Summary: The Council housed Mr X and his child in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than the period allowed in law. It also significantly delayed reviewing the suitability of the family’s temporary accommodation. To recognise the frustration, uncertainty and period in unsuitable accommodation caused by the Council’s faults, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £1,000 and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. failed to deal properly with infestations at hotels and temporary accommodation where he and his child were staying;
2. failed to communicate with him properly while he was homeless; and
3. failed to properly consider key evidence as part of its review into his priority banding on the housing register.
2. He said the Council’s faults and the period he spent in emergency accommodation had a negative impact on his and his child’s physical and mental health and he wants compensation and to be moved to alternative accommodation.

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. 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)
6. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. 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

8. I have not investigated complaint 1c. Mr X asked the Council to review its original decision about his banding on the housing register and as a result, now has a higher priority award.
9. Mr X used the Council’s internal process and this led to the outcome he sought. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome and so in line with the law which governs our powers, which is set out in paragraph six, I have decided not to investigate this complaint further.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
11. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
12. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
13. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. All comments were considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

14. 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.
15. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. 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. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. If 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. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
18. Under this duty, a council does not have to provide a permanent secure or assured tenancy. Many accepted homeless households remain in temporary accommodation with limited security of tenure for a long time while they bid for permanent housing through the authority’s housing allocations scheme.

Bed and breakfast accommodation

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. 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)

Reviewing housing decisions

21. Councils must complete reviews of the following housing decisions within three weeks of either the date of the review request or the date they receive written representations:

• on the steps they are to take in the personal housing plan at the prevention or relief duty stage; or
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the prevention duty to an end.

22. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

23. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
24. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

25. Mr X and his child applied to the Council as homeless. The Council initially offered Mr X and his child B&B accommodation (Hotel A) which Mr X accepted and moved into on 2 May 2024. The Council accepted a relief duty the next day.
26. In early May 2024 Mr X contacted the Council to report problems at Hotel A including:
• It had a bed bug infestation (Mr X sent the Council photos of bites on him and his child); and
• It was difficult for him to transport his child to school from that location.
27. The Council moved him three days later to another B&B (Hotel B). It said it took this length of time as the reports were raised over a bank holiday weekend.
28. The Council asked Hotel A to inspect for an infestation but its pest control company found no evidence of bed bugs at that time.
29. Mr X and his child stayed at Hotel B for four weeks. There was no infestation but Mr X reported to the Council that continuing to live in B&B accommodation was affecting his mental health and he had to be signed off work because of this.
30. The case records from this time show the Council obtained more documents to establish Mr X’s custody of his child for the purposes of the Council accepting a main housing duty.
31. The Council moved Mr X and his child to another B&B (Hotel C) on 5 June. This had cooking facilities which were shared with other residents. Mr X and his child stayed there for almost six weeks and did not report any infestation issues but Mr X again raised concerns regarding the unsuitability of B&B accommodation.
32. The Council accepted a main housing duty to Mr X on 1 July. From that point, Hotel C legally became temporary accommodation, rather than interim accommodation. The Council therefore told Mr X of his right to request a statutory review of the suitability of this accommodation. Mr X did not request a suitability review of Hotel C, but continued to raise concerns about the length of time he and his child had been living in B&B accommodation.
33. The Council moved Mr X and his child to a unit of temporary accommodation on 20 July 2024. This had its own kitchenette in the room and the bathrooms were shared with other residents. This block of accommodation was owned and managed by a registered provider of social housing. The Council informed Mr X of his right to request a statutory review of the suitability of this accommodation and he did.
34. Mr X said the temporary accommodation unit was unsuitable for him and his child because:
• Other residents were abusing alcohol and drugs;
• It was too noisy for Mr X to work from the room; and
• He had other children who did not reside with him but who needed to visit him and they could not under the rules at the temporary accommodation.
35. The following month, Mr X also raised concerns that the shared bathrooms at the temporary accommodation were unclean and there was now a silverfish infestation. The Council considered these later reports as part of Mr X’s suitability review.
36. The Council attended the temporary accommodation and spoke with the temporary accommodation manager to investigate Mr X’s concerns. It found that some of the traps laid had caught silverfish. The temporary accommodation staff offered several times for its pest control company to inspect and treat the room but Mr X declined this. By late September 2024 the Council proceeded to inspect and treat the room without Mr X’s consent.
37. It took the Council four months and ten days to carry out its suitability review and when it did, it decided the accommodation was suitable. However the Council did not send this review decision to Mr X for a further two months. In total, Mr X waited more than six months for the Council’s decision on whether his accommodation was suitable.
38. In its decision, the Council responded to the points Mr X raised and outlined why in the Council’s view, this did not make the accommodation unsuitable. Regarding the silverfish it outlined steps the accommodation provider had taken to resolve the issue including an offer to move him to another room. The Council informed Mr X of his right to appeal to a county court if he disagreed with its decision but this deadline had lapsed by the time the Council sent the decision to Mr X.

My findings

Infestations at Mr X’s accommodation

39. The Council promptly investigated Mr X’s concerns about infestations and offered him moves to other accommodation, or to different rooms.
40. It also kept in contact with staff at the accommodation providers to satisfy itself that they were taking the action expected to deal with the issues raised. Mr X declined pest control inspections and treatment which is likely to have contributed towards any injustice of ongoing pest issues.
41. The Council has sought evidence recently from these accommodation providers to establish if any pest issues are ongoing and no further pest issues have been reported.
42. The Council took the action we would expect in response to reports of infestations at Mr X’s accommodation and was not at fault.

Use of B&B accommodation for Mr X and his child

43. When Mr X and his child were homeless, they should not have lived in B&B accommodation for more than six weeks. The Council housed them in B&Bs for eleven weeks and two days. This was fault by the Council. This fault caused them to live in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and this is an injustice to them.

Suitability of temporary accommodation

44. Mr X and his child moved to a unit of temporary accommodation in July 2024 which was managed by a registered provider of social housing. This meant that despite having some shared facilities, it was not defined in law as a B&B and so the six week time limit no longer applied. However the Council was still under a duty to ensure any accommodation it provided was suitable. This included carrying out a statutory suitability review within the legal timeframe when Mr X requested one.
45. The Council had eight weeks to complete its review of the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation. The Council instead took just over six months. This significant delay was fault. This fault caused Mr X distress and frustration at an already challenging time. It also prevented him from using his appeal right to the county court if he disagreed with the decision. We are not a court and so I cannot say whether the court may have come to an alternative decision but this has left Mr X with uncertainty, which is a further injustice to him.
46. When the Council made its decision, it considered the issues Mr X raised, responded to them and explained why in its view and in line with the law, the accommodation was suitable while Mr X waited to be matched with a more long-term property. The case records also show that the Council responded to the key issues Mr X raised about the accommodation’s suitability at the time he raised them. This included offering to move Mr X to another room, visiting the accommodation provider and seeking evidence about its management of reports of infestations.
47. Our role is not to ask whether we agree or disagree with a decision a council has made. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it made its decision, we cannot say it should have reached a different outcome. Other than the delay, the Council’s decision was made without fault. It considered the issues we would expect and properly explained its reasons. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision but as there is no evidence of fault in how it made it, I cannot question the outcome.

Complaint 1d) failed to communicate with him properly

48. Other than the Council’s significant delay in carrying out the suitability review, which I deal with above, the case records demonstrate that for most of this period, the Council was in regular communication with Mr X and provided responses promptly. The Council was not at fault for its communication with Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. Pay Mr X £400 to reflect the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults in this case, including the uncertainty which arose when he lost his right of appeal to a county court; and
3. Pay Mr X £600 to reflect the five weeks and two days that he and his child lived in B&Bs, which was beyond the legal timeframe for this type of accommodation.
50. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Identify how many current s.202 reviews are outstanding and delayed beyond the legal timeframes and write to these applicants to seek an agreed extension where it has not done so already;
2. Investigate what led to the significant delays in carrying out the s.202 review in this case and take action to ensure the Council concludes outstanding and future s.202 reviews within the timeframes set out in law;
3. Remind its housing officers of the six-week limit for pregnant people and families living in B&B accommodation and;
4. Improve its systems for identifying homeless households residing in B&B accommodation before they reach the six week limit, so they can be moved to alternative accommodation.
51. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy this.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman