Summary: The Council failed to take sufficient action to promote Miss B’s son’s welfare when Miss B and her son were homeless and ‘sofa surfing’ for around two months, and when they were living in bed and breakfast accommodation for over a year. However, there was no fault in the way the Council decided its offer of ‘out of area’ interim accommodation was suitable, or its decision that it no longer had a duty to provide interim accommodation when Miss B rejected the offer. The Council has agreed to take action to ensure Miss B’s son is living in self-contained accommodation soon and to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the way the Council's Housing and Children’s Services departments have dealt with her and her son’s housing needs. In particular, Miss B complains that:
• the Housing team unreasonably refused to help her after she was forced to leave her accommodation in Sheffield, and then unreasonably decided that she had made herself homeless intentionally;
• the Housing team has unduly delayed considering her request for a review of its decision and has lost her files;
• the interim accommodation which the Housing team offered to provide for Miss B and her son was unsuitable for their needs;
• Children’s Services failed to provide adequate support with their housing needs; and
• the accommodation provided by Children’s Services is unsuitable for their needs.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Miss B’s complaints about the suitability of the accommodation she was offered and the support provided by Children’s Services. The last section of this statement explains why I have not investigated Miss B’s complaints about matters which have review and appeal rights.

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’. 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. 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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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)
7. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and government guidance

9. 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.
10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it will owe them the main homelessness duty.
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Councils must, “so far as is reasonably practicable”, secure accommodation in their own area. (Housing Act 1996, section 208)
14. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider:
• the distance of the accommodation from the ‘home’ district;
• the significance of any disruption which would be caused to the employment, caring responsibilities or education of members of the applicant’s household;
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
15. Where an applicant rejects an offer of interim accommodation, this will bring the housing authority’s interim accommodation duty to an end – unless it is reactivated by any change of circumstances. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.22)
16. Applicants can ask councils to review most aspects of their decisions, and, if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law. Applicants can also appeal if a council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204, Homeless Code of Guidance 24)
17. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))
18. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils have a general duty to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children in need in their area. Section 17 can be used by councils to provide accommodation for a child and their family if they are homeless.

Overview

19. In January 2019, Miss B left her home in Sheffield with her son, who was three years old at the time. She says it was not safe for them to remain living in the area.
20. Miss B made a homeless application to London Borough of Ealing Council, where she had lived previously. The Council decided that Miss B was not homeless because it considered there was accommodation available to her in Sheffield.
21. Miss B then approached the Council’s Children’s Services team who arranged bed and breakfast accommodation in London while they carried out a Child and Family Assessment. Children’s Services contacted Miss B’s housing officer in Sheffield who confirmed that if she made contact before 24 February, she could return to the property in Sheffield. The assessment was completed on 11 February. It recommended the case be closed as there was no role for Children’s Services. Miss B was told that Children’s Services would stop paying for her to stay in the bed and breakfast on 19 February.
22. Miss B approached the Council’s Housing team again, with the support of an advisor from a national housing charity. The advisor said that the Council had failed to obtain information from the police about why Miss B had left Sheffield and had therefore not made proper enquires when it decided that Miss B was not homeless. The advisor also said that Miss B had been in touch with her housing officer in Sheffield who had said that it was not guaranteed that she could return to the Sheffield property. The Council considered there was reason to believe Miss B may be homeless and it offered interim accommodation while it made enquiries into her application.
23. Miss B refused the offer of interim accommodation because it was in Birmingham, over 100 miles away. She said that she needed to stay in London because she was receiving support from local mental health services and from family and friends.
24. Miss B stayed with friends until April, when Children’s Services arranged for Miss B and her son to be placed in bed and breakfast accommodation.
25. In June, the Council decided that Miss B had made herself homeless intentionally and it therefore had no duty to provide her with housing. Miss B’s solicitors requested a review of the decision and asked the Council to provide Miss B with accommodation pending the review decision. The Council decided not to offer Miss B accommodation and explained the reasons for its decision.
26. The Council reviewed its decision in March 2020 and upheld its decision that Miss B is intentionally homeless. Miss B’s solicitors appealed the decision. The appeal was settled on the basis that the Council would reconsider the matter and issue a fresh decision. The Council carried out another review and upheld its decision that Miss B is intentionally homeless.
27. Miss B has continued to live in bed and breakfast accommodation provided by Children’s Services since April 2019. Miss B considers the accommodation to be unsuitable.

Analysis

Interim accommodation

28. The Council offered Miss B interim accommodation in Birmingham on 20 February 2019, which she refused. Miss B explained that she could not leave London because she needed the support of friends and family while she was receiving treatment from the local mental health team.
29. The Council sought advice from its Medical Advisor who stated that support and medical services exist in Birmingham and it was not medically essential for Miss B to remain in Ealing.
30. The Council offered to provide Miss B with interim accommodation in Birmingham again on 19 March, which Miss B also refused. Officers interviewed Miss B to fully understand her reasons.
31. Miss B instructed solicitors who wrote to the Council giving detailed reasons why they considered the accommodation in Birmingham was unsuitable for Miss B.
32. The Council then wrote to Miss B to tell her that it had decided it no longer had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation. Its letter and subsequent letters to Miss B’s solicitor show that it considered Miss B’s concerns about moving away from London.
33. In May, Miss B’s solicitor sent a recent psychiatric report to the Council. The Council sent the report to its Medical Advisor, who in turn referred it to a Psychiatric Advisor. The Psychiatric Advisor stated that Miss B would be able to access appropriate interventions in Birmingham, and he did not consider residence outside of London would lead to any escalation in risk or be unsuitable from a psychiatric perspective.
34. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision which has been made without administrative fault. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered the relevant matters. It sought medical advice and followed the advice it received. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided the offer of interim accommodation in Birmingham was suitable, or its decision that it no longer had a duty to provide interim accommodation when Miss B rejected that offer.

Accommodation provided by Children’s Services

35. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, councils have a general duty to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children in their area. If a child is in need solely as a result of homelessness, Children’s Services should consider whether the best way of meeting the need is to help the family obtain accommodation, possibly by providing accommodation itself.
36. Children’s Services provided Miss B and her son with accommodation for around three weeks from 25 January 2019. But it decided not to provide Miss B and her son with accommodation when it discovered on 22 February that they remained homeless.
37. Children’s Services started a new Child and Family Assessment on 25 February. It kept in contact with Miss B and was aware that she was ‘sofa surfing’, staying with various friends in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation.
38. Statutory government guidance says that once it is decided that a Child and Family Assessment is needed, a social worker should see the child as soon as possible. It says that the speed with which an assessment is carried out should be determined by the needs of the individual child and the nature and level of any risk of harm they face.
39. In this case, the Council started the assessment on 25 February but did not carry out a home visit until 2 April and did not offer to provide accommodation until 24 April.
40. I consider the Council failed to promptly carry out an assessment and failed to take sufficient action to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of Miss B’s son. This was fault. If there had been no fault by the Council here, Miss B’s son would have been living in more suitable accommodation, and not ‘sofa surfing’ for around two months.
41. Since April 2019, Children’s Services has provided bed and breakfast accommodation for Miss B and her son. Miss B has raised some concerns about the accommodation, including the behaviour of other residents and pest infestations. I have considered the Council’s case notes and I am satisfied that it took prompt and appropriate action to resolve Miss B’s concerns. I have found no evidence of fault here.
42. Normally, councils can only place families in bed and breakfast accommodation for a maximum of six weeks. But the time limit does not apply in this case because the accommodation was not provided under part 7 of the Housing Act.
43. Children’s Services is aware that the Council’s Housing team has consistently decided that it does not have a duty to provide accommodation for Miss B and her son. They have been living in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is generally considered unsuitable for families, for over a year. I consider Children’s Services should have done more to ensure Miss B’s son was living in suitable accommodation, and by not doing so, it has failed to comply with its duty to safeguard and promote Miss B’s son’s wellbeing.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. The Council has agreed to work closely with Miss B to ensure she and her son are living in self-contained accommodation as soon as possible. It will aim to secure accommodation within eight weeks, but this may take longer due to factors outside of its control.
45. In my draft decision, I recommended that Children’s Services develop a policy for the provision of housing or housing support to families, where to do so would safeguard or promote a child’s welfare. The Council says it updated a policy this year which addresses children’s and families’ housing needs and it does not need to be amended further to this recommendation. The Council will provide a copy of its policy to the Ombudsman within four weeks.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss B’s son. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

47. We will not normally investigate complaints about homeless decisions where review and appeal rights apply.
48. I am satisfied that the Council told Miss B about her right to request a review of the decision it made in January 2019 that she was not homeless. I have not investigated this aspect of Miss B’s complaint because I consider it would have been reasonable for Miss B to request a review of this decision.
49. Miss B’s solicitors requested a review of the decision the Council made in June 2019 that she made herself homeless intentionally. They subsequently appealed against the review decision. As Miss B appealed this decision, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate.
50. Applicants can also appeal to the courts if a council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. Miss B considers the review was delayed because the Council did not provide all of her housing files to her solicitor. I have not seen anything in the records I have considered to suggest the Council unduly delayed providing Miss B’s housing files or progressing the review. I have decided not to further investigate this aspect of Miss B’s complaint because I consider it would have been reasonable for Miss B to appeal to the courts if she considered the Council was taking too long to review its decision.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman