Summary: there was fault in the way the Council met Mr X’s need for interim and temporary accommodation since he became homeless and applied for assistance. It also failed to respond to his request for assistance with storage charges and parking charges at the bed and breakfast hotel. This caused Mr X and his family significant and ongoing injustice for which the Council has agreed to provide a suitable financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council has failed to arrange suitable interim and temporary accommodation for his family since they became homeless in June 2023. This continues to have a negative impact on their health and they have incurred extra costs while living in a bed and breakfast hotel. Although the Council accepts the current accommodation is unsuitable for their needs, it has not yet moved them to suitable alternative accommodation.
2. Mr X says the Council has not provided financial assistance with the substantial extra costs incurred on parking charges at the hotel, takeaway meals and storage charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’  and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 have spoken to Mr X and considered all the information he provided. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant housing case records.
8. I considered the relevant law and statutory guidance on homelessness.
9. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant legal duties
 

10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is the relief duty which lasts for 56 days. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. 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)
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need then 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 called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. 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. We refer to these rights as section 202 reviews (Housing Act 1996, s202). There is a right to appeal against a review decision on a point of law to the county court.

Suitability of accommodation

14. 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 both interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)
16. The Courts have held that the duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. Placing a household who are owed the main housing duty, and living in unsuitable accommodation, on a waiting list for temporary accommodation is not a lawful means of fulfilling the main housing duty. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)

Bed and breakfast accommodation

17. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that, wherever possible, councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. Where councils cannot avoid using B&B, they should ensure it is of a good standard and is used for the shortest period possible (paragraphs 17.33 and 17.45).
18. The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2003 says B&B is not suitable for households with “family commitments”. The Order defines this as a household that includes a dependent child or a pregnant woman.  A dependent child is not defined in the Order but the Code says this covers children and young people in full-time education under the age of 18. Where no other accommodation is available, the authority may place a family in B&B as a last resort but only for a maximum of six weeks.
19. B&B is defined as accommodation which is not self-contained and where the household must share a toilet, cooking or bathroom facilities with other households. From 31 May 2023, the Order was amended to include accommodation with no cooking facilities.

Review rights

20. Applicants do not have the right to a statutory review of the suitability of interim accommodation. However councils should carry out a non-statutory review in these cases given their continuing legal duty to ensure all accommodation arranged for homeless households is suitable.
21. There is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation arranged under the main housing duty. This carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 & 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2 & 19.3)

Protection of property

22. Where the council owes, or has owed, certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. The Code of Guidance says this includes circumstances where the applicant cannot afford to pay storage charges.

23. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Our decisions on other Westminster City Council complaints

24. In November 2023 we upheld complaint 23002372 . As part of the remedy, the Council reminded officers that they must always carry out a suitability assessment to identify the applicant’s needs before making a placement in temporary accommodation. In early December 2023 a senior manager sent the following written instructions to staff:
• offers of interim temporary accommodation must be suitable for the needs of the applicant and their household;
• the housing needs assessment completed by the caseworker will include details of any mobility, health and support needs as well as information about the number and composition of members of the household;
• information about any specific accommodation needs will also be included by the caseworker on the placement request form;
• all of this information about the applicant’s needs must be evaluated to match them to suitable accommodation on the temporary accommodation availability list. If the applicant cannot be matched to a suitable property on the list, then they should discuss arranging a suitable corporate booking with a manager.
25. In early March 2024 we upheld complaint 23009074. A homeless applicant had complained to us about the Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation. As part of the remedy, the Council agreed to review its procedures to ensure officers always carry out a suitability assessment to identify a household’s needs before placing them in interim or temporary accommodation and keep an adequate record of this decision. It agreed to do that within three months of our decision.

Back to top

What happened

The background to this complaint

26. Mr X lives with his wife and two of their children who are young adults. Mr X is disabled and Mrs X, who also has health issues, is his main carer. Mr X has very limited mobility and has a Blue Badge.
27. A caseworker in the Housing Solutions service interviewed Mr X in September 2022 when he was threatened with homelessness from his private rented accommodation. Mr X’s landlord had obtained a possession order and was going to apply for a warrant for eviction.
28. In the housing assessment, the caseworker noted Mr X had several medical conditions which affect his mental and physical health. He recorded that Mr X was seeing a mental health specialist and would send further details. The assessment also referred to Mr X’s mobility issues and use of a walking stick.
29. In late October 2022 the Council accepted the prevention duty and prepared a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP). The PHP said Mr X needed a property without stairs due to his limited mobility. No support needs were recorded. The caseworker noted Mr X’s preference for a property in Westminster.
30. However, when the caseworker completed the accommodation placement form on the same day, he did not include any details about Mr X’s medical or mobility needs. The Council accepts the form was not properly completed.
31. In mid-May 2023 Mr X informed the Council that Court bailiffs were due to evict his family on 12 June.

The placement in a bed and breakfast hotel

32. On 12 June the Council offered Mr X and his family interim accommodation in east London. Mr X refused this offer. Three days later, the Council placed Mr X and his family in a bed and breakfast hotel on the outskirts of west London. Mr X felt he had to accept this offer because his family was now homeless.
33. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed there was no formal assessment of the suitability of the hotel accommodation before the placement. It said most placements into interim accommodation are made shortly before the household is due to be made homeless, or on the day they present to the service as homeless. The emergency nature of the placements, coupled with extremely high demand, means options are very limited. Households are offered the most suitable accommodation available on the day the placement is arranged.
34. Mr X and his family were allocated two rooms on the second floor of the hotel. Mr X said there is a wheelchair accessible lift so he can get to his room. But inside the room, there is very little space.
35. Although Mr X and his family became homeless on 12 June, the Council did not accept the relief duty until mid-September 2023. It told him this would last for 56 days.
36. It reviewed the PHP when it accepted the relief duty. In the housing needs section, it said Mr X needed a three bedroom property. Under support needs, it said Mr X had medical conditions but gave no further details or explain how they affected his accommodation needs. His mobility needs were not mentioned. This PHP contained less information about the family’s circumstances than the one completed in October 2022 when the case was at the prevention duty stage.
37. In late September 2023 Mr X complained to the Council about the way it had handled his homelessness application and met his family’s accommodation needs. He said the hotel was unsuitable due to his chronic and severe medical conditions. It was too far from his support network (other family members) and healthcare professionals. It was having a major adverse impact on his wellbeing and quality of life and affecting other family members. He asked the Council to move him to self-contained accommodation with cooking facilities.
38. In mid-October the Council replied at the first stage of its complaints procedure. It said it could not investigate his concerns about the suitability of his interim accommodation under the complaints procedure. It told him he could pursue a judicial review.
39. It partly upheld other aspects of the complaint. It accepted there had been a 16 week delay in accepting the relief duty after Mr X informed the Council of the eviction date. It said Mr X and his family had been in the B&B hotel for longer than six weeks in breach of regulations. (The officer mistakenly believed Mr X’s children were dependent children and therefore covered by the six week time limit for placements in B&B accommodation). The Council offered to pay Mr X £1,200 for the 12 extra weeks he had stayed in the B&B hotel beyond the six week limit. He added £160 for the delay in accepting the relief duty which brought the total to £1,360.
40. While Mr X’s case was still at the relief duty stage, a case note entry says the complaints team asked the Housing Solutions service to contact Mr X to ask if he needed assistance with storage. It is not clear what further action, if any, was taken at this stage.
41. On 20 November the Council accepted the main housing duty. The decision letter said the hotel was provided on an emergency basis only. It said the temporary lettings team would contact Mr X shortly to offer suitable self-contained temporary accommodation under the main housing duty. The letter explained Mr X’s right to request a review of the decision within 21 days. But it did not explain that Mr X also had the right to request a statutory review of the suitability of the hotel accommodation due to the change in the duty.
42. The Council put Mr X in Group 2 on the temporary accommodation transfer list on the day it accepted the main housing duty. This group consists of households which the Council accepts are in unsuitable accommodation.
43. Mr X was not satisfied with the Stage One reply so he escalated his complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure. He said Mrs X was also struggling to manage her medical needs in the hotel. He was paying £200 per month to store his personal belongings. He also mentioned that he had to pay a £16 daily parking charge at the hotel. He attached bank statements and storage receipts as evidence of the payments made. He said the compensation offered did not reflect all the costs he had incurred since he moved to the hotel.
44. The Council replied in late November. It said that due to the shortage of interim accommodation it usually waited until the eviction date to make a placement. It accepted there had been a 16 week delay in accepting the relief duty. It explained the Council had a storage facility and gave him a contact number if he wished to take up this option.
45. The final response explained that the offer to pay £1,360 compensation was made in error because the officer had wrongly assumed Mr X’s children were dependents. In fact, the six week limit did not apply because they were adults. However, having made the offer at Stage One, the Council would honour it. Mr X did not accept this payment.
46. The final response did not address Mr X’s point about payment of parking charges at the hotel. In response to our enquiries, the Council said this was an oversight and it will now consider whether to reimburse Mr X.
47. In late November Mr X sent an email with all the information the Council had requested to enable its storage contractors to collect and move his belongings to their storage facility. Mr X’s email was forwarded to the booking team but, after one failed attempt to call Mr X, no further action was taken. So Mr X has continued to pay storage charges. Following our enquiries, the Council contacted him to make arrangements.
48. In late January 2024 an Occupational Therapist assessed Mr X’s housing needs. She noted he used crutches in the hotel room and had a wheeled mobility aid for longer distances. He did not have a wheelchair but she considered he may benefit from one.
49. In her report the Occupational Therapist recommended Mr X for a mobility category 3 property. This is a property with no internal stairs on the ground floor or on a higher floor in a block with a lift. She said he could manage a property with 1-2 steps to the entrance, or 3-4 steps with handrails. He needed to be on one level inside the property unless there was a through floor lift.

Offers of alternative accommodation

50. In late February 2024 the Council offered Mr X self-contained temporary accommodation. This was a three bedroom flat in a north London borough. Mr X and his wife went to see the property. They refused the offer because the flat was on the first floor and his wheelchair did not fit into the lift. As there were 25 steps to reach the flat, he could not access it. His wife said the bathroom was also too small and Mr X would not be able to get in.
51. Mr X feels the Council wasted their time by asking them to travel across London to view a property that was clearly unsuitable for his needs. The Council withdrew the offer. It then clarified his mobility category and changed it from category 4 to mobility category 3. The Council has not offered any other temporary accommodation since then due to the lack of suitable properties.
52. Mr X also bid for a three bedroom maisonette in Westminster in mid-March 2024. But he declined the offer when he realised the property had internal stairs and was unsuitable for his mobility needs.

The impact on Mr X and his family

53. Mr X says his family spend a lot on takeaway meals because they have nowhere to store food and cook meals in the hotel. Mr X has diabetes and stores his insulin in the fridge. He needs to carefully manage his diet. He says his health has deteriorated since he moved to the hotel.
54. The Council says it gave Mr X two vouchers for £200 each in June 2023 and January 2024. It provides this financial support to homeless families in emergency accommodation to help with the extra costs.
55. Mr X says he is isolated and spends most of the time in his room. He only leaves the hotel to attend medical appointments. The hotel is a long way from his other adult children, his community and place of worship. The lack of space and privacy has a detrimental impact on his mental health and puts an additional burden on Mrs X as his carer.
56. In March 2024, Mr X told me he had spent £4,256 on hotel parking charges so far. He sent evidence of some of these payments. In addition, he borrowed money to pay £200 storage charges per month.

The homelessness crisis and pressures on temporary accommodation

57. In common with most councils, Westminster City Council is receiving an increasing number of homelessness applications. It received over 2,700 applications in the last financial year. On average it places 250 households in temporary accommodation every month. This makes it extremely challenging to procure enough accommodation to meet the demand.
58. In April 2024 it had 3,500 households in temporary accommodation, of which 617 (18%) were on the transfer list. Of these 3,500 households, 3.6% are waiting for a transfer because the Council accepts their accommodation is unsuitable.
59. In 2023/24 it let 294 units of longer-term temporary accommodation. Another 32 properties were under offer when it replied to my enquiries in April 2024.
60. The Council has organised the transfer list into three priority groups to reflect the urgency of the housing need and the reason for agreeing a transfer:

1. Households who need to move urgently because the accommodation is not safe. This includes applicants at risk of violence in their current accommodation.

2. Households who require a transfer because the current accommodation is not suitable for their needs and the Council has an immediate duty to provide suitable accommodation.

3. Households who must move because the accommodation is no longer available (Lease ends) or smaller than the household needs due to a change in circumstance. These cases should be planned for, and a move arranged before the lease end date.

61. Generally, applicants in Group 2 are prioritised in date order and then matched to properties according to the household’s banding for offers (in or outside the borough), the number of bedrooms, and accessibility. However, the Team Manager has discretion to make an “out of turn” offer in severe cases where the households’ needs are pressing and there is imminent risk of homelessness, injury or detriment.
62. The team manager also decides which household should be allocated properties with three or more bedrooms, or mobility category 1 to 3 properties. The following factors are considered:
• The time waiting for a move;
• The urgency of the case;
• The availability of alternative accommodation;
• The severity of the case;
• The household’s banding and current location.

This means that households who have been waiting the longest will sometimes be bypassed.

63. In early April the Council told us Mr X and his family were in 16th position in group 2 on the transfer list.

My analysis

64. We recognise that councils cannot always fulfil their “immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified” duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation due to the increasing number of homeless applicants and the short supply of properties. In these cases, we are likely to find that the failure to provide suitable accommodation is service failure provided the Council is taking reasonable steps to increase the supply and mitigate the impact on individual households. Service failure is still fault but it means the situation is due to circumstances beyond the Council’s control.
65. There was fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s case. First, the Council did not carry out a comprehensive assessment of Mr X’s housing and support needs and record these on the temporary accommodation placement form. The form did not give details of his medical conditions and it did not mention his mobility needs.
66. As the Council has acknowledged, the 16 week delay in accepting the relief duty was fault. This left Mr X and his family in a state of uncertainty and has prolonged their stay in bed and breakfast accommodation. It also delayed the review of the PHP and had the knock-on effect of delaying acceptance of the main housing duty.
67. When the PHP was reviewed at the relief duty stage, important information about Mr X’s medical and mobility needs was left out. Due to this fault, the Council did not take account of all the relevant information which affected Mr X and his family’s accommodation needs.
68. We understand the Council’s homelessness service is operating under severe pressure. But that does not remove the legal duty to ensure interim accommodation is suitable for the individual needs of each homeless household. The Council accepts no suitability assessment was done before it placed Mr X and his family in the hotel. This fault means it cannot show it had properly considered whether the hotel met their housing and support needs. On the balance of probabilities, if there had been a suitability assessment at this point, I consider it is likely to have decided that a B&B hotel was unsuitable, or only suitable in the very short-term.
69. Mr X complained to the Council about the unsuitability of the hotel accommodation in September 2023. That should have triggered a non-statutory review of the suitability of the accommodation. Instead the Council told him he could pursue a judicial review. The failure to act on Mr X’s concerns and carry out a non-statutory suitability review then was fault.
70. There was further fault. The letter informing Mr X of the decision to accept the main housing duty in November 2023 did not explain his right to request a statutory review of the suitability of the hotel accommodation. However the Council put Mr X on the transfer list on the same day because it accepted the hotel was unsuitable. So although the failure to explain his right to a statutory review was fault, this did not cause any injustice.
71. Mr X and his family are still waiting for a suitable offer of alternative accommodation almost six months after they were placed on the transfer list. The failure to comply with the immediate and non-deferrable duty to provide suitable accommodation is service failure. This continues to have a significant impact on Mr X and his family who have been living in B&B accommodation without cooking facilities for eleven months. There is still no end date in sight.
72. The Council did not make sufficient efforts to contact Mr X when he first requested assistance with storage of his belongings. That was fault. Mr X had to borrow money because he could not afford to keep paying storage charges from his benefits.
73. The Council overlooked Mr X’s request for reimbursement of parking charges when it replied to his complaint. That was fault. In view of Mr X’s limited mobility and inability to use public transport, he had to keep his car at the hotel. This was expensive and, due to the hotel’s location, there was no free on-street parking nearby so this expense was unavoidably incurred due to his placement in the hotel.

Back to top

Agreed action

74. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• In line with our Guidance on Remedies, pay Mr X £100 per week from 15 June 2023 until the Council makes an offer of suitable alternative accommodation or otherwise ends the main housing duty. The alternative accommodation must be suitable for his needs - it may be temporary or permanent (such as an offer of social housing or a private rented sector offer).
• Reimburse the storage charges Mr X has paid since he moved to the hotel in June 2023;
• Arrange to move Mr X’s belongings to a storage facility by an agreed date in mid-June 2024;
• Reimburse Mr X for the hotel parking charges he has unavoidably incurred since he moved to the hotel in June 2023;
• Pay £500 as a contribution to the extra costs of buying takeaway food due to the lack of cooking facilities in the hotel. I took into account that the Council has already given Mr X two vouchers with a total value of £400 to help with these costs. But in view of his extended stay in a hotel with no cooking facilities, a further payment is justified.
• Review and amend the template letter sent to applicants when it accepts the main housing duty to clearly explain their right to request a statutory review of the suitability of their accommodation.
75. Many of the faults identified in this investigation occurred before the Council agreed to make the service improvements summarised in paragraphs 24 and 25. So I do not need to repeat those recommendations about completing and recording suitability assessments before placing households in in interim accommodation.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault. This caused, and continues to cause, significant injustice to Mr X and his family.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman