Summary: There was fault by the Council. It did not properly consider whether it could offer Miss B interim accommodation when it withdrew its offer of a property she had already moved to, or pending the outcome of a review of its decision that its housing duty to her had ceased. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss B.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that in July 2021, the Council told her that she needed to leave her temporary accommodation. However, it failed to offer her suitable interim accommodation or make a suitable offer under its main housing duty.
2. In particular, Miss B says:
• The Council offered her accommodation and said she had to move there despite her telling it the property was unsuitable.
• The Council failed to offer her any interim accommodation while it dealt with her review request on this and a subsequent property, both of which were successful.
• The Council did not help her to secure accommodation and she had to pay a top up to the discretionary housing payment to secure her present property.
3. Miss B says that the Council’s shortcomings led to distress and uncertainty. She and her disabled daughter had to move to her mother’s house. However the Council left her and her daughter without accommodation forcing them to live with her mother (who was undergoing cancer treatment) in a one-bedroom flat.
4. Miss B had to pay for her belongings to be stored and the additional costs of moving these from the unsuitable property to storage and then into her current home, as well as pay an additional two weeks rent to secure her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I considered the information provided by Miss B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have considered their comments before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

8. 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)
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is known as the main housing duty. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered after the Council has accepted a homelessness duty. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer. 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))

What happened

13. Miss B lives with her young child. Miss B has significant health problems and is on a limited income. Her child is autistic and has additional needs which means Miss B must take extra measures to keep her safe. Miss B is also a survivor of domestic abuse, and continued to receive threats from her former partner during the time she was homeless.
14. The Council had placed Miss B in accommodation in 2019, but in July 2021 she had to vacate this. The Council assessed Miss B and decided that she was threatened with homelessness and in priority need. It accepted that it owed Miss B a main housing duty. Miss B remained in the property awaiting an offer of housing from the Council.
15. In February 2022, the Council offered Miss B Property One. She viewed the property but told the Council it was not suitable as she would not be able to keep her daughter safe there and in the event of a fire, the only escape route was via the kitchen. The Council told Miss B that she could ask it to review whether Property One was suitable, but she should move in at the same time, because if it was found to be suitable the Council would have discharged its housing duty.
16. Miss B continued to tell the Council it was not suitable and she contacted the Council’s fire consultant and its building control service (as this would have had duties and powers regarding fire safety when the building had been converted into flats). She also asked the Council to delay the signing of the tenancy agreement as she would be away from home, and to allow the Council to decide whether the property was suitable. It said it could only delay the move by one week, by which time Miss B would be away.
17. The fire consultant told her that on the face of it, the property may not comply with fire safety requirements. Miss B told the Council’s homeless section this and asked it to meet her at the property so she could explain her concerns, but it would not. It again told her that if she refused Property One and the Council found it was suitable, she may not be eligible for a further offer.
18. Miss B reluctantly took Property One and moved in. Two days later, the Council withdrew its offer. By this point Miss B was away from the area. It meant that on her return she would have nowhere to live, and she would need to move her belongings into storage.
19. Miss B asked the Council to give her accommodation while she waited for another housing offer. It offered Miss B Property Two while she was still away. Miss B told the Council this was not suitable because it was in an area where she was at risk from the perpetrator of domestic abuse. She gave the Council details of the abuse and more recent threats to her, including the police reference numbers. Miss B asked the Council to review whether Property Two was suitable, and to house her while it considered her review request.
20. The Council did not arrange accommodation. It has explained that it had offered her Property Two and so its housing duty had ceased and unless Miss B asked it for a review of its offer, it no longer had a duty to provide her with accommodation. Miss B and her child went to her mother’s one-bedroom flat. Miss B tells me that at that time her mother was having treatment for cancer.
21. Miss B asked the Council to review its decision that Property Two was suitable for her and again asked for accommodation while it considered her review request. But the Council did not offer her any. Instead at the beginning of March 2022, the Council sent Miss B notification that it had ended its duty because she had refused Property Two.
22. The Council referred Miss B to its Children Services because she would be homeless with a child. The Council has confirmed that Miss B did not ask Children Services to house her.
23. On 1 April, Miss B told the Council she had found a privately rented flat and the Council agreed to help her with rent in advance and the deposit.
24. On 5 May, the Council overturned its decision to end the main housing duty. Although its reasons were not clear from the decision letter, the Council explained to Miss B and to me that this was because it had not given her adequate opportunity to change her mind about viewing the property.
25. In response to Miss B’s complaint to it, the Council apologised for offering Miss B the Property One and then withdrawing its offer after she had moved in. It paid her £750 in respect of her moving costs.

Was there fault by the Council causing Miss B injustice?

26. The Ombudsman normally expects applicants to use statutory rights of review and in this case, Miss B has done so. My focus here is not on whether the accommodation offered was suitable, but rather on the Council’s administrative actions during this time, what it did to help Miss B, and the impact on her and her child.
27. It seems to me that the Council should not have insisted that Miss B accept the offer of the first accommodation while she waited for a review, given that she had already raised some plausible reasons why it was not suitable.
28. I can see that when the Council withdrew its offer of Property One, it very quickly offered Miss B Property Two. I can see that ordinarily that would mean that the Council’s housing duty had ceased. I also acknowledge that Miss B did not ask social services to house her and appeared to accept that she would live with her mother rather than go into B&B accommodation. However, I am not satisfied the Council did enough to help Miss B. Once she had refused Property Two and asked for a review of the decision to end its housing duty, the Council may have had a duty to accommodate Miss B pending the outcome of the review. In addition, there is no evidence that the Council properly considered its discretionary power to provide accommodation. It is clear from the Council’s files that Miss B asked the Council for accommodation while it sought another property, but it did not respond to her request.
29. Miss B has described that staying at her mother’s flat was cramped and difficult, particularly given her own and her daughter’s medical needs. The Council agreed to pay £750 in moving expenses but Miss B has explained that she incurred additional and avoidable moving and storage costs that would not have been necessary had the Council not moved her to Property One only to withdraw its offer.
30. Miss B says the Council did not take reasonable steps to secure a property for her in line with its housing duty. The Council has explained that accommodation was limited because Miss B needed to be housed away from her abuser, but also needed to be near her mother, who is her carer. Miss B sent the Council links to private rented properties and asked it to negotiate with the landlord so as to accept her low income and charge a smaller deposit. Not all of the properties were suitable or affordable. The Council said that it would liaise with the outgoing tenant on one property and called the agent on another.
31. Miss B’s situation was urgent and so she sourced a private rented property. I can see that ideally Miss B would have wanted the Council to find something sooner. However, it had offered Property Two within a short time of withdrawing the offer of Property One, and had to process the review of its offer of Property Two.
32. I acknowledge the Council assisted with a rent in advance payment, but Miss B says she had to pay two weeks extra rent and that had the Council secured the rental then this is unlikely to have been necessary.
33. It is unlikely that staying at her mother’s small flat was suitable for Miss B and her child. Miss B had to stay at her mother’s house from March to May 2020 and was only there because she had moved to Property One and the Council withdrew its offer. Miss B described the impact of the situation on her mental health in several emails to the Council. I acknowledge that Miss B did not ask Children Services to house her, but that does not remove the Council’s power to house her while she was waiting for the outcome of her review request. The Council’s shortcomings have caused Miss B distress and uncertainty, and meant that she has incurred extra expenses in having to move more than once.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. The Council has agreed that it will within one month of the date of this decision show the Ombudsman it has:
• Apologised to Miss B for the shortcomings identified above;
• Paid Miss B an additional £500 in recognition of the distress caused to her when the Council withdrew Property One.
• Paid Miss B the further avoidable removal expenses (from Property One to storage and from storage to her current accommodation), and the cost of storage in so far as this may have been avoidable;
• Considered whether it should pay the additional two weeks rent on details to be provided by Miss B; and
• Shared this decision with the relevant staff.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There is fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman