Summary: On the evidence we have seen, we find the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation when Mr C and his family were homeless. It housed them in bed and breakfast accommodation for over 32 weeks. The maximum time limit bed and breakfast accommodation can be used for homeless applicants with dependent children is six weeks. Mr C said the accommodation caused increased living expenses and distress. The Council has agreed to make a payment to remedy his family’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains the Council housed his family in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation when they were homeless in November 2023. It did not provide suitable accommodation until June 2024, over 26 weeks longer than the six-week maximum.
2. Mr C says the bed and breakfast accommodation caused increased living expenses and significant distress because:

• The room was small and cold and had negative health and developmental effects on their baby.
• There was a risk to their baby from sharing a bed as no cot was provided.
• They had to rely on expensive and unhealthy takeaway food because the shared kitchen was regularly unavailable.

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. 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

5. I spoke to Mr C about his complaint and considered the information he sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
6. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments made before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. 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.
8. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

11. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
12. 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. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)

What did happen

13. In October 2023 Mr C applied online to the Council for housing support for his family as they were being evicted from their previous accommodation. The Council contacted him several times by telephone about his situation and application. He completed the application in November 2023.
14. On 9 November 2023 the Council wrote to Mr C and told him it owed him the ‘homelessness relief duty’. This duty required it to take reasonable steps to help Mr C and his family find somewhere suitable to live.
15. On 10 November 2023, the following day, the Council wrote to Mr C and offered him and his family temporary B&B accommodation. It told Mr C it considered it was suitable interim accommodation. Mr C was responsible for the cost of the accommodation which was £164.61 per week. If Mr C refused the accommodation, he would need to arrange his own accommodation until the outcome of his homeless application.
16. On 14 November 2023 Mr C first raised concerns about the accommodation with the Council. He sent an email that said there was no space once the family’s belongings had been moved in. He and his partner had to sleep in the same bed with their baby, who was less than one years old. He asked for somewhere else that was more suitable for his family.
17. Mr C went on to raise concerns with the Council several times about the suitability of the accommodation. He said it was making their baby ill. He provided medical evidence that their baby had a fever and respiratory infection in March 2024. He also provided their health visitor’s concern the lack of space may hinder the baby’s development in May 2024.
18. 22 December 2023 was 6 weeks from the date Mr C and his family had first moved into the B&B. This was the legal time limit defined in the Homelessness Code of Guidance for the Council to house Mr C and his family in B&B accommodation
19. On 16 January 2024 a housing charity, on behalf of Mr C, wrote to the Council and lodged a formal complaint. It detailed concerns about:

• restricted access to kitchen facilities causing a reliance on expensive and unhealthy takeaway food;
• the cramped accommodation and lack of cot;
• a lack of heating;
• their stay now lasting over nine weeks, which was over the six-week time limit.

20. On 21 February 2024 a housing charity, on behalf of Mr C, wrote to the Council and lodged a second formal complaint. It detailed concerns about:

• the lack of response to the first formal complaint despite the complaints policy promising a response within 15 working days;
• the ongoing negative issues raised in the first complaint in January;
• cockroaches in the accommodation;
• their stay now lasting over 14 weeks.

21. On 26 February 2024 the Council responded to the complaints. It apologised for the delay in responding. It also apologised for the duration of Mr C’s stay in the B&B accommodation. It explained it had no availability of a suitable property for Mr C and his family. It said it arranged B&B accommodation as a last resort and ensured the family did not become roofless. It apologised that the stay in B&B accommodation had exceeded six weeks by nine weeks at the time of writing.
22. The Council offered a remedy of £100 per week for every week over the six week time limit. This was £900 at the time of the offer,. Mr C initially accepted the Council’s offer of remedy. The matter was not finalised because the Council would calculate and pay the total when it found suitable accommodation for Mr C.
23. On 7 March 2024 the Council wrote to Mr C and told him it had made the decision it owed him the main housing duty to secure accommodation. This meant it was satisfied Mr C was homeless, eligible for assistance, and had a priority need.
24. On 22 March 2024 Mr C complained to the Ombudsman. He told us he had accepted the remedy offered by the Council, but that it had not been finalised because he was still awaiting suitable accommodation. The Council paused the remedy offer to await this Ombudsman decision.
25. On 7 May 2024 the Council wrote to Mr C because it had found him different accommodation which was suitable for his family. Mr C accepted the accommodation.
26. On 24 June 2024 Mr C and his family moved in to the new accommodation. They had been housed in the B&B for 32 weeks. This was 26 weeks longer than the maximum six-week limit.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

27. I asked the Council to comment on any efforts made to find Mr C’s family suitable accommodation. It replied:

• It was mindful of medical information about Mr C’s child and, as the situation was becoming prolonged, it used its discretion to offer the direct match of accommodation on 7 May 2024.
• In reply to my enquiry regarding how the Council is trying to reduce the use of B&B and increase the supply of other types of temporary accommodation it supplied a document which outlined its current efforts to maximise the social housing stock, engage with the private sector and address the challenges of providing temporary accommodation.

28. It proposed an increase to the remedy as follows:

• Increase the remedy for the B&B excess stay from £100 per week to £135 per week, for each of the 26 weeks over the six-week limit. This equals £3,510.
• A payment of £25 per week for the extra costs of takeaways, for each of the 26 weeks over the six-week limit. This equals £650.
• An additional single payment of £250 for distress and inconvenience.

29. The Council said Mr C has housing debt. It proposed offsetting the first two elements of the remedy against the debt which would write off the arrears.

Analysis

30. I find the Council was at fault for placing Mr C and his family in B&B accommodation. Doing so was contrary to the Homelessness Code of Guidance that says B&B accommodation can only be used for households which include dependent child when no other accommodation is available, and then for no more than six weeks.
31. I accept the Council’s explanation that it had no availability of a suitable property when Mr C contacted it and arranged B&B accommodation as a last resort. I therefore find the fault was the result of service failure. This has caused injustice to Mr C and his family. The injustice was the distress of living in a B&B for a prolonged period with their baby, which caused difficulty and concern about the impact on the child. I note the Council has already apologised to Mr C.
32. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a moderate, symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused.
33. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says to remedy the injustice experienced by households who stay in long-term unsuitable B&B accommodation we are likely to recommend a payment in the range of £100 to £200 for each week beyond six weeks.
34. I have considered the remedy suggested by the Council in its letter to me on 24 July 2024. I find the offer is in line with our guidance and an appropriate amount because Mr C’s injustice was aggravated by the lack of space in the accommodation and the duration of the stay. This warrants the increase above £100 per week, the lowest end of the range, to £135 per week.
35. I have considered the payment suggested by the Council of £25 per week as a reimbursement of the reasonable additional cost of buying takeaway food. Our guidance states we may recommend a council reimburses quantifiable loss as a direct result of fault. This includes the reasonable additional cost of buying takeaway food when there are no cooking facilities, or inadequate cooking facilities. In this case there was a kitchen with cooking facilities, albeit shared between three families. There is no evidence I have seen that persuades me the circumstances prevented Mr C or his partner using the cooking facilities at all times and required complete reliance on takeaway food. I have also taken into consideration Mr C would have incurred costs for food regardless of the Council’s fault. I find the offer of £25 per week a reasonable estimation of additional costs the shared kitchen caused and therefore in line with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Mr C £4,410 in total. This is made up of:

• £3,510 and £650 to remedy the injustice of placing him and his family in B&B accommodation for 26 weeks; to be offset against his housing debt.
• £250 to recognise the distress he experienced.

37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman