Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to confirm the action it would take to help her and her family secure accommodation following a homelessness application. She says the Council failed to arrange or offer suitable interim accommodation when the family became homeless. We have upheld Mrs Y’s complaint because we have seen evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. To remedy this, we recommend the Council apologises to Mrs Y and makes her several payments, as well as certain service improvements. We have not upheld Mrs Y’s complaint the Council failed to review her banding under its Housing Allocations Scheme when she became homeless. Rather, the Council correctly explained that Mrs Y’s homelessness would not lead to an increase in the banding that it had already awarded her.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mrs Y, complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application from December 2021. More specifically, she complains:
1. there was poor communication from her allocated Housing Advisor. She says her communications with the Housing Advisor have often been ignored or she has not received a reply. Mrs Y says she frequently had to chase the Housing Advisor for the details of calls and the Housing Advisor often failed to make the arranged calls;
2. the Council failed to confirm what action it would take to assist the family in securing suitable accommodation or provide accommodation after their tenancy came to an end in May 2022;
3. the Council failed to review her priority under its housing allocations scheme after it accepted her homelessness application. She says she has been awarded Band B for over a decade, but being homeless did not lead to the Council changing her priority status or increase her chances of successfully bidding on properties; and,
4. the Council delayed in seeking alternative accommodation and failed to arrange suitable accommodation, despite promising to do so twice, so she was left with her possessions in storage. Instead, she says the Council unreasonably proposed splitting her family between two different properties, which she said was not suitable for her and her family’s needs.
2. Mrs Y says the poor communication has caused her anxiety. She says the housing situation has had an impact on her existing mental health conditions and caused her children distress.
3. Mrs Y says the Council told her it would secure her emergency accommodation by early June 2022 so to take only essential items. Mrs Y says she acted on this advice and put her belongings, including bed frames, into storage at a cost to her. She said she kept the mattresses to sleep on, but this led to the mattresses becoming mouldy as they were placed directly onto the floor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 spoke with Mrs Y about her complaint. I considered the information and documents sent to me by the Council and Mrs Y.
8. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

11. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

Threatened with homelessness

12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

The relief duty

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children; and
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

17. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
18. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.

Suitability of accommodation

19. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. Councils must also have regard to the following factors.

• the space and arrangement of the accommodation
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation
• location – including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability

21. The Court of Appeal said there is a “bottom line” below which the standard of accommodation must not fall. (R v LB Newham ex p Sacupima 2001 EWCA)
22. The courts have also held that accommodation was unsuitable in a case where a family could not live together and was split between two hostels. The courts have clarified splitting a family into two hostels was not a lawful discharge of the duty to arrange interim accommodation under Section 188. More specifically:

“[T]he obligation [to arrange suitable interim accommodation] is not discharged by providing split accommodation in separate dwellings. It is the policy of the law that families should be kept together; they should be able to live together as a unit. I can well see that the obligation could be discharged by, for example, separate rooms in the same hotel, but not I think in two entirely separate hostels[.]”

(R.v.LB Ealing ex p Surdonja [1998] EWHC Adin 988)

23. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Review rights

24. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including the following:

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage.

25. Councils must complete reviews of decisions within certain timescales. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Decision letters

26. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

What happened

27. In November 2021, Mrs Y emailed the Council to ask how she could be referred to its Homelessness Team. She explained she, her husband, Mr Y, and their five children had been living in privately rented accommodation for several years. But, the landlord had told Mrs Y that he was going to sell the property. At this time, Mrs Y had already been awarded Band B (based on one of her children’s medical needs) by the Council under its Housing Allocations Policy.
28. In mid-January 2022, Mrs Y sent the Council a completed homelessness application. In the application, Mrs Y said:

• the landlord had asked the family to leave the property by early May 2022;
• she was the full time carer to her eldest child, B, who had several disabilities. Mrs Y said that B would need an accessible property that was ideally located close to the special school that B attended;
• their youngest child, F, had several conditions that may be considered disabilities. Mrs Y said F needed support in all areas;
• Mr Y worked 24 hours a week as a delivery driver;
• she had applied for ten privately rented properties since November 2021, but all applications had been unsuccessful.

29. Several days later, the Council replied to Mrs Y asking her to send certain evidence in support of her application, including a copy of the Section 21 notice.
30. In late February, Mrs Y complained to the Council. She said:

• she had received poor communication from her allocated Housing Advisor. She said the Housing Advisor had arranged five phone calls with her, but only made one of these. Mrs Y complained the Housing Advisor was failing to reply to her emails and messages sent through an instant messaging service;
• the Housing Advisor had told her over the phone that the Council had accepted the prevention duty towards her. But, she said the Council had failed to create a Personalised Housing Plan for her or take steps to help her remain at her property or find alternative accommodation; and,
• she asked what emergency accommodation the Council could offer the family of seven, particularly as she was caring for a disabled child.

31. In early March, Mrs Y chased the Council’s Homelessness Team for an update.
32. Two days later, the Council sent Mrs Y its stage one complaint response. It said:

• Mrs Y’s landlord had to follow the correct legal process to evict her, which would include applying to Court for a possession order. It said Mrs Y and her family had a legal right to continue to occupy the property until the Court orders a warrant for possession, which would allow bailiffs to evict the family if they did not leave the date of the eviction notice sent by the Court. But, the Council said it would not expect the family to remain in the property until this eviction notice expired.
• Rather, the Council’s policy said that it would provide emergency accommodation upon expiry of the possession order. In exceptional circumstances the Council may provide emergency accommodation before this. The Council said provision of emergency accommodation was “always our last resort” after all other options had been explored to prevent Mrs Y’s homelessness and move to an alternative home. It encouraged Mrs Y to continue to search for private rented accommodation. It said the Council may be able to assist with an enhanced offer of rent in advance and deposit (up to four months’ rent in advance and one-month deposit, as a mix of discretionary housing payment and a loan). The Council said Mrs Y should discuss this and other services that could help with her search during her next Personalised Housing Plan review with her Housing Advisor.

33. On the same day, the Housing Advisor sent a letter to Mrs Y confirming the Council had accepted the prevention duty. The Housing Advisor included a copy of Mrs Y’s Personal Housing Plan. This said Mrs Y should continue looking for properties in the private rented sector and let the Council know if a property is found so the Council could consider any possible financial assistance.
34. In an email accompanying the letter, the Housing Advisor told Mrs Y that he would speak with potential landlords that may have properties to let through the Council.
35. In early April, Mrs Y’s Member of Parliament (MP) contacted the Council on her behalf. The MP asked the Council to look at Mrs Y’s homelessness application and contact her.
36. In mid-April, the Housing Advisor contacted Mrs Y to confirm he had forwarded the additional medical evidence for B and F to the Housing Allocations Team. This was so the Team could assess whether or not this would lead to a higher banding than Band B based on medical need.
37. Several days later, Mrs Y complained again to the Council about poor communication from her Housing Advisor.
38. Mrs Y said she and her family were expected to leave the property in three weeks’ time, but she did not know what the Council could do to help. She said she was very anxious because she had not found any alternative accommodation herself.
39. On the same day, the Council replied to Mrs Y’s MP to say the Housing Advisor had been asked to contact Mrs Y’s landlord as soon as possible to discuss whether the family could remain at the property. The Council provided the same information contained in its stage one response to Mrs Y. In a further email to the MP, the Council apologised for the poor communication issues raised by Mrs Y. It said the Housing Solutions Team had received the additional medical evidence for B and F. But, it said the Housing Solutions Team was experiencing severe pressure on staffing levels, which was causing delays as staff had to prioritise caseloads to minimise risk to the most vulnerable service users. It said the Council hoped to address these issues through recruiting additional staff.
40. Several days later, a Senior Officer in the Council’s Homelessness Team emailed Mrs Y with information about what she could do to remain in her property after the Section 21 notice expired.
41. At the end of April, Mrs Y chased the Council for an update on her homelessness application. She said she was expected to leave her property in a week’s time, but the family had nowhere to go.
42. In early May, Mrs Y chased the Housing Advisor for information on what the family should do when the Section 21 notice expired. The Housing Officer replied to say the family did not need to leave the property when the notice expired. Rather, the family’s landlord would need to apply to the Court for a possession order, which should give the family a further six to eight weeks to find alternative accommodation.
43. The next day, the Housing Advisor called Mrs Y to discuss emergency accommodation options. The call note says the Housing Officer noted the specific disability-related needs of B and F, including that access to bathing and showering facilities and a washing machine at any given time was needed.
44. Several days later, Mrs Y’s Section 21 notice expired.
45. The next day, Mrs Y chased the Council for an update on when it would provide emergency accommodation.
46. The Housing Advisor contacted Mrs Y to say the Housing Allocations Team had reviewed Mrs Y’s evidence, but upheld the original decision to award Band B.
47. The Housing Advisor and Mrs Y exchanged messages through an instant messaging service. The Housing Advisor said the Council did not have any suitable emergency accommodation available, but he could contact the family’s landlord to negotiate a four week extension of their stay. Mrs Y agreed and sent the Housing Advisor contact details for the landlord.
48. The Housing Advisor then contacted Mrs Y’s landlord who agreed to an additional four weeks during which the Council would find alternative accommodation for the family. The Housing Advisor put the agreement in writing to Mrs Y’s landlord, including that the Council would arrange emergency accommodation from 8 June if permanent alternative accommodation was not found.
49. The next day, the Housing Advisor spoke with Mrs Y to confirm the agreement with the landlord. The Housing Advisor said that he would give the Council’s Accommodation Team notice that emergency accommodation would be needed from 8 June if private rented sector accommodation had not been found by then.
50. In mid-May, the Council sent Mrs Y its stage two complaint response. The Council said:

• it was satisfied the stage one complaint response had correctly explained the legal procedure for Mrs Y to be made homeless as well as the support the Council could provide to secure alternative housing; and
• it apologised because Mrs Y did not always receive timely responses to her email and instant messaging contact with the Housing Advisor.

51. On 30 May, the Housing Advisor emailed the Accommodation Team to arrange accommodation from 8 June when the family would be expected to leave their property. The Housing Advisor said the family needed a “self contained” property because of B’s disability-related needs. He also said the family had a four bedroom need.
52. In early June, Mrs Y called the Council to chase it for an update on her accommodation.
53. A week later, Mrs Y contacted the Council after being given details of the emergency accommodation arranged by the Council. Mrs Y said that the offer was for two neighbouring properties with an expectation that Mrs Y would occupy one property with three of the children and Mr Y would occupy the second property with two of their children. Mrs Y complained that:

• Mr Y often had to work late into the night, which would mean two children would be left alone and unsupervised. Mrs Y said she had contacted Childrens Services who said this was a safeguarding issue; and
• Mrs Y required the support of Mr Y throughout the night to provide B with suitable care. She said this would be impossible if the family were split between two properties and would negatively impact B’s health.

54. On the same day, the Housing Advisor reviewed Mrs Y’s Personalised Housing Plan. The Housing Advisor wrote to Mrs Y confirming the Council had accepted the relief duty towards Mrs Y.
55. Two days later, in response to a further email from Mrs Y’s MP, a Council Officer wrote to say the Housing Advisor had contacted the Emergency Accommodation Team to push for a single accommodation for the family. The Officer said any accommodation for the family had to be available for the family to move to as a whole unit, but this was not the case with the previous property.
56. Later in June, Mrs Y and the Housing Advisor discussed several possible private rented sector accommodations that Mrs Y had viewed. The Housing Advisor told Mrs Y that he was able to speak with any potential letting agents to explain the financial support the Council could provide.
57. In early August, a case note from the Housing Advisor notes that the family was still in the original accommodation. The case note said this was because the Council’s first offer of emergency accommodation was unsuitable given it was across two separate properties and this would mean Mr and Mrs Y would be unable to provide B with adequate care.
58. In mid-September, the Housing Advisor left Mrs Y a voicemail with details of two possible social housing options that could be available from October and November.
59. Mrs Y returned the Housing Advisor’s called to confirm the family had found alternative private rented sector accommodation. The Housing Advisor confirmed he would close Mrs Y’s homelessness case.
60. In October, Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Communication with Mrs Y’s Housing Advisor

61. Mrs Y complains there was poor communication from her allocated Housing Advisor. She says her communications with the Housing Advisor have often been ignored or she has not received a reply. Mrs Y says she frequently had to chase the Housing Advisor for the details of calls and the Housing Advisor often failed to make the arranged calls (part a of the complaint).
62. In the Council’s stage two complaint response, it accepted Mrs Y did not always receive timely responses to her email and instant messaging contact with the Housing Advisor. It explained that the Housing Advisor had been absent for some of the dates mentioned in Mrs Y’s complaint. The Council said, because of Mrs Y’s complaint, it would make sure to add autoreply emails to staff email accounts for when officers were not working. It apologised for the stress the lack of timely contact caused Mrs Y and confirmed the Housing Advisor had been consistently in touch with Mrs Y since returning to work and had separately apologised to Mrs Y. The Council offered Mrs Y £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
63. I am satisfied the Council has suitably responded to and remedied this part of Mrs Y’s complaint, including by introducing an appropriate service improvement.

Information given about securing accommodation

64. Mrs Y complains the Council failed to confirm what action it would take to assist the family in securing suitable accommodation or provide accommodation after their tenancy came to an end in May 2022 (part b of the complaint).
65. In early March 2022, the Council accepted the prevention duty towards Mrs Y. As explained above, this duty was triggered when the Council was satisfied Mrs Y had been served with a valid Section 21 notice which was going to expire within 56 days. In this case, the Council exercised discretion to accept the prevention duty around 65 days before the Section 21 notice was due to expire. I do not find the Council at fault here.
66. But, based on the evidence, the Council failed to explain the reason why it did not accept the duty sooner and create a Personalised Housing Plan until it had accepted the prevention duty. This is fault. This caused Mrs Y confusion and frustration. In my view, if the Council had clearly explained to Mrs Y the reasons why it would not take this action until it considered she was threatened with homelessness, this would have avoided much of the stress and frustration caused to Mrs Y.
67. I have considered the Personalised Housing Plan that the Housing Advisor sent Mrs Y in March 2022. In my view, this failed to clearly set out the practical and reasonable steps for the Council to take to help Mrs Y keep or secure suitable accommodation. For example, the Council would go on to negotiate for the family to stay in their home longer while the Council and Mrs Y tried to find alternative accommodation, contact letting agents and landlords of potential properties Mrs Y had found to provide information on the financial support the Council could offer and provided Mrs Y with details on the support it could provide with a deposit and initial rental payments. I would have expected this information to have been included in the Personalised Housing Plan with details of when the Council would complete these actions.
68. The actions detailed in the Plan should be informed by the Assessment during which the Council should have clearly identified Mrs Y and her family’s housing needs (including, in particular, what accommodation would be suitable for them) and the support that would be necessary for them to have and sustain suitable accommodation. I find the Personalised Housing Plan was not sufficiently detailed so that Mrs Y could have understood the steps both she and the Council would take. This is fault. This caused Mrs Y distress and confusion about what action, if any, the Council would take to help prevent her and her family from becoming homeless.
69. As the family approached the date when the Section 21 notice was due to expire, Mrs Y chased the Council for information about the next steps and the support it could offer. In April, the Council replied to the enquiry received from Mrs Y’s MP to say the Housing Advisor would try to negotiate with the landlord for the family to stay in the property longer. But, it took until several days after the Section 21 notice expired in May for the Housing Advisor to carry out this action. This delay is fault. The Code of Guidance states “housing authorities should make contact with the landlord at an early stage. This will be necessary both to understand the circumstances in which the applicant has become threatened with homelessness, and to establish what reasonable steps may be taken by the housing authority and by the applicant to prevent their homelessness.” I find the Council failed to act in accordance with the Code of Guidance here given contact with the landlord occurred after the Section 21 notice had expired. It also seems the Council failed to communicate to Mrs Y that the Housing Advisor would take this action until after the Section 21 notice expired, although the Council had committed to this action in April. This caused Mrs Y unnecessary distress and stress.
70. When the Section 21 notice expired in May, the Council should have decided whether it still owed Mrs Y the prevention duty or whether she was homeless and owed the relief duty. In Mrs Y’s circumstances, the Council should have considered whether it was reasonable for Mrs Y and her family to occupy the property after the Section 21 notice expired. Section 6.35 of the Code of Guidance is of relevance here as it says it is unlikely to be reasonable to occupy beyond the expiry of a Section 21 notice unless the Council is working with the landlord to allow them to stay. In this case, it my understanding the landlord agreed the family could stay a further four weeks and not to go to court while the Council and Mrs Y worked to find alternative accommodation, meaning there were potentially good reasons for Mrs Y to overstay. On balance, it is likely the Council had decided it still owed the prevention duty during this four week period. But, the Council failed to carry out this review and provide Mrs Y with clarity on what duty it owed. This is fault. Mrs Y was caused confusion and denied her right to a review of the Council’s decision about the duty owed.
71. Mrs Y asked the Council several times to confirm the circumstances in which the Council would provide interim accommodation and what assistance it could provide when the Section 21 notice expired. Based on the Council’s responses to Mrs Y, including its complaint responses, and its Policy change document titled “S21 Notice Seeking possession”, the Council’s position, in my view, is it is reasonable for an applicant to stay beyond expiry of the Section 21 notice and so it only provides interim accommodation at the date given to vacate in the subsequent possession order, unless there are exceptional circumstances. This is supported by its Policy change document which says “The Councils’ starting point is that it is reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation until the expiry of the possession order unless there [are] good reason(s).” But, this is not in line with the Code of Guidance and is fault. Rather, the Code puts the emphasis on that it is unlikely to be reasonable to stay beyond the expiry of a Section 21 notice unless there are particular reasons it would be. In all cases, the Council should be able to evidence why it was reasonable to overstay in that particular case. The information provided by the Council caused Mrs Y distress and confusion as it suggested it expected her to remain in her property until the possession order expired without providing any reasons as to why this was considered reasonable in her case.

Review of Mrs Y’s banding under its Housing Allocations Policy

72. Mrs Y complains the Council failed to review her priority under its housing allocations scheme after it accepted her homelessness application. She says she has been awarded Band B for over a decade, but being homeless did not lead to the Council changing her priority status or increase her chances of successfully bidding on properties (part c of the complaint).
73. In mid-April 2022, the Housing Advisor told Mrs Y that her banding would not increase based on the fact it had accepted the prevention duty towards her. This is in line with the Council’s 2018 Housing Allocations Policy, which says Band C is the highest priority the Council will award an applicant who is owed either the prevention or relief duty. I do not find the Council at fault. Mrs Y had been awarded a higher band of Band B, which would have remained unchanged by the Council accepting the prevention or relief duty.

Interim accommodation

74. Mrs Y complains the Council delayed in seeking alternative accommodation and failed to arrange suitable accommodation, despite promising to do so twice, so she was left with her possessions in storage. Instead, she says the Council unreasonably proposed splitting her family between two different properties, which she said was not suitable for her and her family’s needs.
75. As explained above, the Council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation.
76. In my view, the Council’s duty to arrange suitable interim accommodation for Mrs Y was triggered when it accepted the relief duty in early June 2022. The Council had decided Mrs Y was homeless and the Housing Advisor had already requested the Council’s Emergency Accommodation Team look into arranging interim accommodation for the family. In my view, this action by the Housing Advisor is an implicit acceptance by the Council that it had reason to believe the family were in priority. This is supported by the fact that priority need includes people with dependent children, and people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, which would likely apply to two of Mrs Y’s children.
77. The Council failed to arrange suitable interim accommodation for Mrs Y and her family from June until September, when Mrs Y found private rented accommodation. This is fault. This caused Mrs Y and her family an injustice because they had no other option than to remain living in accommodation that the Council had accepted it was not reasonable for them to occupy.
78. During this period, the Council made two offers of interim accommodation to Mrs Y. Both these offers were for two separate, but neighbouring, properties that would require Mrs Y and Mr Y to live separately between the properties with their children split between them. The Council told me that, after learning that Mr Y worked late, splitting the family in this way was not suitable because some of the children would be left unsupervised while Mr Y was working.
79. But, in my view, the Council failed to consider whether the interim accommodation was suitable for Mrs Y and the family before offering this. This is fault. This is based on the following:

• Mrs Y’s homelessness application makes it clear that Mr Y worked and that she was their eldest child, B’s full-time carer. Mrs Y also made it clear in the application that the family needed to be close to B’s special school placement. The Housing Advisor emailed the Council’s Emergency Accommodation Team ahead of arranging interim accommodation to explain the family needed a “self contained” property because of B’s disability-related needs. In my view, the Council had sufficient information as to why such accommodation was not suitable for the family. It is concerning that Mrs Y needed to contact Children’s Services to highlight to the Council that such a split would raise safeguarding issues while the children were left unsupervised; and
• in any case, as explained above, the position that the family should remain as one unit and not be split across two separate properties is supported by case law. This has said “It is the policy of the law that families should be kept together; they should be able to live together as a unit.” I find the Council failed to turn its mind to this when offering Mrs Y interim accommodation.

80. Mrs Y was caused distress and stress by the Council’s failure to assess the suitability of the properties.

Back to top

Agreed action

81. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mrs Y for the fault causing injustice identified in relation to parts b and d of her complaint;
2. make Mrs Y the payment of £100 offered by the Council due to the injustice caused by the delays in the Housing Advisor responding to Mrs Y’s contact; and,
3. make Mrs Y a payment of £750 in recognition of the distress, anxiety, and inconvenience caused by the faults identified regarding parts b and d of the complaint. This figure reflects the impact on Mrs Y’s household.
82. I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies when recommending the above payments.
83. Within three months of my final decision, I also recommend the Council:

• reviews its guidance to staff on when the duty to arrange interim accommodation is triggered to ensure that it is in line with the Code of Guidance emphasis that it is unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to stay beyond the expiry of a Section 21 notice unless there are particular reasons it would be. In all cases, the Council should be able to evidence why it was reasonable to overstay in any particular case and the Ombudsman expects the Council to maintain good recordkeeping of such decisions;
• review its guidance to staff on arranging interim accommodation to ensure it is clear to staff that the courts have held that interim accommodation is not suitable where a family cannot live together and are split across two separate properties. The Council should consider paragraphs 21 to 24 above when carrying out this review to ensure its guidance to staff is inline with the expectations outlined in these paragraphs. The Council should circulate a reminder to staff on this and how it expects staff to consider the suitability of interim accommodation; and
• ask a Senior Officer in both the Council’s Homelessness Team and Emergency Accommodation Teams to review this decision statement and provide guidance to relevant staff on any key points of learning.

84. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

85. I have completed my investigation.
86. I have found the Council has already accepted it was at fault in relation to part a of the complaint and suitably remedied this. I have recommended the Council now makes the payment offered.
87. I have upheld parts b and d of the complaint. This is because I have seen evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice. The above recommendations are suitable ways for the Council to remedy this.
88. I have not upheld part c of the complaint because I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman