Summary: there was fault in the way the Council met Miss X’s housing needs as a homeless person with a disabled child. As a result, she has lived in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for a prolonged period. The Council’s handling of her complaint was also extremely poor. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a suitable financial remedy for Miss X and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X and her young child are homeless. She complained that the Council placed them in unsuitable and unsafe bed and breakfast hotels where they have stayed since February 2022.
2. Miss X has mental health conditions. Her young child has autism with high needs. The unsettled nature of the bed and breakfast placements, and the lack of space and cooking facilities, has caused them significant hardship, inconvenience and disruption. Miss X’s child needs structure and routine to manage his autism. He is overwhelmed by the noise in the hotel and there is nowhere for him to play or engage in strategies to manage his challenging behaviour.
3. The Council has made some offers of alternative permanent and temporary accommodation. Miss X says all these offers were unsuitable because they did not meet her assessed housing needs and the Occupational Therapist’s recommendations.
4. Miss X has also raised concerns about the Council’s handling of her complaint. There was delay in putting it through the first stage of its complaints procedure. It took too long to investigate at the final stage and then signposted her to the wrong Ombudsman service. This delayed her complaint to us.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
6. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to do so. A complaint is late when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of housing associations. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)
9. 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)
10. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings. The guidance also includes our approach to assessing a financial remedy for homeless households in unsuitable bed and breakfast placements.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I have spoken to Miss X and considered the information she provided. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant case records.
12. We received Miss X’s complaint in mid-July 2023. We would not usually investigate events that happened more than 12 months before then. However I decided there were good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate events since February 2022 when the Council first placed Miss X and her son in bed and breakfast accommodation. I took into account the Council’s long delay in completing its investigation of Miss X’s complaint which, in turn, delayed her complaint to us. I also considered the impact on Miss X and her child who are both vulnerable.
13. Miss X 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

The relevant law and guidance

14. 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.
15. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is known as the main housing duty.
16. An applicant with a dependent child has a priority need.
17. All accommodation councils arrange for homeless applicants must be suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies equally to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
18. The Code of Guidance says councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24 and 17.30). B&B is defined as accommodation which is:
• not self-contained;
• not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing; and
• in which cooking facilities are not provided, or any of the following amenities is shared by more than one household:

(i) a toilet;

(ii) personal washing facilities; or,

(iii) cooking facilities.

(Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 as amended).

19. Living in B&B accommodation can be particularly detrimental to the health and development of children. The law says bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks.
20. The Code of Guidance says that where an applicant with a family is in B&B accommodation, the authority should notify them of the 2003 Order. In particular it should explain that it cannot continue to accommodate them in B&B for more than six weeks, after which the authority must secure alternative, suitable accommodation.
21. 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 a review of the suitability of interim accommodation.
22. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the council has accepted the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

The Council’s housing allocations policy

23. The Council’s housing allocations policy says it offers supported choice lettings to homeless applicants who are owed a housing duty and have sufficient points to bid. If they do not make a successful bid after a short period of access to the choice-based lettings scheme, the Council will make two direct offers of suitable accommodation based on their assessed housing needs. Failure to accept the second offer may lead the Council to end the housing duty.

The background to this complaint

24. This statement sets out the key facts relevant to this complaint. I have not summarised everything that has happened since Miss X first contacted the Council for assistance.
25. Miss X and her young child, whom I shall call Z, used to live with Miss X’s mother in her rented accommodation. Miss X’s mother asked them to leave because the property was overcrowded and this was putting their relationship under severe strain.
26. An officer completed a housing assessment and Personalised Housing Plan in November 2021 while Miss X was still in her mother’s home. The Council accepted the prevention duty a few days later. The officer noted that Z has complex educational needs and a severe language disorder. Miss X told the officer Z was waiting to be assessed for autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. She said she needed to stay in the borough to be close to Z’s nursery and family support. The officer noted Miss X needed a two bedroom property but did not record any other specific housing needs.
27. In mid-January 2022 an officer completed a telephone interview with Miss X to take further details for her homelessness application. On the form he recorded:
• Z’s autism diagnosis;
• Miss X’s medical conditions which affect her physical and mental health;
• The location of Z’s nursery in the borough;
• He put “no” to a question about whether there were any special or support needs.
28. Around the same time, Miss X provided a letter from an NHS Occupational Therapist (OT) which confirmed Z had recently been diagnosed with autism with high needs. Among other things, the OT said Z was non-verbal, did not follow instructions and had no awareness of danger. The OT made the following specific recommendations for accommodation:
• no balcony;
• no open access balcony to front door or communal balcony;
• no communal stairway with open balustrade;
• no open plan kitchen;
• not above the second floor;
• can manage internal stairs if they are enclosed;
• locks at top of front door, kitchen and bathroom doors;
• lockable window restrictors on windows.
29. A caseworker completed a temporary accommodation placement form. He noted Miss X’s request not to be placed in accommodation above the first floor. No suitability assessment was completed to record what type of accommodation would be suitable for the family’s needs and whether it should be in the borough.
30. In late January the case officer asked the Private Sector team to urgently look for a two bedroom property for Miss X.
31. In late January Miss X was invited to view a two bedroom property in another London borough a long way from Z’s nursery. This was private rented accommodation. She refused the property because it was too far from her support network and Z’s nursery in Islington.
32. In early February Miss X sent the Council a letter from a family support worker at a charity which works with families with disabilities. The support worker said Miss X needed to live close to her family and networks in Islington as she needed support with Z’s complex needs. She also said Miss X found it difficult to take Z on public transport due to his reaction to noise and crowds.
33. Miss X also provided a letter from a health visitor who stressed the need for adequate locks on doors and windows to keep Z safe. She recommended a property on the ground or first floor with no balcony or open landings.

Placement in bed and breakfast hotels

34. On 14 February 2022 the Council placed Miss X and Z in a bed and breakfast hotel in the borough. At the time of the placement, this was interim accommodation so Miss X could not request a statutory review of its suitability. Miss X says she was told she would only be in the hotel for a few weeks until the Council offered suitable self-contained temporary accommodation.
35. On 27 February Miss X sent an email asking how much longer she would have to stay in the hotel. She reported that Z could open the hotel room door. She had to block it with his pushchair to stop him getting out which was a safety hazard. She said the hotel staff could not suggest a solution. Z had also climbed up to the windows in the hotel room. The constant noise from a nearby railway line was making it difficult for him to sleep. A manager in the temporary accommodation team replied that accommodation in the borough was very scarce and most properties had open plan layouts.
36. On 23 March the Council informed Miss X it had accepted the main housing duty. The letter included a standard paragraph explaining the right to request a review of the suitability of any temporary accommodation provided. But it said the review had to be requested “within a 21 day period from the date you started to occupy the accommodation”.
37. In late May 2022 the Council considered Miss X for a possible offer of self-contained temporary accommodation in the borough. However, after consulting an OT and a duty manager, officers decided it was not suitable because it was on the first floor with an open walkway. After Miss X was informed, she wrote to a manager to express concern about the length of her stay in the bed and breakfast hotel. She said it was unsafe and unsuitable for Z’s needs and did not meet the OT’s requirements. It was causing them both distress and affecting her health. She requested an urgent move. An officer replied that there was no other property available which would meet her needs.
38. In early June 2022 Miss X and her family counsellor informed the manager that Z had almost fallen out of the window in their fourth floor room when the safety strap snapped. She said he had also managed to open the door of the room several times in the middle of the night. The hotel management would not give permission to fit a bolt to the door. The manager advised Miss X to report the damaged strap to the hotel management. He said it was proving difficult to find a property which matched all the property recommendations in the OT’s report.
39. Shortly after this contact, a manager in the Homeless Support team completed a form stating that Miss X’s family were in unsuitable temporary accommodation and eligible for a move to permanent accommodation. He requested a temporary accommodation suitability assessment. I have seen no evidence that any suitability assessment was done.
40. In mid-June Miss X wrote to explain the impact of such a prolonged stay in the bed and breakfast hotel. She said hotel policy was to move residents to a new room every 28 days and she had to pack up all their belongings each time. Z did not cope well with this constant change and it affected his behaviour and caused meltdowns. She had no cooking or laundry facilities. Z could not eat meals in the hotel cafeteria because his sensory processing disorder made him particularly sensitive to environmental noise and crowds. There was no space for Z to engage in sensory play. She could not put into practice other strategies to regulate his behaviour and this was impairing his development.

First offer of permanent accommodation

41. Around this time, the Council nominated Miss X for an offer of a two bedroom Council owned property in the borough. This was her first offer of permanent accommodation which I shall call Property 1.
42. The Council sent video footage of the property to an OT at the NHS Trust because she was not available to attend the viewing in person with Miss X. The OT viewed the video and said the property would be suitable for Miss X and Z’s needs with some adaptations. She did not specify the adaptations required. This OT had not previously met Z or assessed his specific needs.
43. Miss X refused the offer after viewing the property in late June. She said there was damp in the bedrooms. The officer who accompanied Miss X on the viewing said she did not notice any smell of damp. The Council decided the property was suitable for Miss X’s needs and treated it as her first offer of permanent accommodation.
44. On 28 June a manager asked officers to prioritise Miss X for a transfer to more suitable temporary accommodation.

Second offer of permanent accommodation

45. On 30 June the Council made the second offer of permanent accommodation which I shall call Property 2. The letter explained it was a final offer of accommodation made to end the main housing duty. It explained Miss X’s right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation whether she accepted or refuse the offer. In the covering email, the officer advised Miss X to accept the offer and then request a review if she wished to challenge its suitability rather than refusing it outright.
46. Property 2 was a ground floor property with two bedrooms in the borough. It had two internal steps, three external steps to a separate entrance and access to a shared garden.
47. Miss X viewed the property accompanied by an OT on 7 July. The OT’s view was that the property was suitable and safe for Z with minor adaptations. She said it met the property requirements in the January 2022 OT letter. She said Miss X raised concerns during the visit about the property being on a busy road, the size of the second bedroom, the shared use of the garden and internal steps.
48. The Council contacted Miss X on 8 July to ask for her decision. She had contacted the OT team to ask for an updated report on Z’s needs. She did not consider the January 2022 report reflected Z’s current support needs. On 9 July she explained Z needed to stay at his current nursery where he received specialist support for autism. The nursery had also been approved for extra funding for Z from September which would allow them to meet Z’s complex special educational needs. It would take too long to get funding approval if Z had to move to a new nursery and he did not cope well with change.
49. Miss X sent a letter of support from the Deputy Head of Z’s nursery a few days later. She said she would send the updated OT report when it was available.
50. On 14 July an operative from the Voids team inspected Property 2. This team inspects empty Council properties to organise repairs and works before they are relet. The officer said he found no damp or mould in the property.
51. On 22 July Miss X informed the Council that the recommendations in the January 2022 OT letter were generic housing recommendations the OT made for any child with autism. It had not been based on an assessment of Z’s specific needs. She now had an appointment for an OT assessment for Z in mid-August.
52. On 28 July the Council’s appeals officer completed her review of the suitability of Property 2 based on the evidence Miss X had submitted by then. She decided to withdraw the offer of Property 2. She asked Miss X to send the updated OT report to her housing support officer. The housing support officer also contacted Miss X to tell her the Council would need to consider the recommendations in the new OT report before making any further offers of accommodation. It would also need to consider Z’s ability to use public transport (because this would influence the decision about the location of the property).
53. Earlier on the same day a homeless support officer spoke to Miss X about another potential offer of temporary accommodation. It was a two bedroom first floor property within a short walking distance of Z’s nursery. It had window restrictors and locks and there was no balcony or open walkway. According to the officer’s notes, Miss X refused this property because there were communal steps to the first floor entrance and no lift. The officer said she did not believe this was one of the OT’s property recommendations. She said she would keep looking for alternative temporary accommodation.
54. In mid-November Miss X sent the Council a new OT report which she had privately commissioned. In early December the manager of the Homeless Support team said officers would prioritise Miss X for a property suitable for a child with autism. However they had nothing suitable at the time. He also said Miss X’s hotel booking had been extended until 9 January. He said this was “far from ideal” but there was no other family size accommodation available for a child with autism.
55. In late January 2023 the Council carried out a comprehensive review of all the evidence provided for a medical assessment. This included the new OT report, the views of the Council’s medical adviser and other evidence Miss X had provided from the professionals involved in Z’s education and health care. At the time Miss X and Z were living on the third floor of a bed and breakfast hotel with a lift and level access.
56. The officer made the following recommendations:
• General needs;
• Not above the second floor;
• No open walkways or balcony;
• No stairs with open balustrades;
• No open plan living/kitchen area;
• Appropriate window and door locks;
• No more than one flight of enclosed stairs inside the property – no individual steps between rooms due to the risk of falls;
• It would be beneficial for the property to be close to Z’s nursery due to his sensory difficulties in using public transport;
• The OT should view any property offered to make sure it was suitable for Z’s needs;
57. In late January 2023 a homeless support officer replied to an enquiry from the Leader of the Council about Miss X’s case. She told the Leader they were looking for alternative temporary accommodation but there was a short supply of properties apart from studios.

Third offer of permanent accommodation

58. In February 2023 a homeless support officer told Miss X she was considering her for another offer of permanent accommodation. This was a housing association property which I shall call Property 3. It is on the ground and first floor with one flight of internal stairs and close to Z’s nursery.
59. In late March 2023 an OT viewed the property with Miss X. She said it would be suitable for Z with the following minor adaptations:
• Enclose the internal stairs;
• Install high level sliding bolts on the front door and some internal doors and cupboards;
• Install lockable window restrictors;
• Carry out specific minor works in the garden and driveway to remove hazards;
• Ideally these works should be completed before Miss X moved in.
60. Miss X accepted the property in late March. The housing association said it would check with its maintenance team if it could do the works the OT had recommended. Miss X signed the tenancy agreement on 28 April.
61. However Miss X has not yet moved in because the property needs repairs to rectify a persistent leak and damp. It also needs adaptations to meet Z’s needs. We cannot investigate the housing association’s actions. But we can look at how the Council responded when it was told about the delay.
62. The Council’s records show a homeless support officer contacted the housing association to request updates in May and June 2023. From the records I have seen, it seems the housing association did not reply. In mid-August the homeless support officer said she would escalate this to a manager due to the delay.
63. The housing association then told the Council some works were scheduled to start in mid-September. But works on a wet room for Z had not started by then. The homeless support officer contacted the housing association again in early October to request an urgent update. She said it was very expensive for the Council to keep paying for Miss X’s temporary accommodation. Miss X made a separate complaint to the housing association about its delay in completing the works and its failure to keep her informed.
64. In response to our enquiries, the Council offered to withdraw Property 3 and offer Miss X alternative permanent accommodation. Miss X is not sure whether to wait for works and adaptations to be completed at Property 3 or ask the Council to withdraw this offer and wait for another property. She says it is difficult to make this decision when she does not know how long she might have to wait for another suitable property and how long it might then take to complete any adaptations required to make it suitable for Z.
65. The Council accepts Miss X’s hotel placements are not suitable accommodation. But it says there is a shortage of temporary and permanent accommodation which fully meets all the OT’s recommendations.

The handling of Miss X’s complaint

66. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. At the first stage, the relevant service investigates and should respond within 10 working days. If someone is not satisfied with the response, they can ask for a review by officers in the corporate customer service team who investigate on behalf of the Chief Executive. The procedure says they can expect a response within 20 working days at this stage.
67. Miss X completed the Council’s online complaint form on 30 May 2022. She complained about the unsuitability of the B&B hotel accommodation and the lack of response to her communications. This was not logged as a complaint and the housing service was asked to deal with it informally.
68. In mid-June, Miss X sent an email to a manager (paragraph 40) in which she reiterated her wish to make a complaint. She asked for information about the complaints procedure. The manager replied and said he understood her accommodation was unsuitable and they were searching for an alternative.
69. On 1 July Miss X emailed the housing feedback team repeating her request that they investigate the complaint she had made on 30 May. She was then asked to resend the email she sent on 1 July to the officer in the housing feedback team. Eleven days later, the Council confirmed this had been logged as a Stage One complaint and a reply would be sent within 10 working days.
70. On 26 July the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint. This was almost two months after she made the original complaint. It focused on Miss X’s concerns about the suitability of the offer of permanent accommodation at Property 1. It did not directly address her complaint about the unsuitability of the B&B hotel placement. It simply said the Council had tried to source suitable accommodation for Miss X but there was a severe shortage of accommodation that would meet Z’s needs. It did not uphold her complaint.
71. On 10 August Miss X asked for her complaint to be considered at the final stage of the complaints procedure. She gave further reasons why she did not consider Property 1 was suitable for their needs. She said it was not just because of concerns about damp in the property. She also pointed out that she had not complained about Property 1 but asked for a review of its suitability. The complaint she made on 30 May pre-dated the offer of Property 1 and was about the unsuitability of the B&B hotel. She said the Stage One reply failed to address this issue.
72. The Council did not respond to the second stage complaint until 30 April 2023. It apologised to Miss X for the long delay. It also apologised for the fact that the Stage One reply had not addressed Miss X’s complaint about the unsuitability of the B&B hotel accommodation. By the time this reply was sent, Miss X had been allocated and accepted Property 3. She was waiting for works and adaptations to be completed. The response did not address the length of her stay in the B&B hotel and the breach of the 2003 Order.
73. The Council partially upheld Miss X’s complaint. It offered her £500 consisting of:
• £100 for time and effort;
• £100 for the delayed response at the second stage of the complaints procedure;
• £300 for distress.

Miss X did not accept this offer. The letter wrongly told Miss X she could complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service if she was not satisfied with this final response.

74. Miss X followed this advice and complained to the Housing Ombudsman. They explained they cannot investigate homelessness complaints and told her to contact us. This delayed her complaint to us until mid-July 2023.
75. Following our enquiries, the head of the service sent a reminder to all staff in the corporate complaints team about the importance of signposting people to the correct Ombudsman service and referred them to guidance about our respective jurisdictions. It also told us it has managed to meet the 20 day timescale for responding to all Stage Two complaints since May 2023 after it recruited more investigators to the central complaints team.

The impact on Miss X and Z

76. At the time of writing this statement, Miss X and Z have lived for 22 months in a single room in various bed and breakfast hotels with no cooking or laundry facilities. There is still no end date in sight. This continues to have a very detrimental impact on Miss X and Z.
77. When the nearest hotel to Z’s nursery was fully booked on some dates, Miss X had to move to a different hotel owned by the same group. They have stayed in five different hotels since February 2022. They have moved several times between these hotels, some of which were in other London boroughs a long way from Z’s nursery and Miss X’s support network. Miss X could not take Z to nursery when they were placed out of the borough because Z cannot use public transport.
78. Even when they were able to stay for an extended time in the same hotel, Miss X had to pack their belongings and move to a new room every 28 days due to company policy. This would be inconvenient and disruptive for any family. But it was particularly unsettling for Z who struggles to cope with changes to his environment and routines due to his autism. The lack of privacy and space, and the constant change, means Miss X has not been able to implement the strategies recommended by the OT and teaching staff to regulate Z’s behaviour and improve his motor skills and development. She is always worried that Z might leave the hotel room and come to harm because he has no awareness of danger.
79. Miss X cannot do laundry in the hotel and has to take it to a relative’s home. Z has a restricted diet due to his sensory needs. He dislikes eating in the hotel cafeteria because of the noise and sensory over-stimulation. Miss X cannot prepare food to cater for Z’s dietary needs. There was nowhere to store anti-biotics when Z was ill because there is no fridge in the hotel room.
80. Miss X says her mental health has deteriorated and she found it difficult to meet Z’s needs and keep him safe whilst living in such unsuitable circumstances. In her correspondence with Council officers, she has vividly described the serious impacts of living for so long in unsuitable accommodation.

My analysis

Unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation

81. Miss X and her child have spent far too long in unsuitable bed and breakfast hotels. The Council fully accepts this type of accommodation is unsuitable and does not meet their needs. A prolonged stay in B&B accommodation is particularly detrimental for a child with autism and complex needs. The Council breached the 2003 Order which restricts the use of a B&B hotel without any cooking facilities to a maximum of six weeks for a family. For these reasons, the Council was at fault.
82. Miss X has explained the severe impact on her and Z. Aside from the practical difficulties of having no cooking or laundry facilities, the lack of space in the hotel room means she cannot implement the strategies recommended by professionals to manage Z’s challenging behaviour and promote his development. Z has also been at risk of harm because the hotel room is not a safe and secure space.
83. I have seen no evidence that the Council had regard to the advice in the Code of Guidance and informed Miss X of the “six week rule” when it first placed her in a B&B hotel in February 2022. Nor have I seen any evidence that the Council was pro-actively monitoring the case when the family’s stay reached the six week legal limit. This was fault.
84. The Council’s letter to Miss X when it accepted the main housing duty in March 2022 was misleading. It effectively said it was too late for her to request a review of the suitability of the B&B accommodation. It said she had to make that request within 21 days of the date she first moved in. But Miss X did not have a right to request a statutory review until the Council accepted the main housing duty. The letter also did not refer to the Council’s continuing duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. So Miss X did not request a review because she believed it was too late to do so.
85. There was a further significant fault in this case. There was no proper assessment of Miss X’s housing needs at an early stage to determine what type of accommodation would be suitable for her and Z. This was particularly important in view of the specific needs arising from Z’s disability. A suitability assessment should have been completed before any offers of accommodation were made. The initial housing assessment only mentioned their need for two bedroom accommodation. Despite being told about Z’s disability, it did not address important matters which affect suitability such as the location or the physical features and layout of the property. It was only after Miss X refused Property 2 that the Council got to grips with the need to do this assessment. It then arranged for an OT to have input into the medical assessment and agreed a set of property recommendations based on an assessment of Z’s specific needs. For this reason, I do not consider Miss X’s refusal of Property 1 was unreasonable when the offer was made before her specific housing needs had been assessed. Property 2 was withdrawn on review by the Council so this was not a suitable offer.
86. Miss X and Z have lived in different B&B hotels for 22 months so far. They still do not know when they will move to suitable accommodation. The Council is not responsible for any delay by the housing association in completing repairs and adaptations to Property 3. The Council is struggling to meet the needs of many homeless families at a time of increasing demand and difficulty in securing affordable temporary accommodation. Nevertheless it is fault to leave Miss X and Z in accommodation which the Council accepts is unsuitable for them. It is service failure if the Council cannot move them due to factors outside its control such as the scarcity of suitable properties. Given the detrimental impact on Miss X and Z’s health and wellbeing, the Council needs to discuss the options with Miss X and other partners to reach an immediate resolution.

Complaint-handling

87. There were serious failings in the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. This was fault.
88. At the first stage, the Council failed to register it as a Stage One complaint despite Miss X having used the online complaint form. Miss X had to chase officers twice before it was logged and responded to as a Stage One complaint. It took almost two months to send the Stage One reply when the complaints procedure says the target time is 10 working days. The Stage One reply also failed to address the main issue raised in Miss X’s complaint: the unsuitability of the B&B hotel placement. Instead it focused on the offer of Property 1 which was not something she had raised in the complaint.
89. There was further fault because it took the Council more than eight months to reply to the Stage Two complaint. This unacceptable delay is fault. It added to Miss X’s frustration and left her feeling that the serious concerns she had raised were not being given proper attention. And, at the end of the complaints process, the Council referred her to the wrong Ombudsman service which delayed her bringing the complaint to us.
90. These serial failings in handling Miss X’s complaint caused avoidable frustration and time and trouble. She had to send follow-up emails before her complaint was properly registered and investigated.

Back to top

Agreed action

91. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Prioritise an immediate move for Miss X out of the B&B hotel to suitable alternative accommodation. This is the overriding priority.

To achieve this, it should arrange an urgent meeting with Miss X, the Occupational Therapist and the housing association to establish how much longer it will take to complete works at Property 3. When it has clear timeframes, it should then discuss all the options with Miss X. This includes the option of withdrawing the offer of Property 3 if the work is unlikely to be completed soon or moving her to self-contained temporary accommodation while she waits for Property 3 to be ready. It should ensure Miss X has complete and reliable information to enable her to make an informed decision.

• Arrange for a senior manager to send Miss X a written apology to acknowledge the distress and hardship caused by the faults we have identified in the way it has handled her case and met her housing needs. This apology should follow the guidance set out in our Guidance on Remedies (paragraph 7).
• Pay Miss X £13,500 to recognise the distress, hardship and inconvenience caused by her exceptionally long stay in unsuitable bed and breakfast hotels since February 2022. I assessed this financial remedy by applying the guidelines in our published Guidance on Remedies. I took into account the vulnerability of Miss X and Z and the serious impact the prolonged B&B stay has on their wellbeing. This is assessed as £150 per week for 90 weeks from 14 February 2022 to 20 December 2023. I deducted six weeks to reflect the maximum time families may stay in B&B under the terms of the 2003 Order.
• The £150 per week financial redress should continue until Miss X is moved to suitable alternative accommodation (this may be Property 3 or alternative temporary or permanent accommodation) or until she unreasonably refuses a suitable offer of accommodation which fully complies with the OT’s property recommendations. This final payment can be made at a later date.
• Pay Miss X an additional £150 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its significant delay and poor handling of her complaint.
2. The Council has already taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the long delay in completing Stage Two complaint investigations and to ensure complainants are directed to the appropriate Ombudsman service.
3. Within two months of my final decision the Council will make the following service improvements:
• review the wording in the template letter accepting the main housing duty to ensure it provides clear and accurate information about the continuing duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and the timescale for requesting a review of the suitability of accommodation;
• issue a written briefing to remind case officers of the need to complete a suitability assessment for homeless applicants at an early stage to ensure their housing needs are fully understood before any offers of accommodation are made. Where the household includes a person with a medical condition or disability, the need for a medical or OT assessment should be considered early on as part of this process.
4. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

95. I have completed the investigation and made a finding of fault causing serious injustice to Miss X and Z. The Council has accepted my findings and agreed to provide the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman