Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of interim accommodation and its decision to end its provision under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the Council’s decision to end his accommodation and its decision that he was not entitled to accommodation as he was intentionally homeless.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council placing him and his family in bed and breakfast interim accommodation which he says was unsuitable as his son has ADHD and needs a separate room and cooking facilities. He also says his housing application priority has not taken his son’s health needs into consideration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

2. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
3. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says he was placed in bed and breakfast accommodation which was unsuitable for his family due to the other residents who were noisy and threatening to each other. He says his son has special needs and that he should have a separate room and cooking facilities. He says that his housing application assessment does not reflect his son’s needs and should have higher priority.
5. The Council says Mr X was placed in interim accommodation under the Relief duty which is bed and breakfast and later hostel accommodation until the application is determined or 56 days has elapsed. In this case Mr X was placed in bed and breakfast for six weeks and the Council decided not to accept the Main housing duty because it believed he was intentionally homeless.
6. Mr X was evicted from temporary accommodation provided by another council because he refused a reasonable offer of accommodation close to his existing accommodation. He presented as homeless to Southend Council and it placed him in interim accommodation until his application was decided.
7. When it issued the intentionally homeless decision the Relief duty ended and Mr X was told he must vacate the interim accommodation. He was still in occupation when he complained to us but under threat of eviction. The Council’s decision letter informed Mr X of his right to ask for a review of the decision within 21 days. We would expect someone to use the review and appeal procedure available under the homelessness legislation because we cannot overturn a decision on a homeless application.
8. The Council advised Mr X that his housing application priority was reduced to Band D from the intentional decision because, regardless of medical needs, applicants who are homeless due to being intentional are placed in Band D. Once the Council has evicted Mr X (if he does not successfully appeal the decision) he will need to complete an application from his next address as the assessment is based on the applicant’s accommodation situation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of interim accommodation and its decision to end its provision under its homelessness duty. It was reasonable for Mr X to ask for a review of the Council’s decision to end his accommodation and its decision that he was not entitled to accommodation as he was intentionally homeless.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman