Summary: The Council was at fault for delay providing Ms X and her children temporary accommodation, failing to consider its main housing duty, and giving Ms X insufficient time to consider an offer. This meant a delay in Ms X moving back to the area where her support network was, and it disrupted her children’s education. The Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr O complained on behalf of Ms X that the Council failed to properly assess her housing needs when she was fleeing domestic abuse, placed her and her family in unsuitable accommodation, and only gave them one day to move a long distance away.
2. Mr O said this seriously disrupted the whole family, including one of Ms X’s children who was preparing to sit exams. He said it left Ms X without her support network, which was particularly difficult and stressful for Ms X as she does not speak English. Mr O said it caused Ms X unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration and upset at an already difficult and traumatic time.

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. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. Mr O is a legal representative. Mr O represented Ms X’s request to the Council for a suitability review. I consider that Mr O is a suitable person to represent this complaint on Ms X’s behalf.
8. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr O and the Council. Mr O and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
9. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

10. 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)
11. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
12. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
13. 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 called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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)
15. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
16. Housing authorities must allow applicants a reasonable period to consider offers of accommodation that will end prevention and relief duties. There is no set reasonable period. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 14.5)

What happened

17. In early 2024, Ms X told the Council she and her children were homeless because they were fleeing domestic abuse. She told the Council one of her children has special educational needs.
18. The Council assessed Ms X, accepted it owed her the relief duty, and provided interim accommodation.
19. Within a week, the Council made a direct offer to Ms X of a private rental sector property at the other end of the country. It said Ms X had a few days to decide whether to accept the offer.
20. Ms X accepted the offer.
21. A week later, Ms X asked the Council to review the suitability of the property.
22. Mr O, on behalf of Ms X, told the Council the property was unsuitable for a number of reasons:
• one of Ms X’s children was in a GCSE exam year;
• the other child had special educational needs and the Council had not considered the impact of the move on their needs;
• the Council had not liaised with the receiving local authority about school places for either child;
• the Council had not assessed the impact of domestic abuse on the family and Ms X’s reliance on local support networks; and,
• the Council had not properly assessed the family’s needs.
23. Mr O sent the Council letters from Ms X’s family and friends who explained the support they gave Ms X and her children.
24. In April, the Council agreed the property was unsuitable.
25. In July, the Council offered Ms X accommodation within its borough. She accepted.
26. Mr O complained to the Council.
27. The Council accepted it should have considered Ms X’s child being in a GCSE year before it offered accommodation outside London. The Council offered £100 to reflect the aspects of Ms X’s case that it could have managed better.
28. Ms X did not accept the £100. Mr O complained to the Ombudsman on Ms X’s behalf.

Analysis

Assessment of need and an offer of unsuitable accommodation

29. Mr O complained the Council failed to properly assess Ms X’s housing needs when she was fleeing domestic abuse. As a result, he said the Council placed Ms X and her family in unsuitable accommodation.
30. Ms X had the right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation the Council offered her. She used that right. The Council decided its offer of accommodation was unsuitable. I find the review process did its job. It is therefore not appropriate for us to investigate the original decision-making.
31. The effect of the review decision was that the Council was not able to end the relief duty with that accommodation offer. This means the relief duty did not end when Ms X accepted the offer.
32. The relief duty normally ends after 56 days and on day 57 the council needs to decide if it owes a main housing duty. In this case, by the time the Council made the review decision, the 56 day relief period had ended. Therefore, the Council should have gone on to consider if it owed Ms X the main housing duty.
33. The Council did not consider if it owed Ms X the main housing duty at that point. But, if it had done, I find it likely it would have accepted a duty. This was because Ms X was homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and had not made herself intentionally homeless.
34. During the period the Council owed Ms X the main housing duty, it was under a duty to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation. The Council accepted the out-of-area accommodation was not suitable so it was under an immediate duty to provide alternative temporary accommodation.
35. I find the Council delayed arranging suitable alternative temporary accommodation between the date it decided the out-of-area accommodation was not suitable and the date it provided temporary accommodation. This is fault.
36. I find the Council failed to consider whether it owed Ms X the main duty immediately after making the review decision. This is fault.
37. The Council told Ms X the accommodation it offered in July was interim accommodation. This is not accurate. The Council should have told Ms X that this accommodation was temporary accommodation.
38. I find these faults caused Ms X and her children injustice. There was a delay moving the family back to the area after the review decision. This caused injustice. Ms X was moved to accommodation a long way from her support network, which was very significant for her given her circumstances. The education of one child with special educational needs was disrupted. The education of Ms X’s other child, who was in a GCSE year, was also disrupted. This is injustice.

Time to move

39. Mr O complained the Council only gave Ms X one day to move a long distance away.
40. As I have said above, housing authorities must allow applicants a reasonable period to consider offers of accommodation that will end prevention and relief duties.
41. In this case, the Council offered Ms X the out-of-area property on a Thursday after 4pm. It said Ms X had until 10am on Monday to tell the Council if she accepted or declined the offer. This is less than four days, and included weekend days.
42. While the guidance says there is no set “reasonable period”, I find the Council at fault for its short notice. I find this caused injustice because it failed to give Ms X reasonable time to consider her options. This caused uncertainty, which is injustice.

Back to top

Action

43. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X in writing for:
• the uncertainty caused by giving her a very short time to accept or decline the offer of an out-of-area property; and,
• the injustice caused by the delay giving Ms X the right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation it provided in July.
44. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this apology.
45. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £1100 to Ms X. This is made up as follows:
• £1000 to remedy the injustice caused by Ms X and her children living in unsuitable accommodation between April and July. This was almost three months. Our guidance on remedies sets out a payment of between £150 and £350 per month for each month of living in unsuitable accommodation. I have considered the level of injustice caused, and I consider a payment of £350 per month is appropriate and proportionate. £350 per month multiplied by 3 months is £1050. As it was not a whole three months, I consider £1000 is suitable;
• the Council offered £100 in its complaint response. I understand that Ms X has not accepted this. The Council has agreed to make this payment to Ms X in addition to the £1000 above.
• £1000 plus £100 is £1100.
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.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman