Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s homelessness. The Council has agreed a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X by its delay offering alternative temporary accommodation. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the statutory review procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions about the suitability of the alternative property and ending the homelessness duty.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about: the Council’s handling of her homelessness, including events when the Council had said it would offer alternative temporary accommodation but had not yet done so; and the Council ending its homelessness duty when Miss X refused the alternative accommodation. Miss X says this has caused uncertainty and fear of more domestic abuse if the Council will not help her further with housing.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X and her child were homeless. The Council provided temporary accommodation. Miss X reported receiving racist abuse and threats at the temporary accommodation. The Council agreed it would be unsuitable for Miss X to remain there and said it would offer alternative accommodation.

Delay offering alternative temporary accommodation

7. This part of the complaint concerns events between the Council accepting Miss X needed to move and it offering alternative temporary accommodation.
8. If we investigated this, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because:
1. The Council accepted the accommodation was no longer suitable once the police provided information. I understand that was on 12 October 2023. The Council formally offered alternative temporary accommodation almost six weeks later, on 22 November 2023. However, the Council’s legal duty was to provide suitable accommodation immediately, not just to try to do so or to wait until something suitable became available from the Council’s usual supply. (Housing Act 1996, s206) We therefore regard councils leaving people in admittedly unsuitable temporary accommodation as fault. Therefore, the information we have suggests the Council was at fault for not offering alternative accommodation immediately on 12 October 2023.
2. The Council says it offered Miss X hotel accommodation, which Miss X declined, preferring to stay where she was until the Council found non-hotel accommodation. The Council evidently accepted Miss X’s position here, rather than offering hotel accommodation formally and using its right to end the homelessness duty if Miss X refused it. So the Council remained under its obligation immediately to offer suitable accommodation to meet its temporary accommodation duty. Therefore any offer of hotel accommodation does not significantly mitigate the Council’s fault and the consequences of such fault here.
3. The Council’s letter of 2 November also said the Council could liaise with the police and the property’s managing agent to enhance security in and around the property until it identified suitable alternative accommodation. Yet there is no evidence the Council acted on that offer in the relevant period (before the Council offered alternative temporary accommodation). That was also fault.

The Council says that after Miss X’s complaint about this (that is, after the Council offered alternative accommodation), an officer contacted Miss X to discuss security measures and Miss X said she was not interested. I have seen no evidence of this. Miss X’s account differs. However, even if the Council is correct here, it does not excuse the Council’s failure to act promptly on its offer while it was seeking alternative temporary accommodation (that is, between 12 October and 22 November 2023).

4. The Council’s faults here caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty from remaining feeling at risk for almost an extra six weeks in accommodation where she and her child had been threatened and subjected to racial abuse.
4. We therefore asked to the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by:
1. Apologising to Miss X;
2. Paying Miss X £375 as a symbolic payment to recognize injustice; and
3. Reviewing what happened here to:
1. identify ways of reducing delay in offering alternative temporary accommodation and
2. ensure the Council acts promptly when it offers to enhance security measures.

Council ending its homelessness duty

10. Miss X declined the alternative temporary accommodation the Council offered as she considered it unsuited to her and her child’s needs. The Council then ended its duty to help Miss X. Miss X argues the Council was wrong to end its duty.
11. A homelessness applicant who disagrees with such a decision can ask the council to review the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
12. The law expressly provides this process to challenge such decisions, so we normally expect people to use it. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision. I understand the Council intends to complete the review shortly. If the review reverses the decision, the Council will again have a homelessness duty. If the review upholds the decision to end the duty, the applicant can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
13. As Miss X is using the route the law provides for such matters, it is reasonable for the review to take its course. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to seek to decide whether the alternative accommodation was suitable and whether the Council should have ended its duty.

Back to top

Agreed action

14. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint about the delay providing alternative accommodation by taking the actions in paragraph 9 above. The Council will complete points a) and b) within one month of today. It will complete point c) within two months of today.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint about the delay by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X and improving its service for others. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to use the statutory review procedure to challenge the Council’s decisions about the suitability of the alternative property and about ending the duty.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman