Summary: Miss B complained about the Council’s failure to provide her family with suitable accommodation when they were homeless. We find that the Council provided unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for far longer than the legal limit and failed to properly explore alternative housing options. It also delayed carrying out a suitability review after it placed the family in alternative accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B, as well as making service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X, a professional support worker, is complaining on behalf of Miss B. She says that the Council has failed to provide Miss B and her children with suitable accommodation since they became homeless in August 2022. Miss X considers suitable accommodation became available when the family was living in bed and breakfast accommodation, but the Council failed to consider it for Miss B’s family. Miss X also complains that the Council has failed to carry out a review of the suitability of Miss B’s current accommodation.
2. Miss X says that Miss B and her family were living in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for over 17 months which affected their physical and mental health. She considers Miss B has been denied housing in London, which has caused her distress and has disrupted her children’s education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated the complaint set out in paragraph one of this statement. Since Miss X complained to us, the Council has carried out a review of the suitability of her current accommodation. I have not investigated the Council’s decision because this was not part of the complaint made to us. In any event, we will not usually investigate such complaints for the reasons set out in paragraph four.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• discussed the issues with Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and government guidance

9. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless, it will owe them the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17)
11. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. Bed and breakfast (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. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)
13. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)
14. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing. Applicants can appeal to the county court if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
15. Councils may be able to assist other councils by providing temporary or settled accommodation for homeless applicants. Where one council asks another council for assistance, it must co-operate as far as is reasonable in the circumstances. This provision can be used, for example, where an applicant has special housing needs which another council or housing association is able to meet, or in cases where an applicant is experiencing violence and applies to their own local authority where they have a local connection but needs to move away. (Housing Act 1996, section 213)
16. The Benefit Cap is a limit on the total amount of certain benefits that households in the UK can receive. It was introduced as part of welfare reforms to encourage people to work and reduce dependency on state benefits. (Welfare Reform Act 2012, section 96).

Background and key events

17. The Council placed Miss B and her three children in bed and breakfast (B & B) accommodation when they were homeless in August 2022. At the time, the children’s ages ranged from 11 to 18 years old. The accommodation was in a neighbouring council area because Miss B said that it was not safe for her to live in the Council’s area.
18. The Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss B later that month.
19. In May 2023, Miss X asked the Council to move the family to alternative accommodation. The Council told Miss X that it was doing all it could to find alternative accommodation for the family, but Miss B’s benefit cap status was a barrier to finding affordable accommodation in the areas she wanted to live. The Council did not consider placing Miss B in accommodation in its own area due to her safety concerns.
20. Miss X wrote to the Council raising further concerns about the family’s prolonged stay in B & B accommodation. She referenced the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation (England) (Order) 2003 which limits the time families can stay in B & B to six weeks. Miss X asked the Council if it had explored private rented sector options through Organisation A. Organisation A is a not-for-profit landlord and service provider, which helps landlords and councils find secure, affordable homes for Londoners.
21. In the Council’s response, it said that while it works closely with Organisation A, it would have nothing affordable in the areas Miss B wanted to live unless she became exempt from the benefit cap.
22. Miss X then asked for details of private sector properties (where the tenancy is between the tenant and landlord) that had become available but were deemed unaffordable due to the benefit cap. The Council provided details of one property allocated via Organisation A and it explained why it was unaffordable.
23. Miss X also asked for details of private sector leased accommodation (where a property owner directly leases accommodation to Organisation A or the Council for an agreed period). The Council listed six private sector leased properties in the areas Miss B wanted to live, but said they were all unaffordable due to Miss B’s benefit cap status.
24. In July, Miss X filed a formal complaint, questioning why three of the six properties had not been considered affordable for Miss B.
25. In the Council’s response, it explained that it had a duty to secure suitable accommodation for Miss B and it would not offer her any properties which it considered to be unaffordable. The Council said that it had considered each of the properties for Miss B but they were not affordable.
26. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Miss X escalated her complaint. She included her calculations to show why Miss B would have been able to afford three of the properties. She said that Organisation A’s private accommodation schemes were the only option for the family.
27. In August, the Council told Miss X that it had identified a property outside of its area for Miss B and her family. It was around 30 miles from the area Miss B was living in and was not in one of the areas where Miss B wanted to live. Miss X told the Council that the location of the property was unsuitable because it was too far from the school and colleges Miss B’s children attended.
28. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in October. It said that the three properties Miss X had highlighted were unsuitable for reasons unrelated to affordability. It said one of the properties was unsuitable for Miss B’s mobility needs, and the other two properties were too small. One had one bedroom and the other had two bedrooms. Miss B had been assessed as needing a three-bedroom property. It acknowledged that Miss X had asked the Council to look for two-bedroom properties as well as three-bedroom properties in May 2023, but said that the two-bedroom property had already been tenanted by then.
29. The Council explained that it could have moved Miss B to alternative self-contained accommodation, but not to one of her preferred areas. It said that officers had sought to be responsive to Miss B’s concerns and preferences, but accepted that it was at fault for allowing Miss B to remain in B & B accommodation for more than six weeks. It apologised and paid Miss B £5500 to remedy her family’s injustice.
30. In November, Miss B’s solicitors issued a pre-action protocol letter indicating their intention to commence judicial review proceedings against the Council for its failure to provide the family with suitable accommodation.
31. In the Council’s response, it said that it had sourced alternative affordable accommodation. It provided the details of two properties, neither of which were in the areas Miss B wanted to live. The Council explained that the options were severely limited due to Miss B’s benefit cap status and the safety concerns regarding its own area.
32. The Council then formally offered one of the properties to Miss B. It was a three-bedroom house which was between 25 and 30 miles from the school and colleges her children attended.
33. Miss B’s solicitors wrote to the Council again, arguing that affordable accommodation in her preferred areas had become available but had not been offered to Miss B. They referenced nine properties which they believed the Council had procured and let to other boroughs.
34. In the Council’s response, it strenuously denied procuring properties for other boroughs. It said that one of the nine properties had been offered to them by Organisation A, but it was unaffordable because it was not part of an in-house scheme, which would allow housing benefit to be passported.
35. The Council referred to the three properties which Miss X had previously complained about and considered to be affordable. It explained that two of them were not part of an in-house scheme and were not affordable, and all three were too small for Miss B’s family.
36. The Council maintained that the house it had offered to Miss B was suitable. It advised Miss B that if she disagreed, she should accept the offer and request a review of its suitability.
37. In January 2024, Miss B viewed the house and she moved in during February. She did not consider it to be suitable and her solicitors requested a review on her behalf.
38. The Council completed the review in October and concluded that the accommodation was suitable for Miss B’s household’s needs.
39. Miss X maintains that affordable accommodation became available in Miss B’s areas of choice, but the Council failed to consider it for Miss B. She considers that if there had been no fault by the Council, Miss B would be living in social housing in her area of choice.

Analysis

B & B accommodation

40. The law says B & B accommodation can only be used for families with dependent children for a maximum of six weeks. Miss B and her children remained in B & B accommodation for 75 weeks - almost 18 months. This was fault.
41. The family were provided with two rooms on different floors and they had to share kitchen and bathroom facilities with six other households. The evidence shows that Miss B regularly experienced problems with the accommodation provider not keeping the gas topped up, which caused the family distress and inconvenience.
42. The rooms were also wrongly cancelled on two occasions. While the issue was resolved and the family did not have to move out, it caused further unnecessary distress.
43. The Council has apologised for the negative experiences the family endured while in B & B and has accepted that they were living there for too long. I have considered whether the payment the Council made to Miss B is appropriate.
44. Our remedies guidance says that where a family has had to stay in B & B in excess of the six-week legal limit, we are likely to recommend a weekly payment in the range of £100 to £200.
45. The family were in B & B accommodation for 69 weeks more than the legal limit. If there had been no fault by the Council, it would have placed the family in self-contained accommodation within six weeks, but it is unlikely that it would have been in Miss B’s area of choice. The Council has already made a payment of £5500 to Miss B. I consider the Council should make an additional payment of £1400, to bring the total to £6900. This equates to £100 for each week beyond the six-week legal limit. It takes into account the poor housing conditions reported by Miss B, along with her request to remain there rather than move to self-contained accommodation outside of her preferred area.

Consideration of accommodation in preferred area

46. Miss X has provided a list of properties which she considers the Council owns and are in the area Miss B wants to live. The Council has confirmed that the properties listed are not in Miss B’s preferred area; they are within the Council’s area, where Miss B considers it is unsafe for her to live.
47. Miss X has also provided details of properties which she considers the Council procured and offered to other boroughs. I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case.
48. When Miss B told the Council that it was not safe for her to live within its borough, the Council appropriately made a section 213 referral to a neighbouring council. That council declined the referral and so Miss B was advised to approach them directly. I consider the Council gave Miss B appropriate advice here.
49. However, I consider the Council failed to adequately explore alternative housing options when the family was living in the B & B. It failed to initially consider properties with two bedrooms, or properties which were part of an in-house scheme, which would have been affordable for Miss B. This was fault.
50. The Council’s records show that while Miss B was living in the B & B, some properties became available which would have met the required size, location and affordability criteria. The Council argues that the properties were too small, or unaffordable. But it could have placed the family in a two-bedroom property, and the properties were part of an in-house scheme, and so Miss B’s housing benefit would have covered the rent. Miss B has been left with uncertainty as to whether she could have been placed in suitable social housing near to her children’s school and colleges if the Council had considered her for these properties, as it should have done.

Suitability review

51. Councils are required to carry out suitability reviews within eight weeks of a request, unless a longer timeframe is agreed. An extension was not agreed in this case. Miss B’s solicitors requested the review on 10 January 2024, and it was completed on 29 October 2024. This delay was fault and caused Miss B additional frustration and distress.
52. The Council is satisfied that Miss B’s family has been living in suitable accommodation since February 2024. I have not investigated this decision for the reasons explained in paragraph seven.

Back to top

Action

53. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of my final decision:
• Make a further apology to Miss B to include the additional failings identified in this decision statement. The Council will consider our remedies guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £1400 to Miss B. This is to recognise that Miss B’s family was deprived of suitable accommodation for 69 weeks, while living in B & B. The Council has already made a payment of £5500. This additional payment brings the total to £6900 and equates to £100 for each week the family were living in B & B over the six-week legal limit.
• Make a payment of £350 to Miss B. This is a symbolic payment to recognise the additional distress Miss B has experienced and the uncertainty she has been left with as to whether she would have been placed in suitable social housing in her preferred area if there had been no fault by the Council.
54. The Council has agreed to take the following action within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Remind staff that families should not be left in B & B accommodation for more than six weeks.
• Review the potential options for sourcing accommodation for homelessness applicants who are unable to live within its area, and/or are affected by the benefit cap, and provide officers with clear guidelines on the process to follow.
• Identify the reason for the delay in carrying out the suitability review and implement improvements to prevent such delays in future.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman