Summary: Miss B complains the Council wrongly evicted her, without notice, from the temporary accommodation where she was living with her two children. She said the Council then would not provide her with any assistance to find alternative accommodation even though she was pregnant. She said the loss of the accommodation caused considerable distress to her and her daughters. There was fault which caused injustice to Miss B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. I will call the complainant Miss B. She complains the Council wrongly evicted her, without notice, from the temporary accommodation where she was living with her two children. She said the Council then would not provide her with any assistance to find alternative accommodation even though she was pregnant. She said the loss of the accommodation caused considerable distress to her and her daughters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. 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 considered the complaint and documents provided by Miss B. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Miss B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of key events

6. Miss B had presented to the Council as homeless in late 2018. The Council provided her with accommodation at the property which is the subject of this complaint and she had lived there with her daughters ever since. The property was hostel accommodation managed by the Council.
7. There were a number of incidents at the hostel over the first six months of 2020 and the Council evicted Miss B in early June.
8. Miss B disputed the reasons the Council had given and spoke to a Council officer later in June. The Council maintained its position and on 26 June the Council wrote to Miss B saying it considered she had made herself intentionally homeless from the hostel. This meant that its duty to her to provide accommodation had ceased.
9. Miss B approached children’s services for assistance. They refused as she was staying with her mother and had other relatives and friends who could assist her. It said that advice and information were provided regarding seeking legal advice in respect to housing. In responding to my enquiries the Council said it reviewed the case and said it should have considered undertaking a children and family assessment.
10. The Council made a referral to the Council where Miss B’s mother lives but that Council immediately referred the matter back to Ealing as that was where Miss B lived. The Council started a children and family assessment. It has now found self-contained bed and breakfast accommodation for Miss B.

Analysis

The eviction

11. Before Miss B was evicted there had been other issues about her occupation of the room. In January 2020 the hostel manager messaged Miss B to say that she had received numerous complaints about the smell of drugs from Miss B’s room. She said if the complaints continued she would have to cancel her booking. Miss B disputed this could be the case and said she had not been staying at the room recently.
12. In March there was an incident involving Miss B and other residents at the hostel. The police were called. The Council has said that Miss B and the other residents were spoken to but no evidence has been provided of what was said.
13. In May the hostel manager messaged Miss B saying that she had previously spoken to her about a man in her room who was smoking drugs and disturbing other residents. They said to take the message as a final written warning and if further complaints were made then her booking would be cancelled. They said if she was not in her room then they may have to change the locks to prevent use by anyone else. The next day two officers went into the room. They found drug paraphernalia and a sock had been put over the smoke detector. The locks were changed.
14. The Council texted Miss B to say this had happened and that she was being evicted. The messages said that a new key would be available for collection along with a letter explaining about the eviction. The letter was headed – notice of eviction. This said that officers had entered her room following complaints that strangers were entering her room, causing anti-social behaviour and using illegal substances in the room. It said they found a strong smell of cannabis, drug paraphernalia and a sock over the smoke detector. It said that the matters had been put to Miss B but that they did not consider her explanations were credible. This was because it would not be possible to get another key cut for the room as it was a security key. The Council considered that these matters were serious breaches of the terms of the licence Miss B had to occupy the room. It concluded that the last night in the hostel would be confirmed when lockdown restrictions had eased.
15. Once Miss B was evicted and the Council decided it had discharged its housing duty to her as a homeless person. She had a right to request a review of the decision that she was intentionally homeless. She did not do that. She tried to do so later but the Council refused to consider the application because it was received too late. Miss B also went to the Council presenting again as homeless but the Council said there were no material changes to her circumstances so it would not consider a further application from her. The review was the right way to challenge the Council’s decision that she was intentionally homeless. This process could have looked at the basis of the Council’s decision that Miss B’s actions were such that it was entitled to evict her. The Council notified Miss B of her right of challenge and it would have been reasonable for her to have used that right. I am not, therefore, going to consider this point further.
16. Miss B argues that there were not grounds to evict her. During lockdown she had not been staying at the property so could not have carried out any of the matters the Council has referred to. The Council’s position is that it would not have been possible to get another key cut so either it was Miss B or it was someone who she had given the key to. I am not going to consider the substance of these matters further. The Council has produced some evidence in support of its position in the photographs taken when officers went into the room. But the key point for me is that the proper way to address this would have been by Miss B exercising her right to a review.
17. There was no fault in the Council’s decisions not to accept Miss B’s late review request or further homelessness approach.

Children’s services

18. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on the Council to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and promote their upbringing by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. That includes the provision of accommodation.
19. Miss B approached the Council for help when she lost the hostel accommodation in June. The Council did not offer any practical assistance and did not carry out an assessment of her. I consider this was wrong. The Council had a duty to Miss B and her children to establish whether they were in need of support and assistance. The Council did not properly satisfy itself whether it should carry out a full assessment or take urgent action. When it did take action it referred the matter to the Council where Miss B’s mother lived but this was immediately referred back to the Council. It was only then that the Council undertook an assessment. In October the Council found bed and breakfast accommodation for Miss B.
20. The Council’s failure to assess Miss B at the outset has meant that she had four months without support from children’s services. Her housing situation has been more precarious and uncertain than it would otherwise would have been. She has had to stay with family and friends and has had no secure accommodation of her own.

Agreed action

21. Within a month of this decision the Council will apologise to Miss B and pay her £400 for the injustice to her as a result of the failure by children’s services.

Back to top

Final decision

22. There was fault which caused injustice to Miss B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman