nursery for six weeks because of the various locations of the hotels she was staying in and she was concerned that she had no access to cooking facilities. She felt the long stay in unsuitable hotels as temporary accommodation was affecting her children.

Service

22. In respect of the service provided, the Council stated Mrs X and her husband had become angry when dealing with staff, made personal comments about staff and put the phone down midway through some calls. The Council stated it was sorry to hear that Mrs X was unhappy with the service but its staff were working hard to help them and it found some of Mrs X’s comments unacceptable.
23. Mrs X was unhappy that a council officer had made accusations against her. She also complained about the decision to issue the Section 188 letter discharging the Council’s duty to house them. She asked for this complaint to be escalated to Stage Two.
24. The Council reviewed its records and stated it was satisfied that no accusations had been made by the officer concerned. It agreed with Mrs X that there was no evidence of any ‘personal attacks’ by her towards another officer, but stated that when she likened the TAT team to a ‘third world country’s customer service’ this was unhelpful when officers were trying to assist them. The Council stated its aim was to provide temporary accommodation that was suitable. Suitability was decided by the Council’s medical adviser. The Council noted Mrs X’s financial position and agreed to include breakfast as part of Mrs X’s booking. It signposted her to the Welfare Rights Service for further advice and assistance.

Was there fault by the Council - Complaint A

25. The Council provided Mr and Mrs X with temporary accommodation because it had accepted it had a duty to accommodate them.
26. I recognise that when the Council began placing Mr and Mrs X in hotel accommodation it did so after they declined other temporary accommodation the Council felt was suitable. However, when the Council placed Mrs X and her family in other accommodation it too needed to be suitable.
27. I understand that hotel accommodation was used because the Council had no adapted properties that would meet Mr X’s needs. Irrespective of this, I found the length of time the family were placed in hotels represented fault by the Council.
28. The accommodation Mrs X and her family were placed in was not strictly Bed and Breakfast accommodation, as defined by the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003. The Order says this is accommodation where there is a need to share a toilet, washing facilities or cooking facilities with other households. There were no shared facilities in this instance. However, there were no cooking facilities at all.
29. Mr and Mrs X were in hotel accommodation between May 2018 and February 2019. I found that the prolonged period in hotel accommodation, the need for moves between hotels and the lack of facilities made this accommodation unsuitable. The lack of kitchen facilities in particular would have led to additional food costs. I have taken into account that the council began meeting the cost of breakfast for part of their stay. However, I have recommended a payment is made to Mr and Mrs X to reflect the lack of kitchen facilities and the general unsuitability of hotel accommodation over such a long period.

Complaint C - In October 2018 an officer from the Temporary Accommodation Team unreasonably tried to force her to accept an offer of permanent accommodation with a Housing Association (HA).

30. The Council nominated Mrs X for a property with a housing association in September 2018. It sent her the details of the property on 21 September and said a formal offer letter would follow. Mrs X rejected the property on 25 September.
31. On 15 October 2018 the Council formally offered the property with the housing association. Mrs X asked for information about the property but refused the offer.
32. If someone refuses an offer of accommodation which is considered suitable, the law says a council can discharge its housing duty towards them. In effect, this means, under the law, the council will have done all it needs to. It would not be obliged to assist them further.
33. In October, an officer called Mrs X. As part of the call they discussed the offer of accommodation. The Council’s response to the complaint states the officer was introducing himself as a new member of the TAT. He discussed the offer of permanent accommodation and explained it had been assessed as suitable. The Council says the officer explained Mrs X had a right of review and appeal. It stated the call was difficult.
34. Mrs X complained that the officer had unreasonably tried to force her to accept the property and she felt harassed. The Council disagreed. It told us that its policy was always to make a customer care call to customers who refuse offers. This is an attempt to help them to either protect their position by accepting the offer or exercise their right to request a review of the suitability of the property concerned. There is no recording of the call or notes on file to set out exactly what was said.
35. The principle of nominating housing applicants to housing associations is set out in the Council’s allocations policy. The policy states the Council works in partnership with housing associations, so housing register applicants will also be considered for housing association properties. Applicants are considered for nomination using the same criteria as for lettings to Council properties. The policy states anyone who is nominated will be notified in writing and the relevant housing association will advise the applicant of the details of the property offered.
36. Section 9.11 of the Council’s Allocations Policy states the Council will end its homelessness assistance if someone refused a suitable housing offer, either when offered directly or following a successful bid.
37. Mrs X also complained about the Council having shared her personal details with the housing association. The Council’s position is that consent forms signed in 2014 and 2017 confirmed Mrs X consented to data being shared with third parties. Mrs X says she withdrew consent at a later date. If she believes the Council is responsible for a data breach this would be a matter for the Information Commissioner (ICO).

Was there fault by the Council - Complaint C

38. There are no records to show precisely what was said in the telephone conversation between Mrs X and the Officer in the TAT team. However, the purpose of the call appears to have been to ensure that Mrs X understood the implications of declining the offer of accommodation that had been made via a housing association. As this is a significant decision, the Council’s policy to make a courtesy call to the applicant is a positive one. It ensures the situation is clearly understood.
39. I understand Mrs X did not wish to accept the offer, but I found no fault in the officer explaining how this may affect the family and it would not have been fault for the officer to encourage the family to reconsider. Ultimately it was still up to Mrs X to decide whether or not she wished to accept the property. It was open to her not to accept it, and to request a review of suitability, which was the course of action she chose to take.

Complaint D - In October 2018 the Council wrongly suspended Mrs X from bidding for properties because it had made the nomination to a HA. Mrs X also raised further concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation the Council had provided. She complained the family had been in hotel accommodation for too long.

40. In October 2018 Mrs X complained to the Council that she had wrongly been stopped from bidding for properties. She stated she had been unable to bid for a three-bedroom property.
41. Mrs X spoke to the Allocations Team. She says they told her bidding had been suspended because of the nomination the Council made for a property with a housing association in September. Mrs X was unhappy with this.
42. The Council wrote to Mrs X confirming she had been placed on the “OT” list. This happened on 23 May 2018. When people are placed on the OT list, they may be nominated to get a property with a housing association. The letter explained that Mrs X could still bid for suitable properties using her “Band C” status while on the list. However, she may also be given a direct offer of accommodation. It stated the OT list was specifically created to try to find accommodation for customers with severe mobility problems. The letter did not say if Mrs X could still place bids under her “Band B1” status while on the list.
43. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint stated the nomination for a property through the OT list was not the reason Mrs X’s bids had been unsuccessful. It said the problem had been that Mrs X was placing bids for properties and property sizes that she was not eligible to bid for.
• Mrs X was placed in Band B1 on 28 November 2017. Under this band she could place bids for three-bedroom flats and maisonettes. This followed a recommendation by an Occupational Therapist.
• Mrs X could place bids for two-bedroom flats, maisonettes and houses under her Band C priority (allocated to her on 22 February 2018).
44. The Council told us it was correct Mrs X was still able to bid under Band C after it placed her on the “OT list”. This is because all applicants may place bids under this band. However, it should have suspended her ability to place bids under Band B1 because nominations were designed to provide the adapted suitable accommodation applicants required. The Council accepted it did not do this, it allowed her to continue to bid under both bands.
45. The Council did not make clear to Mrs X at the time what the correct position should have been and that bidding under Band 1 should have been suspended.
46. The Council’s records show what bids were placed for what properties from what bands. The majority of bids Mrs X placed were in respect of properties that she was not eligible for. For example;
• bids placed for a house under her Band B1 priority, when this band only allows her to bid for flats/maisonettes.
• bids placed for three-bedroom houses under her Band C priority, when Mrs X is only eligible for two-bedroom houses under this band.
47. In November the Council acknowledged Mrs X’s frustrations about the hotel accommodation. It stated, unfortunately, families needing larger properties or those needing adaptations were facing longer waiting times that they would like. The Council noted the family had been nominated and offered a suitable property with a housing association and strongly encouraged them to reconsider it.

Was the Council at fault - Complaint D

48. I am satisfied the Council did not suspend Mrs X from placing bids as a result of the nomination for a property with a housing association. I say this because the Council provided evidence that she was able to place bids and did so after May 2018 when the nomination was made. Mrs X continued to make bids in October and November 2018 and she has continued to bid throughout 2019. Bids were made under Mrs X’s Band C and Band B1 priority status.
49. Although Mrs X’s Band B1 status should have been suspended, I found this did not cause any injustice to Mrs X. The majority of bids she placed were on properties that Mrs X was not eligible for and none of the bids were successful.
50. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about the hotel accommodation her family were in. My view on this element of the complaint is set out in response to Complaint A.

Complaint E - In November 2018 the Council acted inappropriately by imposing contact restrictions on her through a communication plan.

51. On 16 August the Council imposed a communication plan upon Mrs X. It says it took this action following telephone calls and face to face meetings with Mrs X in which she was verbally aggressive to staff.
52. The Council provided me with a copy of a letter sent to Mrs X. It referred to recent contact with officers and stated conversations had been difficult, Mrs X had become angry, raised her voice and insulted staff, resulting in calls being terminated. Because of this, the Council stated it was confining her contact with the housing service to correspondence only. It gave her an email address to use for all queries relating to her temporary accommodation. It stated this communication plan would be reviewed in three months.
53. Although contact restrictions were imposed, Mrs X was able to continue to make representations to the Council about her situation and did so.

Was the Council at Fault – Complaint E

54. Councils are entitled to have policies to manage what it considers unreasonably persistent or unreasonable behaviour by people using its services. They are entitled to implement contact restrictions if this is considered a suitable and proportionate way to manage this.
55. The Ombudsman would generally expect a council to provide a warning to someone whose behaviour it finds unacceptable. This provides an opportunity for them to change their behaviour before contact restrictions are imposed. There seems no evidence the Council provided a warning to Mrs X in this instance. However, once the decision was made, I note the Council agreed to keep the situation under review.
56. The lack of warning was fault by the Council. However, Mrs X was able to continue to make representations to the Council about her situation. Given the circumstances, I do not consider the fault led to any significant injustice.

Complaint G - In December 2018 Mrs X made a complaint to the Chief Executive. The complaint concerned her housing priority and other issues.

57. Mrs X’s correspondence from December 2018 raised four issues. She questioned:
• whether the Council was treating her and her family correctly. She felt their circumstances warranted Band A housing priority;
• why she was restricted to flats (under her band B1 priority);
• why the Council waited for them to be evicted before assisting them to find a property. She stated the Council had known her property was to be demolished in advance of their eviction.
• why the Council treated her as a “private tenant”. She felt she should not have been treated as such because she presented to the Council under homelessness legislation.
58. The Council responded in January 2019. It explained Mrs X was granted Band B1 because it accepted a homelessness duty towards her. This was the appropriate band according to the Council’s Housing Allocations Policy. It explained that in some circumstances, ex-council tenants could be granted Band A priority. However, Mrs X had not been a council tenant. Her former tenancy was with a Housing Association. Because of this she was considered a “private tenant” and as a result, she was not eligible for Band A priority.
59. The Council explained bids had not been suspended due to the nomination for a property. Rather, some bids placed by Mrs X had not been successful because, at times, Mrs X had placed bids for three-bedroom properties under her Band C. She was not eligible for a house of this size under this banding.
60. The Council met with Mrs X around six months ahead of her eviction. It starting seeing people in November 2017 to give them plenty of time to seek alternative accommodation. The Council also stated that the Housing Association had agreed to serve eviction notices earlier than necessary to enable the process to begin as soon as possible.
61. The Council explained Mrs X had been prioritised for an offer of accommodation. A review of the suitability of that property was underway.

Was there fault – Complaint G

62. I found no fault in how the Council responded to Mrs X’s questions to the Chief Executive. It explained Mrs X’s housing priority and how this was established. This included an explanation as to why it considered her a “private tenant” and therefore not eligible for Band A.

Complaint H In January 2019 Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with the suitability review for the HA property the Council nominated for her family. She also complained the Council should not have passed on her full housing file.

63. If someone considers that an offer of accommodation by a council is unsuitable they may ask the Council to conduct a review. They may then appeal against the decision. Because individuals have a right of appeal, the suitability of a formal offer of accommodation is not something the Ombudsman can consider.
64. On 3 November 2018 Mrs X’s solicitor asked the Council for a review of the suitability of the housing offer from October 2018. The review was conducted by an officer from the London Borough of Southwark (LB Southwark) on the Council’s behalf. Mrs X complained that the review should have been done by the Council not LB Southwark. Mrs X also questioned some of the contents of the reviewer’s decision. Mrs X questioned references to their ethnicity, immigration status and other background issues. For example, a comment that Mrs X had made ‘lots of complaints’. The Council responded to these concerns in its complaint response.
65. The Ombudsman can investigate Mrs X’s complaint about who carried out the review and how the Council arranged this. However, I cannot consider her concerns about the content of the review itself. If Mrs X disagreed with the review outcome or felt the Council had taken into account factors which were inappropriate, these are issues she could have raised at an appeal. I note that Mrs X had engaged a solicitor to deal with the review on her behalf.
66. The Council told us it entered into an agreement with LB Southwark in 2016. It provided us with a copy of this. The agreement was effectively to contract out the Council’s duty to review Section 202 housing decisions. As a result of the agreement, officers from LB Southwark effectively had the power and responsibility to conduct housing suitability reviews as if they were staff working for the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

Was there fault - Complaint H

67. I have considered Mrs X’s concern that the review request was decided by an officer of the LB Southwark. The Council provided evidence that it had a properly made agreement to outsource such review decisions. As such, the LB Southwark officer dealing with her case was acting as though they were employed by the London Borough of Greenwich. There was no fault in the Council arranging for the LB Southwark to conduct the review.
68. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether the property the Council offered Mrs X was suitable. If Mrs X was concerned about elements of the officer’s decision, or wished to challenge the suitability of the property, she had a right to appeal against it. As it was open to Mrs X to appeal, I have not considered the concerns she raised about the review decision itself.

Agreed action

69. To recognise that Mrs X and her family were in unsuitable accommodation between May 2018 and February 2019, the Council agreed to pay Mrs X £5,000. The payment should be made within four weeks of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

70. There was fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation on the basis the Council takes the agreed action above.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

71. I cannot consider the second part of complaint d) about the suitability of the property the Council offered Mrs X in October 2018. Mrs X engaged a solicitor to request a review. If someone is dissatisfied with the outcome of a review, they may appeal the decision in court. Where someone can challenge a council’s decision in court, the Ombudsman will generally not investigate.
72. I will not investigate complaint b) the formal complaint Ms X made about the switchboard. The Council response explained that switchboard staff routinely ask for basic details of enquiries so they can deal with calls efficiently. This does not constitute maladministration. I also do not consider the impact is significant enough to warrant the Ombudsman investigating it further.
73. I will not investigate complaint f). This was the complaint about an email sent by the Temporary Accommodation team in December 2018. This stated the Council would only pay for breakfast for the people on Mrs X’s homelessness application. I looked at this correspondence, but I do not consider the issue caused sufficient injustice to warrant full investigation by the Ombudsman.
74. Allegations that councils have breached of Data Protection regulations may be brought to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). So, I have not investigated the alleged data breaches that Mrs X raised as part of complaints c, e and h.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman