Summary: Ms X complained about the suitability of the interim accommodation provided to her by the Council. The Council was not at fault for the accommodation provided. It was at fault for delays in advising Ms X it owed her the relief duty and in reaching a decision on her homelessness but this did not cause a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council provided her and her adult daughter with unsuitable, unsafe interim accommodation and has delayed dealing with her homelessness application. Ms X says this caused her distress and has left her and her daughter street homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).
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 considered the information provided by Ms X and have discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
8. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
9. I gave Ms X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

10. 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.
11. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make inquiries into what, if any, duty it owes.
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts a maximum of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. Homeless applicants can request a review of the decision about what duty if any they are owed. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
15. 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.
16. 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 Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
17. 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, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Housing benefit and service charges

18. The eligible rent is the maximum amount of rent that can be covered by housing benefit. Housing benefit does not cover service charges for heat and light, water and meals. If these charges are included in the rent, the council will deduct an amount from the total weekly charge when it calculates the eligible rent for housing benefit. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) sets fixed weekly amounts that can be deducted for service charges. The amounts are set out in a circular published annually by the DWP (In 2023/24 this was the circular A1/2023: Housing Benefit uprating for the financial year ending March 2024) The amounts include £21.10 for heating, hot water and lighting, £4.10 for cooking and £4.05 per person for breakfast.

What happened

19. In late May 2023 Ms X approached the Council as she was being evicted from her accommodation. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment in early June and advised Ms X she may not have a priority need. An officer completed a personalised housing plan in late June. Ms X refused a referral to a supported accommodation service as she wanted a room with her adult daughter who was working.
20. Between July and September, the Council sent Ms X details of several properties.
21. In October 2023 a solicitor asked the Council for a review of the decision she was not in priority need. The Council responded that it had not made a formal decision on the case. The Council established Ms X was rough sleeping and in late October 2023 the Council offered Ms X interim accommodation in a hotel. It says this was provided on a discretionary basis in line with the cold weather protocol (which operates when overnight temperatures are below a set level). The Council said it then continued this to prevent a return to rough sleeping.
22. Later that month Ms X reported her daughter was covered in bed bug bites. She requested alternative accommodation. Two days later Ms X contacted the Council again. She said people had entered her room without her consent. She said pest control had visited and sprayed but the bedding was not changed.
23. The Council contacted Ms X by phone in early November as she had not yet signed an agreement for the hotel room. It did not get a response, so it wrote to her. It said it had offered her interim accommodation at the hotel. It said it considered the offer suitable in terms of its space and arrangement, that it was in a reasonable physical condition and affordable. It said she must sign up within 24 hours or it would discharge its duty to provide interim accommodation as she had refused a reasonable offer. It advised it would continue to investigate her homelessness application.
24. In December 2023 Ms X asked for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. Her concerns included the heating and hot water were intermittent, there were bed bugs, there was mould on the bathroom ceiling as the extractor fan was ineffective, fire alarms were not working and the charges for gas and electricity were too high. She considered it was an unlicensed HMO (a house in multiple occupation which is defined as a building where three or more people live in two or more households).
25. The Council responded and advised it was emergency/interim not temporary accommodation so would not be reviewed by the review team. It had noted her concerns about the hot water and had passed these to the temporary accommodation team.
26. In December 2023 Ms X emailed the temporary accommodation team to advise pest control wanted access to spray the room. She understood rooms that were sprayed should not be occupied for 24 hours and sought advice. In late December Ms X complained the heating and hot water was turned off. The Council responded later that day. It said Ms X had not allowed the engineer in when he attended to check the heating and hot water. The engineer checked the neighbouring rooms and found the hot water was in good working condition. The hotel reported it had asked Ms X if she had any problems and she had reported all was good. The temporary accommodation team advised Ms X she must report any issues to the hotel and allow the hotel access to carry out repairs.
27. In early January the hotel updated the Council that it had treated and painted the bathroom mould. I have seen photos which evidence this. It considered the mould was due to the extractor fan being turned off. It found no issues with the running water or heating. The records show pest control visited again but Ms X refused to have the room sprayed. The records I have seen also show the fire alarms were working and were regularly tested.
28. The Council updated Ms X and told her to report repair issues in the first instance to reception. It said its procurement team was looking for suitable affordable move on accommodation for homeless cases but local authorities were struggling to obtain affordable accommodation. It suggested she look for her own accommodation. Ms X responded that it was not a maintenance issue and the Council had not as yet accepted a duty to her so she could not access rent in advance. The Council responded that it was satisfied the agent had done what was required. It told her to contact the Housing Advice team regarding her homelessness.
29. In early February 2024 the Council wrote two letters to Ms X. One stated the Council accepted it owed Ms X a duty to help resolve her homelessness (the relief duty). It stated the Council did not have reason to believe Ms X was in priority need so it would not provide interim accommodation. The second letter of the same date provided a decision on Ms X’s homelessness application. This concluded she was eligible for assistance and homeless but not in priority need. It set out her right of review.
30. Ms X’s representative wrote to the Council to request a review of the decision she was not in priority need.
31. In early March 2024 the Council wrote to Ms X setting out the updated weekly charges for the interim accommodation for 2024/25. This explained the charge consisted of an occupation charge of £155.77, which was covered by housing benefit, and utility charge which covered the cost of heating, lighting and hot water of £33.80. Ms X complained to the Council about the accommodation.
32. The following week the Council wrote to Ms X to advise it was ending her nightly accommodation as she owed around £900 on her account. The Council said Ms X had not paid all of the occupation charges for the property which she had agreed to do. The Council would therefore no longer pay the provider, so the provider was withdrawing its permission for her to live there. The letter gave Ms X 12 days’ notice, following which Ms X was street homeless.
33. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in April 2024. It said it considered the size of the accommodation at the hotel was adequate. The hotel had investigated her concerns about the water supply and found no issues. It also provided evidence that weekly testing of the fire alarms was carried out and no alarms were disabled. It accepted the room was small but said the number of beds was sufficient to meet the needs of Ms X and her daughter.
34. It responded to her complaint about the utility charges in May 2024. It explained her rent was £173.49 which included a £4.10 cooking charge, £21.10 fuel charge and £8.10 for two breakfasts. It explained these were deductions for services not covered by housing benefit and the prices were set by the DWP.
35. In May 2024 the Council offered Ms X interim accommodation based on fresh medical information she provided.

Findings

36. When Ms X first approached the Council as homeless it carried out an assessment and it did not consider she was in priority need, but it failed to write to her setting out that it owed her the relief duty. This was fault. However, it completed a personalised housing plan, which Ms X agreed to, and sought to support her in identifying a property in line with its relief duties.
37. When the Council wrote to Ms X in February 2024 accepting it owed her the relief duty, the letter explained the Council did not consider Ms X was in priority need and so it did not consider it had a duty to provide interim accommodation.
38. The Council then delayed in making a decision on whether it owed Ms X the main homelessness duty. If the Council had accepted a relief duty in late June, it should have made a decision on her homelessness by August 2023. It did not do so until February 2024. This delay was fault. However, on balance, I consider this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice. This was because from October 2023 the Council was providing Ms X with accommodation on a discretionary basis. Had it reached a decision on Ms X’s homelessness in August 2023, and decided she was not in priority need, it would no longer have had a duty to provide interim accommodation. Even if it decided to provide it pending the review decision, the review should then have been completed within two months and Ms X had access to the accommodation until April 2024.
39. I have not made service improvements to prevent recurrence of these faults because in January 2024 we issued a public report about this Council. This followed a complaint where we found delays in the Council accepting the relief duty and in deciding whether it owed the main homelessness duty (case ref: 22012789) The Council agreed to explain to us the steps it was taking to reduce the delays in making homelessness decisions. These steps have included recruiting additional staff, regular case management meetings, performance monitoring and staff training. I am therefore satisfied the actions the Council has already taken should help prevent recurrence of the faults identified in this case.
40. Ms X raised concerns about the condition of the hotel and there were maintenance issues with the property. The Council appropriately advised Ms X to report her concerns to the hotel in the first instance. The records show the hotel sought to address her concerns about the heating and hot water and that the fire alarm was regularly tested. It also treated the bathroom mould and repainted the ceiling and pest control visited to address the bed bugs. Ms X considers the property is an unlicensed HMO. The property is advertised as a hotel and used by the Council on that basis. It was satisfied the hotel was suitable for Ms X and her daughter. There was no evidence of fault in the way it reached that decision or in the way the Council responded to the concerns she raised.
41. Ms X did not pay the full occupation charges for the property to the Council. Ms X considered the utility charges were too high. The Council charged Ms X its standard rate for a bed and breakfast property, at a rate agreed by its Cabinet. Ms X received housing benefit, but this did not cover the full cost of the rent. This is because gas, electric, cooking facilities and breakfast were included at the property and housing benefit cannot be used to pay for these. As it could not easily calculate the actual amounts, the Council used the amounts it was allowed to set for service charges as decided by the DWP. The Council was not at fault.
42. Ms X considers she was evicted by the hotel due to the complaints she raised about the accommodation. I have seen no evidence to support this assertion. Ms X was evicted because she did not pay the full occupation charges. So the Council ended its agreement with the hotel. Without payment from the Council the hotel was no longer prepared to let Ms X stay there.
43. In February 2024 the Council decided Ms X was eligible, homeless but not in priority need. This is not something I will investigate. This is because Ms X has a statutory right to a review of that decision and she has used that right. If Ms X remains unhappy with the review decision it is open to her to challenge it at court on a point of law.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault but this did not cause a significant injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman