Summary: When Ms X was homeless the Council housed her in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation, failed to properly investigate her reports of a rodent infestation and significantly delayed accepting housing duties to her. There was no fault in how the Council considered her priority points on its housing register or her location requirements for long-term housing. The Council has recently taken relevant action to improve its services. However to recognise the personal injustice caused to Ms X, the Council has also agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £1,500.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that when she fled domestic abuse, the Council:
1. Failed to offer a female housing officer for her to speak to regarding the domestic abuse;
2. Failed to provide her with suitable accommodation;
3. Failed to make sufficient efforts to deal with a rodent infestation at her accommodation;
4. Failed to protect her belongings when it had a duty to do so;
5. Failed to communicate with her properly about her case; and
6. Failed to properly consider her medical needs and her need to reside in the local area when it decided her needs and banding on its housing register.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions caused her and her children to live in unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period and caused her significant distress and frustration.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
9. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. If a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. The definition of “priority need” includes those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
15. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a council will owe a main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Domestic abuse and homelessness

17. The Code sets out in chapter 21 how councils should approach cases involving applicants who are homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse, including:
• if there is evidence that would give the authority reason to believe the applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse the authority should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst they undertake their investigations; and
• applicants “should be given the option of being interviewed by an officer of the same sex if they so wish” (21.32)

Suitability of accommodation

18. 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)

19. Wherever possible, councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
20. 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 in relation to a single homelessness application. 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 paragraphs 17.35, 17.38)

Reviewing housing decisions

21. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of certain council decisions, including the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. If the applicant disagrees with the review decision, they can appeal to a county court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Allocations

22. Every council must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme and must prioritise certain groups, including homeless people. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
23. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Allocations scheme, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, February 2017

24. This Council prioritises applicants on the housing register using a points system. It awards a certain number of points to each applicant depending on their situation.
25. If the Council has accepted a main housing duty to an applicant because they are homeless, they are awarded 100 priority points. If that applicant was overcrowded, for instance in their temporary accommodation, they would be awarded a further 200 priority points. If the Council decided they needed to move for health reasons, the applicant would be awarded a further 900 – 2,000 priority points. This is referred to as the “supporting health and independence priority”.
26. The policy says that the health and independence priority is awarded to households where the current home has a substantial impact on the independence of the applicant. It says priority is not awarded simply because the applicant has ill-health, as many applicants have serious medical conditions and not all of these can be substantially improved by moving to another property.
27. It says regarding the location of suitable offers of accommodation made under the main housing duty, that the number of properties within the borough is limited and an offer of housing within Kensington and Chelsea is not guaranteed.

What happened

28. When Ms X and her children fled domestic abuse, she made a homelessness application to the Council. Domestic abuse was not recorded as the reason she was homeless. Ms X said she had been asked to leave her property due to a relationship breakdown.
29. Ms X did not request to speak to a female housing officer and this was not offered. Ms X told the Ombudsman afterwards she would have preferred to speak to a female housing officer during this time, as she would then have felt more able to disclose the domestic abuse.
30. The Council decided in its assessment that she was in priority need due to her children and they could live in accommodation anywhere in Greater London. However it did not yet know if Ms X was eligible for support, as she was awaiting some further documents relating to their immigration status.
31. A few days later when the Council had confirmation Ms X was eligible, it offered her hotel accommodation in a different borough which she accepted. Ms X and the children stayed there for several weeks. They were then moved to a different hotel in another borough, where they stayed for a further few weeks.
32. In total Ms X lived in hotel accommodation, without cooking facilities for just over six weeks. During this time, her belongings were being stored in an insecure location. The Council offered Ms X support to store her belongings initially but accepted later that it had not been clear in its advice about what belongings it could assist her to store – such as larger items - so Ms X kept her belongings where they were.
33. Ms X said sometimes she had to stay with friends instead of at the hotel, as the hotel environment and being far away from her support network made her anxiety worse. Ms X’s children by then attended education providers in Kensington and Chelsea.
34. Almost two months after Ms X applied as homeless, the Council still had not accepted a main housing duty to her, so it offered her further interim accommodation. Ms X was offered a self-contained property several boroughs away from Kensington and Chelsea - Property A - which she accepted. Ms X told the Council before accepting the offer that she was concerned about signs of a rodent infestation at the property. The Council later accepted that at this time, Ms X raised these concerns on several occasions with the property management company and the Council, and that the Council did not explore her concerns properly at that stage.
35. Due to the infestation, Ms X decided not to move all her belongings to the property and so the items remained insecurely stored. The following month Ms X reported her belongings were damaged.
36. Ms X said she struggled during this time with the commute from Property A to Kensington and Chelsea to take her children to their education providers and stayed between Property A and a friend’s property that was closer to their support network.
37. Ms X contacted the Council to ask for an update on her homelessness assessment around ten months after she applied, as the Council had accepted no further duties to her. She also said she no longer wanted to live at Property A as it was having a detrimental impact on her and her children’s health.
38. According to the records, Ms X first spoke with a housing officer about the domestic abuse almost one year after she first applied as homeless. When Ms X raised it, the officer assisted Ms X to make a safety plan and signposted her to several domestic abuse support services.
39. The Council accepted a relief duty to Ms X just over a year after she applied as homeless and sent her a personalised housing plan. This said she should seek properties in the private-rented sector and gave advice on ways the Council could support her to find a private tenancy.
40. The Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X almost two months later. Ms X was still living at Property A and from this point, Property A became temporary rather than interim accommodation. Applicants in temporary accommodation can request a statutory review of the suitability of their accommodation and the Council informed Ms X of this right. Ms X did not seek a statutory review of the suitability of Property A.
41. The Council also informed Ms X she had joined the housing register and had been awarded 100 priority points based on her level of need. It noted there were no restrictions on the type of property she could live in based on her medical needs and she could live anywhere in Greater London.
42. Ms X asked the Council to re-assess her housing needs on the housing register. She said her current accommodation was too far away from the children’s education providers, her support network, and support she needed for her mental health such as therapy and her domestic abuse outreach. Ms X said the Council should change her needs on the housing register to reflect that she could only be housed in Kensington and Chelsea. The Council considered this as a request for an additional number of points to be awarded on the housing register based on her health needs.
43. It assessed her health needs twice (at Ms X’s request) and considered the evidence provided. It decided there was no evidence of an exceptional need for Ms X to move into, or remain in, the borough due to any medical needs, as the therapies and support she received could be transferred to another borough. Regarding the location of the children’s education providers, it said this was not a matter for the medical assessment and signposted her to the accommodation team to discuss these issues.
44. Shortly afterwards Ms X told the Council she could no longer use the upstairs of Property A due to the extent of the rodent infestation and asked to be moved to alternative accommodation. The Council moved Ms X out of Property A and into a B&B in another borough of London within a few days.
45. Around two weeks later, the Council offered Ms X another temporary accommodation property which could accommodate four sleeping spaces – property B. This was closer to her and her children’s support network. Ms X declined this and asked for a statutory review of the offer, as she said it was unsuitable due to the size of the accommodation. In the meantime, Ms X stayed in the hotel.
46. The Council withdrew the offer after Ms X declined it. It accepted Ms X needed a property with more bedrooms but said due to the severe shortage of accommodation in the area, it felt this property would have been preferable to living in hotels in different parts of London.
47. It moved Ms X to another hotel while it looked for alternative temporary accommodation. Ms X remained living there until the end of the period I have investigated. Ms X reported issues with living in the hotel but did say that she found the location better.
48. By the end of my investigation period, many of Ms X’s belongings had continued to be stored at Property A while Ms X was living in hotels.
49. Ms X made complaints to the Council about her experience. In summary, she said:
• the Council failed to provide her with accommodation that was close enough to her support network;
• due to the trauma of experiencing domestic abuse and becoming isolated due to not being near her support network, her mental health issues were exacerbated;
• Property A was in disrepair and had a rodent infestation and the Council and failed to deal with her reports properly;
• the initial housing officer she spoke to when homeless did not provide her with enough support;
• the Council’s communication with her while she was homeless was often poor; and
• her belongings were damaged because the Council failed to assist her with storage when homeless and then later, more belongings were damaged due to the rodent infestation at Property A.
50. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint as follows:
• It apologised for not offering her the opportunity to speak with a female housing officer regarding the domestic abuse when she first approached as homeless;
• It investigated the conduct of the housing officer she spoke to initially and the officer apologised that she felt they were not empathetic;
• It apologised for the period she spent in Property A when she reported signs of an infestation and said it should have explored her concerns more when she first raised them;
• It apologised its communication with Ms X had been poor and set out the improvements it had made to its systems for contact between applicants and housing officers;
• It apologised for failing to protect her belongings and that these were damaged. It asked her to submit a claim to its insurers for this;
• It apologised that moving her out of Kensington and Chelsea severed her support with her domestic abuse outreach service;
• It said it was actively seeking suitable medium to long term accommodation for her;
• It said it had anonymised her case and used it as a learning case for its officers to prevent recurrence of the issues again; and
• The Council offered Ms X £250 in recognition of the injustice caused.
51. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Complaint 1a - Failed to provide a female housing officer

52. According to the records, Ms X disclosed domestic abuse to the Council for the first time, one year after her initial homeless application. It is understandable that Ms X did not feel ready to discuss this at the time. However, we can only hold the Council responsible for the action it took in response to the information it had.
53. The Council has apologised for not offering Ms X a female housing officer to speak to initially. The Code does not say that councils must do this, it says a female officer should be offered if an applicant wishes. Therefore in this case, the Council was not at fault. However it is welcome that the Council apologised and aims to offer the opportunity to speak with a female housing officer to applicants more widely.

Complaints 1b and 1c - Failed to provide suitable accommodation and failed to deal with infestation

54. Ms X and her children stayed in hotel accommodation for four days more than the six weeks allowed in law for families in bed and breakfast accommodation in her first year of being homeless. This was fault and meant Ms X and the children lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they should have.
55. Ms X also complained that the hotels were unsuitable due to their locations. The records show that this was a very challenging period for Ms X due to her mental health issues and as found out later on, her recent experience of domestic abuse. However the Council carried out a suitability assessment before offering her the hotel accommodation which found that accommodation in Greater London was suitable. It outlined its reasons for this and the offer was in line with Ms X’s needs as set out in the assessment. The Council was not at fault for the location of the hotels specifically but as outlined above, hotel accommodation was unsuitable for other reasons.
56. The Council significantly delayed accepting a relief duty. It also significantly delayed accepting a main housing duty. This was fault and caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty as well as other injustice which I consider in more detail below.
57. Ms X accepted Property A and moved in a few months after she first applied as homeless. It was several boroughs away from her support network. Ms X also had concerns about its suitability due to signs of a rodent infestation and told the Council but it did not look into this at the time. This was fault.
58. This offer should have been one of temporary – rather than interim -accommodation, as by this time, the Council should have accepted a main housing duty to Ms X. If it had, Ms X could have asked for a statutory review of its suitability and if Ms X disagreed with the Council’s decision about its suitability, she could have appealed to the county court. The Council’s delay in awarding a main housing duty caused Ms X to miss out on her review and appeal rights at a crucial point.
59. Following Ms X’s initial reports about the rodent infestation, Ms X did not raise this issue with the Council again for sixteen months. Ms X did contact the Council to raise concerns about the property within that sixteen-month period, but these concerns were around its location and did not indicate any ongoing infestation issues. When Ms X informed the Council that the infestation issues had become worse, leaving her without access to the top floor of the property, the Council promptly decided to move the family to alternative accommodation.
60. I cannot say even on balance, had the Council inspected the property following Ms X’s initial reports, that it would have found it to be unsuitable due to the infestation. This is because of the significant length of time that passed between the issue first being reported and then being reported again. However, the Council’s failure to look into the issue initially has caused Ms X uncertainty about whether she should have been provided with alternative accommodation sooner.
61. Ms X had already lived in hotel accommodation for almost seven weeks earlier on in her homelessness process. When she was moved following the infestation issues, she then lived in hotel accommodation again for a further five weeks and one day.
62. During the second period in hotel accommodation, Ms X was offered Property B - a temporary accommodation property closer to her support network, which had four sleeping spaces. This was an offer of medium-term temporary accommodation which was self-contained and had cooking facilities and Ms X declined this. It was open to Ms X to accept the offer and so I have not found fault with the Council for keeping Ms X in a hotel beyond the date of this offer, as this would most likely have mitigated the injustice to Ms X of living in a hotel.
63. Therefore before the offer of Property B, Ms X had lived in hotel accommodation following her initial homelessness application for a total period of eight weeks and five days. The records show the Council regularly had no stock of alternative accommodation during this time. This was service failure by the Council and led to Ms X spending two weeks and five days longer than the six weeks allowed in law, in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation.

Complaint 1d) Failed to protect her belongings when it had a duty to do so

64. The Council has accepted it did not properly explain the options to Ms X for storing her belongings when she first became homeless, including that it could assist to store larger items for her. This was fault. As a result, Ms X left her belongings in an insecure location. Ms X reported these belongings were then damaged.
65. Ms X’s other belongings were left in Property A when the family were moved into emergency hotel accommodation and Ms X said these were damaged due to the rat infestation. The Council has asked Ms X to make a claim to its insurers regarding the damage done to her belongings.
66. The Council’s proposed remedy to have Ms X contact its insurers is an appropriate step to take. However I have also recommended a financial remedy to recognise the frustration and distress caused to Ms X by the Council’s faults in this case. This is a symbolic financial remedy based on our Guidance on Remedies and is not compensation or a reimbursement for lost belongings which is a matter for the insurers or for the courts.

Complaint 1e) Failed to communicate with her properly about her case

67. The Council has accepted that its communication with Ms X was poor at several points in this case and has now made changes to its communication processes. The Council’s poor communication was fault and caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty at an already difficult time.

Complaint 1f) Failed to consider medical needs and location needs through her status on the housing register

68. The Council assessed Ms X’s health needs and decided she did not meet the criteria in its allocations policy for an increased number of points due to an exceptional medical need to move. In making this decision, the Council considered and responded to Ms X’s evidence and explained its reasons. The Council made its decision in line with its allocations policy and there was no fault in the way it made this decision.
69. Ms X also wanted to be listed on the housing register as only able to move into properties within Kensington and Chelsea due to non-medical factors, such as distance to her support network. Ms X also wanted to be moved from Property A is it was in another borough. The Council’s allocations policy said properties within the borough were limited and an offer of local accommodation was not guaranteed. The Council also does not award additional priority points based on the factors Ms X complained of. When the Council assessed what points Ms X should have on the housing register, it acted in line with its allocations policy and there was no fault in the way it reached its decision.
70. Regarding the overall suitability of Property A, including location, Ms X could have requested a statutory review of this when the Council accepted a main housing duty to her. Ms X did not use this right of review but it was open to her to do so. The Ombudsman should not act as an alternative appeals process and so I have not come to a finding on the overall suitability of Property A.

Recent service improvements at Kensington and Chelsea

71. In response to several of our investigations in the second half of last year, the Council has begun improving its homelessness services in several ways including by:
• Providing guidance to staff on how to handle reports of persistent disrepair issues, including details of when to consider inspecting the property; and
• Carrying out a review of all properties currently managed by the managing agents on behalf of the Council as temporary accommodation, to ensure they are safe and meet the minimum standards set out in the service agreement.
72. It has also already used Ms X’s case as a learning case for its officers due to the faults it already identified, including its failure to respond promptly to Ms X’s reports of a rodent infestation.
73. I have therefore not repeated service improvement suggestions which are already underway or have been already addressed by the Council in this investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

74. The Council has already offered Ms X £250 as a financial remedy. If Ms X has been paid this amount already, it should be deducted from the total financial remedy proposed below.
75. Within one month of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. Pay Ms X £400 to reflect the two weeks and five days beyond the six weeks given in law that she spent in unsuitable B&B accommodation;
3. Pay Ms X £350 to reflect the uncertainty, frustration and missed opportunity caused by the Council’s significant delay in accepting relief and main housing duties to her;
4. Pay Ms X £350 to reflect the uncertainty and frustration caused to her by the Council’s failure to properly investigate her concerns about a rodent infestation at Property A, when she first raised them;
5. Pay Ms X £250 to recognise the frustration and distress she was caused by the Council’s failure to properly explain the options for storing her belongings. This is not compensation or reimbursement, as that would be a matter for the Council’s insurers, or for the courts; and
6. Pay Ms X £150 to recognise the frustration caused to Ms X by the Council’s poor communication.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
77. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.

Back to top

Final decision

78. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X a financial remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman