Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide suitable accommodation for her and her children when they were homeless. We found the Council at fault as they were placed in hotel accommodation for considerably longer than the law permits. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council has dealt with her homelessness. She says the Council delayed with its decisions, with she and her children remaining in unsuitable hotel accommodation for a considerable and unreasonable amount of time. This has caused the family significant frustration, inconvenience and distress, along with financial implications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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. 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. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered her views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

The relief and main housing duties

7. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
8. At the end of the relief stage, the council must decide if it owes the person the main housing duty. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to ensure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

9. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation (including interim accommodation) provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2, 17.4 and 17.9)
10. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. For households which include a dependent child, it should only be used as a last resort and for only a maximum of six weeks. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)
11. B&B is defined as accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing, in which cooking facilities are not provided, or other amenities are shared by more than one household. This means hotels are included in the legal definition of B&Bs. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.36)

What happened

12. In early August 2023, Ms X approached the Council for assistance as she became homeless. The Council accepted the relief duty and placed Ms X and her several children (one of them has special needs) in interim hotel accommodation.
13. The Council told Ms X it would look for alternative accommodation. Ms X advised she needed to stay close to the borough a parent lived in due to caring responsibilities.
14. A week later, the Council made a referral to a homeless support organisation.
15. The Council extended Ms X’s hotel accommodation stay several times.
16. In early January 2024, Ms X formally complained to the Council. She said she had been in hotel accommodation since August 2023 with no access to cooking facilities. The Council had not made a main duty decision on her homelessness. She wanted suitable interim accommodation and reimbursements for the amount of money she had spent on food and takeaways for her children.
17. In early February 2024, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at Stage One. It said:
• it had carried out its duty to provide her family with interim accommodation. Due to a lack of larger properties available, it had no option but to place them in a hotel. It recognised it was not appropriate for long term occupation. It explained the difficulty of the high volume of demand and pressures on its housing services.
• It acknowledged the lack of cooking facilities affected the cost of feeding her children. It requested bank statements to show food costs and it would consider her request but said it would be unlikely to reimburse her.
• It noted the 56 day relief duty period had ended and it would make a decision about the main housing duty soon.
• It upheld her complaint as she had been in the hotel longer than expected.
18. In mid-March 2024, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at Stage Two after she escalated it. Its position remained the same. Ms X then complained to us.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

19. In response to my enquiries, the Council shared its case notes. This showed:
• It completed a suitability form in August 2023 which outlined Ms X’s housing needs. This noted she had a child with special needs and some caring responsibilities.
• It had booked Ms X and her children a family room (generally for two adults and two children) in the hotel. It did not clarify the size or make up of the room.
• In January and February 2024, it had found two potential properties large enough for Ms X’s family. There was some mention about location concerns and transport links.
20. I asked the Council to clarify its position that it was unlikely to reimburse Ms X’s spend on takeaway foods with the lack of cooking facilities. It said meals were only considered if a family was facing financial hardship with no disposable income. It did not consider this applied to Ms X as it assessed she had available disposable income and she was not paying for utilities at the hotel.
21. Since Ms X’s complaint to us and during my investigation, the Council said at the end of July 2024, Ms X accepted a direct offer for a property from the Council. She is no longer in hotel accommodation. The Council said it ended the relief duty to her as she had a suitable offer of a private rented accommodation.

Analysis

Relief duty

22. The Council accepted the relief duty in August 2023. After 56 days, it should have made a decision on whether it would accept the main duty to her, by the start of October 2023. It did not do this. This is fault. In the absence of a decision, on balance, I consider it should have accepted the main duty at this point as she continued to meet the criteria (referenced in Paragraph 8). This caused injustice with frustration and denied Ms X her statutory right to ask the Council to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation she was in.

Hotel accommodation

23. The law says families can only stay in B&B (and hotel) accommodation for six weeks. The Council had a duty to secure alternative suitable accommodation after this. Ms X and her children’s stay in hotel accommodation lasted from early August 2023 to the end of July 2024. This is around 51 weeks in total, and 45 weeks beyond the maximum time permitted.
24. The Council’s case records show in early 2024, it found two potential properties, with some notes about suitability concerns. It is not clear what happened with these, but the Council said it did not make any formal offers outside of these considerations. On balance, it likely decided these were unsuitable and therefore needed to continue its search.
25. I appreciate the extreme difficulties and significant pressures on housing nationally with shortages compared to high demand (especially in London). The delay with finding suitable alternative accommodation is largely due to external factors outside of the Council’s control. However, it was under a legal duty to find something suitable. It did not meet this, and Ms X and her children were left in accommodation the Council accepted was not appropriate long term. This is fault in the form of service failure.
26. I have not seen evidence the Council properly assessed the needs of Ms X’s household members when placing them in the hotel or afterwards. It was aware Ms X had several children, one of whom is vulnerable with special needs. Apart from making a referral to a homeless support organisation, I cannot see a record of the Council specifically considering her children’s welfare and needs or offering any real support or assistance for them. There is no evidence the Council kept this under review. This is fault.

Injustice

27. The faults identified have caused Ms X and her children significant injustice for an excessive period of time. I am not clear on the makeup, size or layout of the family room they stayed in. However, I consider one room was likely to be extremely overcrowded for a large family to share with little or no space to comfortably sleep, study or relax in. It would have been particularly difficult for Ms X’s child with special needs.
28. Our Guidance on Remedies (“GOR”) says we may recommend a remedy between £100 and £200 per week for each week over the six-week limit spent in unsuitable B&B accommodation. In light of the above, I have decided it is proportionate to recommend a payment at the highest end of the range to recognise the considerable impact on Ms X and her children with the distress and inconvenience.
29. Our GOR also recognises a complainant might have incurred extra costs as a direct result of fault dealing with arranging suitable accommodation. It gives a list of examples which includes the reasonable additional cost of buying takeaway food when there are no cooking facilities.
30. I note the Council’s view at Paragraph 20 about reimbursement of such costs. I acknowledge there is an element about general expenditure on utilities which are included with the hotel. However, I consider it appropriate that the Council should pay some contribution towards Ms X’s extra takeaway costs. This is in view of the extended length of Ms X’s stay in unsuitable hotel accommodation (fault by the Council) which led to the need for this spend on takeaways (which is expensive and not healthy for a sustained period) and the number of children she had to feed.
31. We have recently made service improvement recommendations in another recent decision that the Council provide the relevant scrutiny committee with an update on delivery of its strategy: ‘Homelessness in Enfield (6) Homeless Housing Schemes; A Delivery Strategy’. This is the Council’s 5-year plan to address the increasing issue of residents being placed in unsuitable accommodation. We are continuing to monitor the actions the Council takes to ensure compliance with those and similar recommendations. For this reason, I do not consider it necessary to repeat a service improvement recommendation about unsuitable accommodation here.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the personal injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
33. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise in writing to Ms X (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused due to the faults identified;
• Pay Ms X a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise her distress and frustration throughout the period considered;
• Pay Ms X £9,000 to recognise the injustice for the significant time the family spent in unsuitable interim accommodation beyond six weeks (45 weeks at £200 per week); and
• Contact Ms X and seek further information from her in order to consider her costs towards takeaways. It should then review the evidence, decide how much to contribute towards the costs and pay this to Ms X. The Council should write to Ms X providing a detailed explanation of how it came to its calculations and what it considered.
34. Within three months of the final decision:
• The Council should send written reminders to relevant Housing staff to cover the following:
1. If 56 days have passed since it accepted the relief duty to an applicant, and no suitable accommodation offer has been made, it should accept the main housing duty to meet statutory timescales; and
2. That case officers should carry out and record thorough assessments of any support needs household members may have when considering the suitability of interim accommodation it places families in.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman