Summary: The Council failed to arrange interim accommodation for Mr B and his son, K, when they were homeless and it did not provide sufficient support to safeguard and promote K’s welfare. As a result, Mr B and K were sofa surfing for around four months. While the Council does not agree with our findings, it has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr B and K. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to take appropriate action when he was homeless. In particular, he says the Council told him to leave the accommodation it had provided and find and pay for accommodation himself, which he could not afford to do. Mr B says he had to sofa surf with his 15-year-old son for several months which caused significant distress and affected his mental health.

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. 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 have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• 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

6. 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.
7. A person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation which he has a legal right to occupy. (Housing Act 1996, section 175)
8. 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)
9. An applicant with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside will have a priority need for accommodation. There must be actual residence (or a reasonable expectation of residence) with some degree of permanence or regularity, rather than a temporary arrangement whereby the children are merely staying with the applicant for a limited period. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 8.3 and 8.6)
10. 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. In determining whether accommodation is suitable, councils must take into account whether the accommodation is affordable (Housing Act 1996, section 206, Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Background and key events

11. Mr B’s son, K, was living with K’s mother until November 2023. K then moved to Dudley to live with Mr B. He was 15 years old at the time.
12. When K first moved to Dudley, he stayed with Mr B, Mr B’s girlfriend and their two children.
13. On 8 November, Mr B made a homelessness application to the Council. He said that his girlfriend would only allow him and K to continue staying at her house for two more days.
14. The Council made some enquiries and decided that K was only staying with Mr B temporarily and would then be returning to his mother’s home. It told Mr B that it would be treating him as a single applicant.
15. Mr B and K remained living with Mr B’s girlfriend until 24 November. Mr B then contacted the Council on 29 November. He said that they were sofa surfing with a friend and K was due to start at a school in Dudley the next day.
16. On 5 December, a support worker from Children’s Services emailed the homelessness team with concerns that the Council was not dealing with Mr B and K’s homelessness. The worker explained that K was unable to return to his mother’s home. She said that they had no safeguarding concerns with the care Mr B was providing, but the immediate housing situation needed to be addressed. She said that Mr B and K needed to leave Mr B’s friend’s home the following day.
17. The next day, Mr B told the Council that he had started a new job and he provided details of the amount he expected to earn. An officer told Mr B that he would need to contribute to the cost of any accommodation provided, which he agreed to do. The Council arranged for Mr B and K to stay at a hotel.
18. Later that day, an officer told Mr B that he would need to contribute approximately £125 per week.
19. On Thursday 14 December, an officer told Mr B that he could remain at the hotel for the weekend, but he would need to pay for it himself. Alternatively, he could find a cheaper hotel and pay to stay there for the weekend. Mr B was told he could return to the Council on Monday.
20. Mr B received his wages for four days work on Friday 15 December. He provided evidence of the amount he had been paid and he completed a housing benefit claim. Mr B was told that he would not be entitled to full housing benefit and needed to provide further information so that the Council could make a more accurate calculation.
21. On Monday 18 December, Mr B told the Council that he had stayed at the hotel on the Friday and Saturday night but he could not afford to stay there on the Sunday night. Mr B asked if they were going to be booked into a hotel again that night. Mr B was told that he first needed to provide evidence to show where he had stayed on the Sunday, as well as proof that he had booked and stayed at the hotel on the Friday and Saturday nights. Mr B told the Council that he was struggling to obtain the evidence.
22. The next day, the Council wrote to Mr B to tell him that its duty to provide him with interim accommodation had ended because he had refused an offer of suitable temporary accommodation.
23. There was no further contact between Mr B and the Council until 16 January 2024. Mr B said he had not been in contact because he had been struggling with his mental health. He said that he had given up his job because he could not afford to pay for the weekend in the hotel plus £125 each week.
24. The Council told Mr B that because he had abandoned the hotel and had not been in contact, it did not have a duty to provide further interim accommodation. It said that Mr B would need to make his own arrangements.
25. Mr B contacted the Council several times over the next few months explaining that he was sofa surfing with K and asking for accommodation to be provided. The Council did not provide further interim accommodation.
26. Mr B and K continued to sofa surf until April 2024 when another Council provided them with interim accommodation.
27. Analysis
28. The Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation for homelessness applicants who have dependent children. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says the child must reside with the applicant with some degree of permanence, rather than it being a temporary arrangement. The Council spoke to relevant parties, including K’s mother, and decided that K was staying with Mr B on a temporary basis. It decided that K should not be included on the application and that Mr B did not appear to have a priority need, and so interim accommodation would not be provided. The Council can decide to remove a person from a homelessness application if they are not considered part of the applicant's household. I have found no evidence of fault here.
29. The Council accepted that K was no longer living with Mr B on a temporary basis after it received further information from Children’s Services in December 2023. As Mr B had a dependent child living with him, he had a priority need and the Council had a duty to provide him with interim accommodation, which it did.
30. Councils can charge for interim accommodation, but they must ensure the cost is affordable for the applicant. In this case, the Council did not have enough information to decide exactly how much Mr B should contribute, but it estimated that it would be approximately £125 per week. Before making an accurate calculation, the Council told Mr B that he would have to pay for three nights at a hotel himself. The Council says that it was aware that there was availability at the hotel and it considered it to be affordable for Mr B. However, I have seen no evidence to show that the Council checked that a suitable room was available, or what the actual cost would be. It is likely that the cost for the three nights would have exceeded the amount the Council had estimated Mr B could afford. I consider the Council failed to ensure suitable accommodation was available for Mr B and K, which was fault. The Council disagrees with my view here.
31. When Mr B returned to the Council on Monday 18 December and asked if it would be providing further accommodation, he was told that first he needed to provide evidence to show where he stayed over the weekend. This was fault. The Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation, regardless of whether Mr B provided this evidence.
32. The Council disagrees with this assessment, arguing that the provision of interim accommodation is conditional on the applicant not having other accommodation available to them. The Council contends that because Mr B did not provide evidence to show where he stayed that weekend, it was reasonable to conclude that he had somewhere else to stay. The Council maintains that it did not refuse to provide Mr B with further interim accommodation. It says that Mr B was aware that accommodation would be arranged once he provided the evidence it asked for, but he did not do so, and he then disengaged from the service.
33. Under the law, a council is required to ensure that accommodation is available for applicants if it has reason to believe that they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. An applicant is considered homeless if they have no accommodation which they have a legal right to occupy. The fact that Mr B stayed elsewhere does not imply that he had a legal right to occupy that accommodation. As the Council still would have had reason to believe that Mr B and K may be homeless when Mr B asked for further accommodation on 18 December, it had an immediate duty to provide them with interim accommodation, which it did not do. This was fault.
34. Mr B did not refuse a suitable offer of accommodation. I therefore consider the Council was wrong to discharge its duty to provide interim accommodation for Mr B and K.
35. Councils have a general duty under the Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need. According to the Council’s Thresholds Framework, a child who is homeless has acute needs requiring statutory intervention. Children’s Services was aware that the Council had initially decided it did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation and that it later discharged its duty to provide interim accommodation. It also knew when Mr B and K were sofa surfing. Councils can provide financial assistance or accommodation for a child and their family if it considers this would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. I do not consider Children’s Services did enough to ensure K was suitably housed when it was aware he was sofa surfing. This was fault. The Council disagrees with this finding.
36. I consider the Council’s failings resulted in Mr B and K sofa surfing for around four months, which caused them significant distress.

Back to top

Action

37. While the Council considers it has followed its processes and it does not agree with my findings, it has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the failings identified in this case. The Council will consider our guidance on remedies when making the apology.
• Make a symbolic payment of £1400 to recognise that Mr B and K were deprived of suitable accommodation for around four months.
• Make a symbolic payment of £800 to recognise the significant distress Mr B and K suffered as a result of the failings identified in this case.
38. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Arrange training by an external provider on its duties to homeless applicants. The training should be provided to relevant staff and should cover the failings identified in this case.
• Provide guidance to relevant staff on the actions they should take when a child is homeless. It should remind them that the Council can provide financial assistance or accommodation for a child and their family if it considers this would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. 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