Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided Miss X’s homelessness interim and temporary accommodation was suitable for her and her family’s needs. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty. To remedy her injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also issue a reminder to staff to ensure they properly consider an individual’s personal circumstances and record their decision making in deciding whether accommodation is suitable.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complained about the accommodation the Council arranged for Miss X and her family when they became homeless. Mr Z said the Council’s wider approach to homelessness is unlawful. Mr Z also complained the Council initially failed to respond to the complaints he made on Miss X’s behalf, and that it later failed to carry out a suitably independent stage two investigation into his complaint.
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 interim and temporary 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant 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)
6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by the Council and Mr Z as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

9. 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.
10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
11. 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)
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. When deciding if accommodation is suitable, the law says councils must consider several factors, including:
• the size of the property and whether it is legally overcrowded;
• affordability for the applicant;
• the location of the accommodation;
• the Council’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any children living in the accommodation and their rights to an education;
• the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities; and
• any relevant parts of the Council’s homelessness strategy.
15. The law sets out tests to decide whether living accommodation is ‘overcrowded’. (Housing Act 1985, sections 324-326). A home is overcrowded if either:
• two people of the opposite sex aged over 10 and who are not living together as a couple have to sleep in the same room; or
• more people live in the property than the number or size of rooms in the property can accommodate under the rules.
16. For the second of these tests, the law says accommodation with a single room can accommodate two ‘people’. In calculating the number of people the law says, children under one year old do not count and children aged between one and ten years old count as half a person.
17. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. They must ask for the review within 21 days of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation immediately.
18. 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)

Complaints handling

19. 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.
20. The Council will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

What happened

21. Miss X has several children and in late July 2024, the family became homeless. One of Miss X’s children was over 10 and the remaining children were between one and 10 years old. Miss X applied to the Council for support and it sought some information about her circumstances. The Council noted another council’s children’s services had been involved with the family due to domestic abuse from a person no longer living with the family. It also noted Miss X had mental health difficulties and was taking medication.
22. The Council decided, on the same day, that it owed her the interim accommodation duty. It immediately offered Miss X a room in a B&B (accommodation A), which she moved in to. The room had a double bed and bunk beds.
23. In early August Miss X told the Council accommodation A was unsuitable for her family. Her issues included that the housing was affecting her mental health and it was too far away from her work and her children’s school and extracurricular activities.
24. In mid-August, Miss X told the Council that crime occurring outside accommodation A was reminding her of the domestic abuse she had experienced and was traumatising as a result. Miss X told the Council this again in late August, when she added that it was worsening her mental health needs.
25. At the end of the month, Miss X said the situation at accommodation A had not improved and there were issues there every day.
26. In early September, Mr Z enquired with the Council about Miss X’s accommodation. He said Miss X was unhappy with the size of the room and about crime and anti-social behaviour occurring outside the building. An internal email said the Council had not received any complaints from Miss X about the accommodation.
27. A senior officer (officer C) in the Council’s housing service responded to Mr Z in late September. They said:
• Accommodation A was suitable self-contained accommodation. This was because the room came with a microwave, fridge and area for preparing food and personal washing facilities;
• The room came with a double bed, single bed and bunk bed;
• The Council had not received any reports about anti-social behaviour but explained that accommodation A was only responsible for people’s conduct within the building. There was little it could do to change people’s behaviour on the street.
28. Mr Z made a complaint on Miss X’s behalf. He said accommodation A was not self-contained and therefore Miss X had been in a B&B for more than six weeks.
29. A few weeks later, Mr Z made a second complaint on Miss X’s behalf. It said he had been to see Miss X’s room and she was overcrowded. Mr Z said Miss X only had a double bed and bunk bed, which he said meant that one of her children was sleeping on the floor. Mr Z also said the property was in a hotspot for sex work, drugs and other criminal activity. Records show that in response, a Council officer said they remembered someone telling them the room had a double and single bed and bunk beds. Shortly after, the Council arranged for accommodation A to put an extra bed in Miss X’s room.
30. The same day, in early October, the Council decided it owed Miss X the main housing duty. This meant the B&B Miss X was staying in became temporary accommodation.
31. The Council responded to Mr Z’s two complaints outside of its complaints procedure in mid-October. The response came from officer C, who apologised for the Council’s failure to provide enough beds for Miss X’s family. They said accommodation A was not in an unsafe area and that police had not raised concerns about crime with the Council.
32. Mr Z was unhappy the Council had not responded to his complaints under the corporate complaints procedure, so he escalated the matter to the Council’s upper management. In response, officer C apologised for not using the Council’s complaints procedure. They said the Council usually treated concerns from people in Mr Z’s position as enquiries instead of complaints on behalf of the resident. Officer C said the Council was changing its procedures so if it received an enquiry from people in Mr Z’s position in future, it would treat those concerns through the complaints procedure, providing the resident provided explicit consent for that to happen.
33. The Council moved Miss X to different temporary accommodation (accommodation B) in early November. It later made Miss X a final offer, to stay permanently at accommodation B.
34. In late November 2024 Miss X gave her consent for Mr Z to complain on her behalf. The Council sent its stage one response to Mr Z’s complaint in mid-December 2024. The response said the Council had not had any reports of sex work and associated crime near accommodation A and that the frequency of sex work in the area was reduced compared to previous years.
35. Mr Z asked for a stage two investigation, which officer C responded to in late January 2025. They did not uphold Mr Z’s complaint.
36. 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 interim and temporary accommodation but also that the Council failed to house one homeless applicant and that it failed to respond to another homeless applicant’s self-referral to its service.

Findings

Accommodation A’s suitability

37. The Ombudsman usually expects complainants to use their right to request a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation. However, it was not reasonable for Miss X to have asked for a review given the Council offered her accommodation A as temporary accommodation in early October but then offered her accommodation B within the review timeframe. For that reason, I have investigated the suitability of Miss X’s interim and temporary accommodation.
38. After moving into accommodation A, Miss X and later Mr Z raised repeated concerns about its suitability. The Council was at fault in how it considered those concerns. This was because:

• It failed to consider Miss X’s view that the accommodation was too far away from her work, children’s school and extra-curricular activities;
• From early August 2024 onwards, Miss X repeatedly told the Council people were engaging in concerning behaviour outside the accommodation. The Council said there was little it could do about people’s behaviour outside of accommodation A. However, as a survivor of domestic abuse and someone with mental health needs, Miss X was particularly vulnerable to the impact of any anti-social behaviour. The Council failed to consider whether Miss X’s history meant accommodation A was unsuitable; and
• It failed to consider the fact that Miss X was overcrowded. A single room can house a maximum of two people. Given the ages of Miss X’s children, the family counted as three people and so needed at least two rooms.

39. I cannot say, even on balance of probabilities, that had the Council properly considered these concerns it would have concluded accommodation A was unsuitable for Miss X and her family. Therefore, the fault caused Miss X significant upset and leaves her with a sense of uncertainty about what the Council might have concluded.
40. The Council has decided that when a person staying in a B&B with a private bathroom and toilet is provided with a microwave, their accommodation is self-contained. This means the six week rule does not apply. Mr Z disagrees with the Council’s view and feels that accommodation A was a B&B throughout the period Miss X lived there. This would mean that by mid-September accommodation A was unsuitable. Mr Z has concerns the Council is taking this approach with other homeless applicants.
41. The Ombudsman makes findings on maladministration. This can occur if a council has not acted in line with relevant law and guidance. We cannot make definitive judgements on how to interpret legislation. Whether or not the Council’s interpretation of what constitutes B&B or self-contained accommodation was lawful is not something the Ombudsman can definitively decide; it is for the courts to consider. We will not investigate this part of Mr Z’s complaint. That is because we cannot achieve Miss X’s desired outcome; to decide accommodation A was a B&B. In addition, it is open for her to challenge the Council’s decision through a judicial review so there is another body better placed to consider her concerns.
42. When a council offers a person accommodation it is ultimately responsible for ensuring that room contained the furniture it should have. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Miss X with enough beds for her children. Miss X says this meant one of her children had to sleep on the floor. It was feasible for the child to sleep with Miss X in her double bed but nonetheless, the child should have had a bed of their own and the lack of one was an injustice to them and distressing for Miss X.

The Council’s wider approach to homelessness

43. Mr Z has identified what he feels are systemic and ongoing issues with the Council’s service. It is clear Mr Z feels there needs to be oversight of the Council’s approach until it is improved. However, while the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve a council’s practice, we do so based on consideration of individual complaints about personal injustice. We are not a regulator; we have no power to have ongoing oversight over a council’s service. We cannot achieve Mr Z’s desired outcome so we will not investigate this part of his complaint.

Complaints handling

44. After making enquiries of the Council, Mr Z made two complaints. While the Council normally responds to people in Mr Z’s position outside of the complaints procedure, Mr Z was clear in his two complaints that he expected a response in line with the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council should have clarified with Mr Z how he wanted it to respond to his concerns to ensure it was using the correct procedure. The Council’s failure to do so was fault. It has decided to amend its processes to prevent the issue happening again, which is appropriate. The fault caused Mr Z avoidable frustration, which the Council has apologised for. That remedies his injustice.
45. When the Council responded to Mr Z’s complaints outside of the complaints procedure, the response came from Officer C. However, when the Council later responded to his complaints, the same officer issued the stage two response. By that point, the officer was no longer sufficiently independent from the matters complained about to count as an “independent senior officer”. This was fault and caused Mr Z frustration.

Back to top

Action

46. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Mr Z for the frustration he felt due to the Council’s failure to respond to his complaint correctly. 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 the apology.
2. Apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty and distress she felt because of its failure to properly consider if her temporary accommodation was unsuitable and because of the delay providing a suitable bed for one of her children.
3. Pay Miss X £300 to recognise that injustice.
4. Remind staff dealing with interim and temporary accommodation, through training or guidance, that they must consider a person’s individual circumstances when deciding if their accommodation is unsuitable and record their decision making.
47. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman