Summary: The Council was at fault for delays dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application. Its failure to give Mr X accurate information meant he missed out on accommodation. As a result, he and his family have been living separately among friends and family for over a year. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, provide accommodation and make payments to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness. He says the Council:
1. Delayed dealing with his homeless application;
2. Failed to provide suitable interim accommodation;
3. Delayed making decisions about his case; and
4. Communicated poorly and took too long to respond to his complaints.
2. As a result, Mr X says his family has to live separately across friends and relatives. He says this has affected their mental health and caused significant distress.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

6. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X and the organisation 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

Homelessness law and guidance

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (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)
17. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)
18. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202). There is no right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

What happened

19. In early September 2023, Mr X filled in an online form telling the Council he had received a notice asking him to leave his private tenancy. The notice expired at the end of November.
20. An officer (Officer 1) spoke to Mr X in mid-October. The Council’s note of the conversation says Mr X was going to look for private rented accommodation and the Council could help with the costs if he found somewhere.
21. In late November, Mr X emailed Officer 1 asking for advice and support. He said he had spoken to his landlord and there was no chance of extending his tenancy. He asked Officer 1 to call or email him. Officer 1 did not respond. A week later, the notice expired.
22. In early December, Mr X emailed Officer 1 again. He said the notice had expired. He did not know what to do as Officer 1 had not given any advice, despite Mr X’s request for contact. Mr X said the property was damp and it was making his youngest child ill. Mr X said he and his family would be staying with a friend but was not sure how long he could do so.
23. The next day, the Council wrote to Mr X accepting the prevention duty.
24. Mr X told Officer 1 about a private rented property he had found that he thought would meet his family’s needs. He asked Officer 1 what he needed to do to access the Council’s support. The next day, after viewing the property, Mr X emailed Officer 1 again. He said the viewing went well and the landlord was willing to accept the Council’s scheme. Officer 1 did not respond to these emails.
25. In mid-December, Mr X called the Council. The Council’s note of the call says Mr X agreed he would stay with friends until the new year.
26. In late January 2024, Mr X called the Council. He said his friends and family could not accommodate them any longer. Mr X said he could not reach Officer 1. The Council’s records show Mr X met with Officer 1 a few days later.
27. At the end of January, the Council completed a suitability and risk assessment for interim accommodation. This recorded there was no reason Mr X and his family needed to stay within the borough. It placed Mr X and his family in a hotel in an outer-London borough the next day.
28. A week later, Officer 2 emailed Mr X to tell him their role was to help Mr X find a private rented property. Mr X told Officer 2 that the impact of homelessness and being out of the borough had affected his health and he had been signed off work. He said the family were struggling in one room in a hotel with no cooking facilities or fridge. His youngest child was unwell, which was disrupting the sleep of his older child. This was starting to affect his child at school. He said his wife had caring responsibilities for a Disabled parent. He asked the Council to provide accommodation within the borough.
29. The Council accepted the relief duty on 8 February.
30. Mr X’s stay at the hotel ended in mid-February. The Council offered him different interim accommodation at a B&B. This was outside the Council’s area, in an outer-London borough. In an email to Mr X, the Council said this would be a continuing booking until the Council could find something self-contained. The email said Mr X’s “stay at this B&B hotel will be for approximately 6-8 months”.
31. Mr X questioned the suitability of this offer. The Council wrote to Mr X to say:
• The offer was suitable as interim accommodation and was less than 30 minutes from the borough by public transport
• This was the best the Council could offer because of the shortage of accommodation within the borough
• If Mr X refused the offer, the Council would have no further duty to provide interim accommodation.
32. Mr X wrote a detailed letter to the Council setting out why he did not think the offer was suitable and should not be for six to eight months. He said the Council should prioritise his family for accommodation within the borough because:
• His wife had caring responsibilities
• His job was in the borough and included a requirement that he respond to out of hours call-outs within 20 minutes
33. He asked the Council to accept the main housing duty and provide self-contained accommodation within Tower Hamlets.
34. A few days later, Mr X wrote to the Council chasing up a reply to his letter. A week later, he wrote again. The Council replied to say it had offered suitable interim accommodation.
35. In early March, Mr X complained to the Council. He said:
• Officer 1 did nothing to help prevent their homelessness, and failed to respond to emails
• The Council failed to extend the stay at the hotel beyond the two weeks booked
• The Council “ordered” him and his family to go to a B&B in another borough for six to eight months
• The Council had never properly assessed him or his circumstances
• The Council ignored the information he provided about needing to be within the borough for work
• He was now living separately from his wife and children because none of their friends and family had space to house them all
36. At the end of March, Mr X wrote to a senior manager to say he had now been living apart from his family for over a month.
37. At the end of April, Mr X wrote to the Council again. He said no one had responded to his emails. He pointed out that it had been more than 56 days since the Council accepted the relief duty but the Council had not made a decision about the main housing duty. Mr X said living apart from his family was affecting his mental health, which in turn was affecting his work.
38. In May, Mr X spoke to Officer 3. Officer 3 asked for information about Mr X’s former landlord. Mr X said he had provided this information to Officer 1 and questioned why the Council needed it now, five months after he had moved out. The Council told Mr X that Officer 3 was making inquiries and would make a main housing duty decision soon.
39. In late July, Officer 4 contacted Mr X. Officer 4 said they would be assessing and progressing his case and would provide a decision soon.
40. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint a few days later. It said:
• It was sorry for its delay responding to the complaint.
• It should have responded to his emails in November and December 2023. It accepted its failure to do so was fault and apologised.
• Mr X’s stay in the hotel ended because he “would not take up the offer of it being extended”
• The Council was satisfied Mr X made an informed decision to refuse the B&B offered in February
• It would issue a main housing duty decision soon.
41. Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two of the complaint process.
42. In early November, the Council offered Mr X £600 as “full and final settlement” if he agreed to close his complaint. Mr X did not take up this offer.
43. The Council assigned Officer 5 to decide Mr X’s case. Officer 5 spoke to Mr X on the phone. The Council’s note of the call says:
• Mr X and his family were still living separately across various family and friends
• Mr X had a new job, based in East London
• Mr X told Officer 5 about the previous advice that he would be in B&B for eight months. Officer 5 said this was not the case, and that if Mr X moved into B&B, the Council would try and move them to self-contained accommodation as soon as it could.
• Mr X would attend the Council’s offices the next day to be booked into accommodation.
44. The records show Mr X did attend the next day. He emailed Officer 5 in the early afternoon to say he had been there since 9.30am and was still waiting. He said he had to leave at 3pm to collect his child from school. The Council’s records do not say whether the Council offered Mr X accommodation that day or if so, where it was. Mr X says he waited until he had to leave for the school run and the Council did not offer him any accommodation that day.
45. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage two of its complaint process in late November. It said:
• It was sorry it failed to respond to Mr X’s emails
• Mr X told the Council in mid-December 2023 that he would stay with friends and family until the new year
• The B&B offered was all that was available and Mr X refused this offer
• It offered him £600 as a “gesture of goodwill”
• It would make a main housing duty decision soon.
46. The Council accepted the main housing duty in early December. At the time of writing, Mr X and his family remain separated from one another and sofa-surfing with family and friends.

Findings

47. I set out my findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Delay dealing with application

48. Mr X asked the Council for help in early September 2023. The Council did not contact Mr X until mid-October. This delay was fault. The Council delayed completing an assessment until December. This was fault.
49. But for the delay, the Council would have accepted the prevention duty and issued a personalised housing plan in September 2023. Mr X missed out on the advice, information, and support he needed at a difficult time. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Interim accommodation

50. Mr X and his family left their private rented accommodation at the end of November 2023. The Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation to all households it has reason to believe might be homeless and in priority need. The Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation in November 2023 was fault. This left Mr X and his family without accommodation until late January 2024. This is an injustice to Mr X.
51. Accommodation provided to meet homelessness duties must be suitable. This is specific to the needs and circumstances of the household. The Council’s suitability assessment failed to consider Mr X’s employment or his wife’s caring responsibilities in deciding they could live outside the borough. This was fault.
52. There is no evidence the Council considered the impact of the disruption of moving out of the borough on Mr X and his family. This is not in line with the Council’s Homelessness Accommodation Placement Policy, which says “[i]t is essential that the question of disruption is specifically addressed, and recorded on notes.” Failure to follow the policy was fault.
53. Because of the Council’s failures in its suitability assessment, I cannot say, even on balance, whether the offered accommodation was suitable. Mr X must live with this uncertainty, which is an injustice.
54. However, the records show that the Council telling Mr X he would be in the B&B for six to eight months was a significant factor in his refusal. B&B should only be used for families with children as a last resort and for no more than six weeks. In telling Mr X he would be there for months longer than this, the Council indicated it would breach this requirement. This was fault. The Council’s later records also show this statement was not accurate. Officer 5 did not think it at all likely Mr X would be in B&B so long.
55. The Council’s poor advice denied Mr X the opportunity to make an informed decision. Mr X had already accepted accommodation in a hotel out of area for two weeks. On balance, if Mr X had received the information given by Officer 5 in February, that the placement would be as short as possible and the Council would be looking for alternatives, he would have accepted the offer. Instead, Mr X and his family remain separated and sofa-surfing over a year later. In allowing this to continue, the Council has failed to have regard to the family’s Article 8 right to private and family life. Mr X has explained how living apart from his wife and one of his children has affected him. He says his older child is distressed and does not understand why they cannot all be together.
56. In the absence of records, I accept Mr X’s evidence that the Council made no offer when Mr X visited the offices in November 2024. This was fault. Mr X spent almost six hours in the Council’s offices to no end. This is an injustice.
57. Once it accepted the main housing duty, the Council owed Mr X a duty to provide temporary accommodation. In the almost five months since it accepted the main housing duty, it has not offered Mr X temporary accommodation. This was fault. Mr X and his family remain without suitable accommodation as a result.

Delayed decisions

58. The Council should have accepted the prevention duty in September 2023. Not to do so was fault. By the time it accepted the prevention duty in December, Mr X was already homeless. The Council should have accepted the relief duty on 1 December 2023. It did not do so until February 2024. This delay was fault.
59. If the Council had accepted the relief duty when it should have, it should have accepted the main housing duty by the beginning of February. It did not do so until December. This delay of 10 months was fault.
60. This delay had significant consequences for Mr X. If the Council had accepted the main housing duty at the beginning of February, he would have had a statutory right to review the suitability of the B&B accommodation offered. Instead, he has the uncertainty found above. This aggravates that injustice.
61. The Council was also at fault for repeatedly telling Mr X it would make a main duty decision soon and then failing to do so. This caused Mr X significant and avoidable distress and frustration.

Communication and complaint handling

62. The Council accepted in response to Mr X’s complaints that it was at fault for failing to respond to Mr X’s emails in November and December 2023. Mr X was asking for help and advice and instead was ignored. This is an injustice. Mr X also told the Council about a property and a landlord willing to work with the Council. Failure to respond to this means Mr X may have missed an opportunity to end his homelessness much sooner. This is an injustice to Mr X.
63. The Council allocated at least five officers to Mr X’s case at various points. There is no evidence the Council explained these changes to Mr X. Failure to do so was fault. The changes in officer meant Mr X had to provide the same information repeatedly and likely added to the delays in this case. This is an injustice to Mr X.
64. The Council’s complaint policy says it will respond to complaints at both stages of its complaint process within 20 working days. It took the Council over three months too long to respond to his complaint at both stages. This was fault. The Council failed to keep Mr X updated about the delays. This was fault. It caused him avoidable frustration, which is an injustice.
65. The Council offered Mr X £600 on the condition that he close his complaint. This was fault. We expect councils to offer a remedy where it accepts its fault has caused an injustice. But any remedy should not deny the complainant access to redress or seek to prevent them complaining to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Action

66. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. Complete a new suitability assessment, taking into account Mr X’s work commitments, his wife’s caring commitments and any other relevant information;
3. Offer Mr X suitable temporary accommodation and tell him about his statutory right to review its suitability;
4. Pay Mr X £200 a month for the 14 months his family has had to live separately, for a total of £2,800; and
5. Pay Mr X a further £500 in recognition of his avoidable distress, frustration, and missed opportunities.
67. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
68. The Council has already agreed to extensive service improvements to its homelessness service following our findings in recent investigations. I have not repeated those here.
69. The Council should take the following action to improve its complaint handling:
1. Stop the practice of offering financial remedies as “full and final settlement” of a complaint, conditional on the complainant closing or withdrawing their complaint or not complaining to the Ombudsman.
70. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

71. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman