Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide suitable housing for Miss X and her family when she became homeless. This meant she stayed in unsuitable accommodation for three weeks and experienced avoidable distress. To remedy Miss X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complained about the accommodation the Council arranged for Miss X and her family when she became homeless. Mr Z said the Council’s wider approach to homelessness is unlawful. Mr Z also complained the Council failed to carry out an appropriately independent complaint investigation at stage two of its complaints procedure.
2. Mr Z said the Council’s failings meant Miss X had to stay in unsuitable housing for too long, which was detrimental to her and her children. Mr Z thinks the Council’s approach to homelessness accommodation is harmful to other residents in its area.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr Z and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness accommodation

8. 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.
9. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
10. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• People with dependent children;
• Pregnant women;
• People who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• Care leavers; and
• Victims of domestic abuse.

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2). Councils must keep the suitability of accommodation under review.
14. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 2020) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation immediately.
15. 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. We call this the six week rule.

Complaints handling

16. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure which covers issues including homelessness accommodation. Its policy says that, at stage two, it will appoint an independent senior officer to review the complaint and that this will not be the same person who responded at stage one.

The Ombudsman’s guidance

17. The Ombudsman provides remedies for injustice, not compensation, punishment or fines. When someone has suffered an injustice because of fault, we try to put them back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. Where that is not possible, we try to make recommendations which acknowledge the impact of the fault. When that is in the form of a payment, it is often a modest amount of symbolic value.
18. We have guidance on remedies to help ensure we remedy injustice in a fair and consistent way, while considering the specific circumstances of each complaint. The guidance says that where a person is housed in a B&B when they should not have been, we will typically recommend a symbolic weekly payment of £100 to £200 per week the person remained in a B&B when it was unsuitable.
19. The guidance clarifies that we take aggravating and mitigating factors into account. We consider a person’s injustice may be reduced if they have contributed to their own injustice. This might be when they refuse a suitable offer of accommodation which would have meant they could leave the B&B.
20. The Ombudsman has also issued guidance titled “Principles of Good Administrative Practice” which helps councils ensure they get the basics right by setting out six core principles of good administration. One of those principles “being citizen focused” notes that councils should deal with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances.

What happened

21. In mid-2024, Miss X and her two children became homeless. One of her children has additional needs stemming from neurodevelopmental disorders. Miss X applied to the Council for support and in mid-August, it decided it owed her the interim accommodation duty. It offered Miss X accommodation in a B&B (accommodation A) the same day.
22. Miss X’s family moved into the B&B. In mid-October 2024, the Council told Miss X it had completed an assessment of her housing need and decided it owed her the main housing duty. This meant the B&B Miss X was staying in became temporary accommodation. The Council told Miss X she could now request a review of the suitability of her accommodation. Miss X did not ask for a review.
23. In early November 2024, Miss X asked the Council when she would be moved. She said she was “really struggling” with having only one room for her and her children to share. She noted she was eating takeaways with them on the floor and was struggling to keep the room safe as there was nowhere to put things out of sight. She noted one of her children had additional needs.
24. Mr Z complained to the Council on Miss X’s behalf in mid-November. Mr Z has made a number of complaints to the Council on behalf of residents. He said Miss X had been staying in accommodation A more than six weeks.
25. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure to apologise Miss X remained in accommodation A. It said the situation was unavoidable due to a large increase in the number of people needing help with housing. It explained what it was doing to improve the housing available to people in its area. Mr Z asked the Council to respond at stage two of its complaints procedure. His complaint included that:
• The Council had not remedied the injustice Miss X experienced because of having to stay too long in accommodation A. He said he was aware the Council had offered a remedy to another person in similar circumstances;
• He was concerned the Council intended to move Miss X’s family to another B&B (accommodation B), which he felt was unsuitable; and
• He felt there were wider issues around the Council’s use of B&B’s to house homeless people.
26. The Council moved Miss X and her family into accommodation B in early December. It sent Miss X a letter which again set out that she could request a review of accommodation B’s suitability. Miss X did not ask for a review.
27. The Council’s stage two response came from a senior officer in one of the Council’s housing services. Its response included that:
• Miss X’s circumstances were different to those of the person it had made a remedy payment to, so it would not offer her a remedy for the time she spent in accommodation A over six weeks;
• It could not afford to remedy the injustice of every person living in a B&B for more than six weeks; and
• It did not agree its use of B&B’s was avoidable. It said matters outside of its control meant it was forced to house homeless families in B&B’s.
28. The Council moved Miss X to a different accommodation in early January 2025. Miss X did not ask the Council to review the suitability of that accommodation.
29. Mr Z complained to the Ombudsman and sent us a report titled “An objective review of concerns…in relation to the standard operating procedures of Basildon Council’s housing department”. It detailed Mr Z’s concerns about the Council’s stock of interim and temporary accommodation and use of B&B’s.

The Council’s response to our draft findings

30. We considered Mr Z’s complaint and provisionally concluded the Council was at fault for housing Miss X in accommodation A, a B&B, for too long. We said having to live too long in unsuitable housing was an injustice for Miss X and her family in its own right, but that the fault also caused Miss X distress.
31. We said that, despite saying it had, the Council had failed to consider Miss X’s individual circumstances when it refused to make a remedy payment to her as part of its response to her complaint. We said this was not good administrative practice and was fault, which caused Miss X further upset.
32. We asked the Council to apologise to Miss X, pay her £100 for each week she was in unsuitable accommodation and remind staff they must consider a complainant’s individual circumstances when deciding if the Council will offer a financial remedy for the failings it identified during its complaints investigation.
33. The Council refused to agree to the recommendations in our draft findings. Its comments included that:
• The six-week rule was introduced in 2003 when demand on housing services was significantly lower. The Council said it was no longer possible to meet that requirement;
• It was making significant efforts to increase the amount of homeless accommodation in its area but despite those efforts, it had no choice but to place Miss X in B&B accommodation for more than six weeks;
• Its contact with Miss X before Mr Z complained on her behalf did not indicate she was in distress, upset, pain, anxiety or frustration because of her housing. The Council feels this shows that Miss X had not experienced an injustice from being in accommodation A for too long and she had only said she was unhappy once Mr Z had offered to complain on her behalf;
• Mr Z had raised Miss X’s hopes about getting a financial payment. That had caused Miss X distress, not the Council’s actions;
• It had considered Miss X’s circumstances when deciding it would not offer her a remedy payment as part of its complaints response;
• The Ombudsman’s approach of normally recommending £100 to £200 per week a person remained in a B&B for longer than they should have was disproportionate. The Council said this was because it does not take into account a council’s efforts to find the person alternative accommodation or that they would only be in a B&B for a short time. The Council also said our approach does not take account of times when the homeless person declines a suitable offer of accommodation; and
• It could not afford to make payments to recognise the impact of unsuitable housing on each resident who complains to the Ombudsman. It said that money should be spent on improving services.

Findings

Bed and breakfast accommodation

34. I am mindful of the significant challenges faced by councils in procuring temporary accommodation to meet the needs of increasing numbers of homeless families. However, the law sets out that B&B accommodation is unsuitable for homeless families with dependent children after six weeks. While the Council feels that position is outdated and unachievable, it remains the law.
35. In total, Miss X stayed at accommodation A for almost nine weeks while it was interim accommodation; between mid-August and mid-October 2024. This was around three weeks longer than allowed and was fault. In Miss X’s case, she was sharing a single room with her two children. They had no way to have space from each other, little room for their belongings and no way to prepare and cook food. The law says families with dependent children must not stay in B&B’s for more than six weeks because they are unsuitable to meet the needs of such families. This extended stay therefore caused injustice in its own right, regardless of whether Miss X told the Council she was distressed by the situation.
36. In any event, I do not agree that Miss X only said she was unhappy with her housing once Mr Z offered to complain on her behalf, or that he was the cause of her distress by raising her hopes. Before Mr Z complained, Miss X told the Council she was “really struggling” and set out the impact living in the B&B was having on her and her children. Miss X experienced avoidable distress because of the Council’s fault.
37. The Council told us it felt the Ombudsman’s approach to remedying injustice from cases like Miss X’s was flawed. The Ombudsman’s guidance reflects the view set out above, that staying in a B&B for more than six weeks contrary to the law causes an injustice in itself. This is regardless of a council’s efforts to find other accommodation or its intention to only use the B&B for a short period of time. The guidance does, however, note that there can be occasions when a complainant contributes to their injustice, which we take into account when deciding what financial remedy to recommend. I am satisfied based on the circumstances of this case that £100 per week is an appropriate symbolic amount that remedies Miss X’s injustice.
38. The Council told us it considered Miss X’s circumstances when it declined to make a remedy payment to her as part of its response to her complaint. It has provided no evidence of this. The only rationale the Council gave for its decision was set out in its complaint response; that it can not afford to make remedy payments to everyone in B&B’s for too long. I am aware the Council has made the same statement in complaint responses to other people in a similar living situation. The Council did not consider Miss X’s case when refusing to remedy her injustice, which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice and was fault. It caused her avoidable upset.
39. In mid-October 2024 accommodation A became temporary accommodation. At that point, Miss X could have asked the Council to review its suitability. She did not. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate matters where a person can ask a council to review its decision. That is because there is or was a valid alternative route available to the person to obtain the outcome they want. It was reasonable for Miss X to ask for a review, so I have not investigated the suitability of accommodation A from mid-October 2024 to the date she moved to accommodation B.
40. Similarly, Miss X had a right of review against the Council’s decision that accommodation B was suitable for her and her family. It was reasonable for her to used that right of review, so I have not considered whether accommodation B was suitable.
41. If Miss X feels her current accommodation is unsuitable, it is open to her to ask the Council for a review.

The Council’s wider approach to homelessness

42. Mr Z has identified what he feels are significant issues with the Council’s service. We are considering those matters as part of another case we are investigating and do not need to consider them further here in order to remedy any injustice to Miss X so we will not make findings on them in this investigation.

Complaints handling

43. Mr Z feels the Council’s complaints handling was poor because the person that responded at stage two was insufficiently independent. He says this was because they were in a management position within the housing department responsible for interim and temporary accommodation. However, the senior officer appointed to respond to a stage two complaint should have sufficient understanding of the issues to answer the complaint. This is likely to mean the officer is based in the department responsible for the matters complained about.
44. The senior officer was sufficiently independent from the matters Mr Z complained about on Miss X’s behalf, which was in accordance with its complaints policy and good administrative practice.

Back to top

Action

45. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council should take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the upset caused by its failure to house her in suitable accommodation for three weeks and for its failure to make her a suitable remedy offer in response to Mr Z’s complaint on her behalf. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Miss X £300 to recognise that injustice. This amounts to £100 per week Miss X was in unsuitable interim accommodation.
3. Remind staff that when they uphold a complaint, they must consider the individual circumstances of the case before deciding what remedy to offer to resolve the person’s injustice, or whether to offer a remedy at all.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman