Summary: Miss Y complains the Council did not provide her with suitable accommodation when she became homeless. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and paying Miss Y £1,750 to reflect the avoidable distress, time and trouble its faults caused her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Miss Y, complains the Council failed to provide her with suitable interim and temporary accommodation between May 2019 and February 2020.

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 spoken to Miss Y and read the information she and the Council have given us about the complaint.
5. I invited Miss Y and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making the final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Suitability of accommodation

6. Section 188 (1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires a council to secure accommodation for an applicant if it believes they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is referred to as interim accommodation.
7. Section 206 of the Act and the Homelessness Code of Guidance says a council must ensure all accommodation provided to an applicant is suitable for their needs. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided once an applicant is owed the main housing duty.
8. Section 208 of the Act says councils must, “so far as is reasonably practicable”, secure accommodation in their own area. The Code says councils should record how decisions to place an applicant out of the area have been reached, with reference to the household’s needs.
9. Applicants have the right to ask for a review of a council’s decision about their homelessness application or the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is no right to ask for a review of the suitability of interim accommodation provided while a council makes enquiries
10. The Code says councils have a continuing duty to keep the suitability of the accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end.
11. Accommodation that is suitable for a short period may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period.

What happened

12. Miss Y approached the Council as homeless in early 2019. In May the Council accepted there was reason to believe she was homeless, eligible and, having two young children, in priority need. It provided Miss Y and her children with interim accommodation under S188(1) outside the borough, while it assessed her homelessness application. No evidence has been provided to show the Council completed a suitability assessment before making the placement.
13. Miss Y says she told the housing officer the accommodation was unsuitable the day she moved in. She had been placed in a self-contained one bedroom property, with a separate lounge which could be used as another bedroom, but had issues with the standard of accommodation and its location. As it was out of borough, she had to spend more time and incurred additional petrol costs travelling to work and taking her children to school. Miss Y was also concerned the long journey times were affecting the children’s wellbeing.
14. In June and July Miss Y asked the Council for an update on the progress of her housing application.
15. On 14 July Miss Y sent an email to her housing officer. She set out her concerns about the suitability of the accommodation, the safety of the area and the financial difficulties the additional travel costs were causing her. She asked to be moved to accommodation within the borough. The Council did not reply to her email.
16. In October, Miss Y complained to the Council about the delay in processing her application, which it had still not completed. She asked how much longer she would have to stay in interim accommodation outside the borough. Although the Council acknowledged the complaint, and Miss Y chased it for a reply, the Council did not respond until 26 November.
17. On 12 November the Council accepted the main housing duty. It confirmed this to Miss Y by letter which told her about her right to ask for a review of the suitability of her accommodation.
18. In its response to her complaint, the Council apologised for the delay in determining her application, which it said was due to staff shortages. And it said it always tries to place within the borough.
19. Miss Y replied with a number of questions. On 3 December she asked for a Stage 2 response to her complaint and said:

• She would like to know whether she could be placed in in alternative temporary accommodation, in the borough. She had been out of the borough for seven months, over 200 days. She spent over three hours a day driving; her children to school and childminders, and herself to work
• The driving time had already had a massive effect on her children, they were constantly tired, and due to the area they were located in, they were bound to the flat
• She asked for information on how she could challenge this

20. The Council issued its stage 2 response on 14 January 2020. It said:

• She had been placed out of borough as it did not have any properties available in Maidenhead
• She was advised of her right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation within 21 days of receiving notification the Council had accepted the main housing duty
• Given the time which had elapsed, the council was unwilling to consider a review now

21. Miss Y replied explaining she had asked the housing office for alternative accommodation by telephone the day she moved in. She was told this was the only option she had, and there was no mention of a right of review.
22. The Council contacted Miss Y about the issues with her accommodation on 30 January. It told her she could ask for a review of her temporary accommodation and moved her to new accommodation within the borough on 10 February. It appears from this the Council accepted Miss Y’s current placement was unsuitable for her needs.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

23. The Council has provided the template for its suitability of accommodation checklist to be used for all placements. It should record the options considered before making an out of area offer and requires authorities to secure accommodation as close as possible to where the applicant was previously living.
24. There is no evidence to show the Council completed a suitability assessment for Miss Y or considered the location of her workplace and children’s schools, before offering her out of borough interim accommodation in May 2019, or when it later accepted the main housing duty in November 2019. This is fault by the Council.
25. Miss Y says she spoke to her housing officer the day she moved in and asked to be moved to alternative accommodation but was told there was no other option available. The Council said, in its response to Miss Y’s complaint, it had to place her out of borough as it had no accommodation available within the borough at the time. That may have been the position on that day, but the Council was still required to keep the suitability of her interim accommodation under review. There is no evidence it did so. This is fault.
26. The Council took no action in response to Miss Y’s email of 14 July 2019 setting out her concerns about the suitability of the interim accommodation and asking to be moved to accommodation within the borough. This is fault.
27. Miss Y’s homelessness application was accepted on 14 May 2019, but the Council did not complete its assessment of the application until 12 November 2019, nearly six months later. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it should not have taken so long to do this, but there had been staff shortages. This delay was fault. Although the Council backdated Miss Y’s priority to 10 July 2019, she did not have the right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation until November 2019.
28. The Council failed to treat Miss Y’s email of 3 December 2019 as a request for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. It did not respond to her request until January when it wrongly told her it was too late now to ask for a review. This is fault.
29. The Council has not provided us with evidence about the availability of alternative accommodation within the borough in the period from May 2019 to February 2020. I note Miss Y was moved very quickly – within two weeks- once the Council finally addressed the issue of suitability. On the basis of the information available to me now, I consider it reasonable to find the Council could have moved Miss Y to accommodation within the borough within about four weeks of the initial placement, had it not failed to assess the suitability of the accommodation at the outset, or keep it under review.
30. The Council’s faults have caused Miss Y injustice. She and her children had to stay in accommodation outside the borough with all the difficulties, additional travelling time and expenses this caused, for longer than they should have done. In addition, Miss Y had the avoidable time and trouble of chasing the progress of her homelessness application.

Agreed action

31. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, the Council has agreed it will, within four weeks from the date of this final decision:

• Apologise to Miss Y for the faults in the way it handled her application and distress this caused.
• Pay Miss Y £150 to reflect her time and trouble chasing the progress of her homelessness application
• Pay Miss Y £1,600 (£200 a month for the eight month period from early June 2019 until 10 February 2020 she and her children spent in unsuitable accommodation)
• Issue a briefing note to remind officers of the need to complete the suitability of accommodation checklist in every case and record the reasons for making out of borough placements.
• It should also arrange for managers to quality check a random sample of case files to ensure the checklists are completed. And provide us with a copy of the briefing note and evidence of the quality check within three months of the date of our final decision.

32. And the ombudsman is pleased to note the further action the Council has told us it has taken following the draft decision:

• Comprehensive suitability checks are now in place prior to placement in temporary accommodation
• Adoption of the Money Advice Service (MAS) Standard Financial Statement to check and confirm affordability
• Named contact on the accommodation team for households placed in temporary accommodation should an issue arise during the placement
• Implementation (ongoing) of new rent accounting software to improve customer service for those in temporary accommodation

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have found fault by the Council causing Miss Y injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way of remedying the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman