Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. We find fault with the Council for delay and poor communication. We have recommended a payment to Ms X for the frustration and distress caused and service improvements to ensure it does not reoccur.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed in dealing with her homelessness application, delayed in providing her personalised housing plan (PHP), overstayed in a hotel with her children, and had poor communication throughout.
2. Ms X would like the Council to adopt service improvements so this does not happen to other people.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
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 spoke with Ms X and the Council and considered the information it provided.
8. I considered relevant law and guidance, as set out below and our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
9. Ms X and the Council 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

Law and guidance

Homelessness

10. 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.
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. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Domestic abuse and homelessness

12. The Code sets out in chapter 21 how councils should approach cases involving applicants who are homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse.
13. 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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

14. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Interim accommodation and domestic abuse

15. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
16. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 changed the definition of “priority need” to include those seeking assistance with homelessness after fleeing domestic abuse. This part of the Act became law on 5 July 2021 and means in most cases, people who are fleeing domestic abuse will be provided with interim accommodation.

The relief duty

17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

19. 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)
20. Wherever possible, councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
21. 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)

The Council’s allocations policy

22. Every local housing authority 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)).
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Section 20.10 of the Council’s policy sets out what priority will be given to someone who is homeless.
26. It states that while someone is considered to be ‘threatened with homelessness’ (and where the Council is likely to have a prevention duty towards them) they will qualify for 10 homelessness points and be eligible to join the housing register. These points will apply throughout the period they are owed a prevention duty.
27. Equally, once the Council accepts someone ‘is homeless’ and they are owed a relief duty, they will qualify for 10 priority points.
28. The priority allocated to an application is updated when circumstances change and if the Council accepts a main housing duty towards them.
29. Where the Council accepts a main housing duty in a homeless case, it awards the applicant rehousing points (100 points) through its housing register.
30. 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.
31. 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.

Gatekeeping/homelessness prevention

32. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.

What happened

33. On 30 October 2023 Ms X completed an Online Housing Assistance form, as she needed to leave with her two children to escape domestic abuse from her then partner.
34. She did not get a response so her representative Mr Y called the Council daily from 6 to 11 November. The Council realised there had been some confusion as it had not made a new separate application for Ms X.
35. Mr Y called again on the 13 and 16 November. The Council emailed Ms X on the 16 November asking for documents and on the 17 November to complete an assessment of Ms X’s housing and support needs.
36. On 18 February 2024 Ms X reported to the Council out of hours another incident with her ex-partner. The Council found her emergency accommodation.
37. The next day Ms X attended the Town Hall to chase the Council for a response. The Council carried out a suitability assessment the day after, and put Ms X and her two children in a hotel out of borough as emergency accommodation.
38. The Council issued the PHP on 14 March and accepted the relief duty on the same day.
39. On 12 April Ms X’s representative emailed the Council to say the hotel she was staying in was unsuitable for her and her two children. Ms X’s work contract finished at the end of March and she was struggling with the added costs and finding it hard to manage with no cooking or washing facilities. She also had to travel 50 minutes each way to take her children to school.
40. On 17 April her representative followed up with a letter from social services, the children’s school and the child’s therapist saying the family were struggling financially and emotionally while living in a hotel out of borough. They asked the Council to move Ms X and her children within the borough to be closer to their support network.
41. On 29 April the Council emailed Ms X to let her know about finding a suitable home in the private sector.
42. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 10 May.
43. On 13 June Ms X chased the Council again for a response as she had been living in a single hotel room without any basic facilities with her two children since 18 February.
44. On 14 June Ms X made a complaint to the Council:
• She had asked the Council if she could stay in the temporary accommodation she was living in with her ex-partner in October 2023 but as he was the main tenant the Council said she couldn’t.
• There was a delay in providing her PHP nearly a month after the Council put her in emergency accommodation. Her first contact in November should have prompted the Council to investigate her homelessness.
• The Council suggested she could be offered housing on the 30th floor. This is insensitive and inappropriate after she has suffered trauma from Grenfell.
• The emergency accommodation is inadequate and she now has a 50-minute commute to school. When she left to take the children to school the hotel told her the reservation had ended, leaving her panicked about where they would sleep that evening.
45. The Council response on 11 July said:
• There was no reason for the delay in issuing the PHP.
• The hotel was the only location to provide a safe space for Ms X. The Council should have given her more notice of her need to move and this part of her complaint is upheld.
• The Council should have amended the standard letter saying it could offer Ms X accommodation up to the 30th floor before sending it out. This was insensitive after Grenfell and the resulting family loss Ms X is dealing with. This part of the complaint is upheld.
• The Council uphold the complaint that Ms X and her children stayed in a hotel for more than six weeks.
• The Council said Ms X does not have local priority. It changed the housing register to give a priority date from October 2023 and shows a low floor suitability of up to the fourth floor. It also added a note about tower blocks not being suitable. Ms X remains on the high priority transfer list.
46. The Council offered £200 for the fault identified and said it has made the following service improvements to:
• recruit more staff to handle cases more quickly;
• recommend changes in handover to make it quicker and clearer for residents so they know where responsibility lies for their housing assistance;
• deliver staff training to strengthen customer service;
• allow staff to respond to complaints in a timely manner.
47. On 16 July the Council offered Ms X temporary accommodation which she accepted the next day.
48. Ms X made a stage two complaint on 6 August. She thanked the Council for finding temporary accommodation closer to her children’s school and said it was a relief she could cook for them. However the Council had misunderstood her initial application and she had to wait a long-time for a response. She went on to say:
• Ms X clarified the Council put her in temporary accommodation in February 2019 because she had lost family members in the Grenfell fire.
• The £200 offered does not cover the significant amount she has had to spend on food for her family while in a hotel for six months.
• While she is grateful for the temporary accommodation, she would like to have an estimated timeline for how long they will remain there.
• Ms X did not understand the new allocation scheme. The Council gave her 0 points but she should be a priority due to escaping domestic abuse and potential medical needs of her family.
49. The Council sent a stage two response on 5 September. It said:
• There was a gap in contact from the Council from 15 December 2023 – 1 February 2024 and then a further gap until the 19 February. The Council accepted relief duty on 14 March and the main housing duty on 10 May. The Council agree these delays are unacceptable.
• Ms X’s previous homeless application with her ex-partner noted four members of her family died in the Grenfell fire. The Council added these notes to Ms X’s file.
• It assessed Ms X as needing a three-bed property. The waiting list is around nine years. Ms X has alternatives available. The application was not revised to reflect the 2018 date which was the Council’s error. It is now showing she has 160 points.
• The Council apologise for the errors and any inconvenience, and offer the maximum compensation of £500.
50. Ms X was not happy with the response and had a meeting with the Council on 13 September. After this the Council wrote to Ms X on 27 September and on this complaint it said:
• The Council apologise for the delays between November 2023 and February 2024, and said “temporary accommodation should have been offered to Ms X as soon as the case officer could assess your homelessness and eligibility”.
• The Council lacks details of the February 18 incident, and the accommodation provided to Ms X out of hours. The Council will review the out of hours processes to ensure all relevant data is recorded so domestic abuse survivors do not have to repeat their story. The Council will follow this up with the officer so this does not reoccur. As a department the Council launched a Domestic Abuse Procedure and Guidance in February 2024, and staff have taken a training package centred around domestic abuse and trauma.
• The Council offered Ms X £500 in its stage two complaint response. It subsequently discussed reassessing this amount due to delays managing Ms X’s case related to fleeing domestic abuse. It said it would need further information to decide a satisfactory amount.
• The Council recognise Ms X did not receive enough support when she first sought to escape domestic abuse, and it sincerely apologised for this.
51. In my enquiries I asked if the Council considered Ms X’s domestic abuse. It said it did and placed her in interim accommodation, but provided no evidence of the consideration other than a chronology showing the case officer knew she was fleeing domestic abuse on 10 November 2023.
52. I also asked if it considered the distance to Ms X’s children’s school. The Council response said it carried out a suitability assessment and it considered the travel distance suitable. It sent the assessment but it was sparse and said local temporary accommodation was warranted because Ms X was affected by the Grenfell tragedy.

Analysis

53. There was a delay of over three months between Ms X approaching the Council as homeless due to domestic abuse, and the Council offering interim accommodation for her and her children. The Council accepts this was undue delay (see paragraph 49) and is fault. This caused uncertainty and frustration to Ms X, and risk of harm from her ex-partner.
54. The Council wrote in its response to Ms X (see paragraph 50) “temporary accommodation should have been offered to Ms X as soon as the case officer could assess your homelessness and eligibility”. The S188 duty (see paragraph 15) is to offer interim accommodation as soon as the Council has “reason to believe” the applicant “may be homeless”. This is a low threshold. The Council does not have to assess whether the applicant is actually homeless and eligible. This could be seen as gatekeeping (see paragraph 32). Ms X approached the Council fleeing domestic abuse and already had an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate acting as her representative.
55. The Council did not keep Ms X updated on her housing case between December 2023 and February 2024 until she contacted the Council due to a further domestic abuse incident. This was fault and left her at risk of harm.
56. There was also delay in sending Ms X her PHP. This is fault causing Ms X frustration, distress and uncertainty.
57. Ms X and her children stayed in hotel accommodation for 13 weeks more than the six weeks allowed in law for families in bed and breakfast accommodation (see paragraph 45). This was fault and meant Ms X and the children lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they should have.
58. Ms X also complained the hotel was unsuitable because of its location. The records show that this was a challenging period for Ms X due to her recent experience of domestic abuse, having to repeatedly tell the Council what had happened and chase for a response, and issues with her son’s mental health.
59. The Council said it carried out a suitability assessment before offering Ms X the hotel accommodation which found that accommodation in Greater London was suitable. However I did not see the reasons for this in the suitability assessment. This is fault.
60. Although Miss X had no right to request a formal review of the suitability of her interim accommodation, the Council had a duty to ensure it was suitable for her. In April 2024, she told the Council her work contract had ended, and the distance from her child’s school and the lack of basic cooking and laundry facilities made it unaffordable. I have seen no evidence the Council considered this information or considered the affordability of the accommodation for Ms X.
61. I note the Council said its inability to secure alternative suitable interim accommodation for Ms X was due to shortage of accommodation in its borough. While the Ombudsman recognises the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, it is still service failure by the Council, and it is fault causing frustration, distress and injustice to Ms X.
62. The Council delayed accepting a relief duty. This is fault and caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty.
63. The Council’s handling of Ms X’s case was not in line with the Council’s own policy on domestic abuse. This says the Council will:
• write to the survivor or referring agency within two working days of the report, to agree the next steps and confirm its commitments;
• ensure ongoing support and contact is provided to the survivor. The Council will agree with the survivor how often to contact them, and whether they would like the Council to contact their caseworker, social worker or independent domestic violence advocate or any other support agency; and
• carry out a risk assessment and develop a personalised housing plan, exploring accommodation options, including moving to alternative temporary accommodation.
64. The Council offered Ms X £500 for the delay and faults identified in its stage two response. After meeting with Ms X it said it would consider a larger payment (see paragraph 50) but would need “additional information”. The Council did not specify what this would be. This should have been clarified to Ms X.
65. The Council’s delay in acting on Ms X’s report of domestic abuse and failure to follow up with her in November 2023 until February 2024 is fault.
66. I find the £500 payment is insufficient to recognise the injustice caused to Ms X. This will be addressed in the ‘action’ section below in line with our guidance on remedies.
67. There is also fault by the Council in failing to:
• Initially make a separate application for Ms X in November 2023;
• Issue the PHP in a timely manner;
• Keep a record of the domestic abuse incident Ms X reported to the out of hours service in February 2024;
• Check letters sent to Ms X in May 2024 which were insensitive following Grenfell;
• Keep Ms X updated or respond to her after she told the Council the interim accommodation was unsuitable and unaffordable in April 2024;
• Award Ms X incorrect points which it only corrected in its stage two complaint response in September 2024.
68. I am aware we have made service improvements to this Council on similar cases recently (23014464, 23016416, 23017391, 23020204, 24002981, 24004197, and 24009755). It is clear the Council is experiencing issues which the Ombudsman has addressed and the Council are dealing with. I am satisfied the service improvements agreed on the other complaints also address the issues from this complaint, and the Ombudsman will continue to follow up with the Council on any previously agreed service improvements and we will monitor the impact of these changes through our complaints.

Back to top

Agreed Action

69. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
1. apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Ms X:
1. £500 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused due to the faults identified above;
2. £800 for the harm caused to Ms X in February 2024 which was preventable;
3. £1000 for the added costs of travel, buying take-out and doing laundry while staying in a hotel;
4. £200 x 13 weeks (£2600) over the 6-week maximum limit on staying in a hotel. Our guidance on remedies recommends a payment of between £100 - £200 per week for complainants living in unsuitable accommodation. I have based my recommendation on the fact that Ms X was staying in one room with her two children, and had told the Council it was affecting her financially and emotionally.
5. The total payment to Ms X is £4900.
70. Within three months of the final decision the Council should:
1. ensure any records of residents being involved in the Grenfell tragedy are kept on the correct files;
2. remind staff to properly check any letters before being sent out to people effected by it;
3. remind staff about the low threshold of the S188 duty for interim accommodation.
71. In previous investigations by the Ombudsman, the Council has already agreed to take steps to reduce delay in homelessness applications, keep residents updated, and provide training to relevant staff on the Domestic Abuse policy. I have not repeated those recommendations here.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I find fault with the Council for delay, harm and poor communication causing injustice to Ms X. I have recommended payment to Ms X for the distress and frustration caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman