Summary: Miss X complained about the suitability of temporary accommodation and the amount of times she had to move from one temporary accommodation to another between 2012 and 2019. She said the Council breached conditions of a supervision order which said it should liaise with another Council to accommodate her nearer her support network. The Council was not at fault. The supervision order expired in 2013 with no such condition attached to it. The Council followed the correct process when it moved Miss X to different temporary accommodation and dealt with her concerns appropriately.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her temporary accommodation between 2012 and 2019. In particular Miss X complained:
• the Council breached conditions of a supervision order which expired in 2013 which said it should liaise with another Council to house her nearer her family and support network;
• about the amount of times the Council moved her from one temporary accommodation to another; and
• placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation which was in a state of disrepair.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. Miss X complained about the suitability of her temporary accommodation for the period 2012 to 2019. I have only investigated the Council’s actions in relation to Miss X’s temporary accommodation from 2017 onwards. I explain my reasons why at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint.
7. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Supervision orders

9. A supervision order imposes a duty on the local authority to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ the child. It may require a child to live in a specified place, do certain activities and report to a particular place at a set time. A supervision order can last for one year and may be extended yearly to a total of three years. It will last until the child reaches the age of 18, unless discharged at an earlier date. 
10. Within the Supervision Order there is the opportunity to impose obligations on a ‘responsible person’.
11. The responsible person, in relation to a supervised child means:
• Any person who has parental responsibility for the child; and
• Any other person with whom the child is living.
12. This is usually the child’s parent or carer.
13. The responsible person may, therefore, have requirements placed on them which they must meet. The responsible person must consent to this before it can be included in the Supervision Order. The responsible person is required to give details of the child’s address and allow the supervisor reasonable contact with the child.

Homelessness

14. There are four tests councils apply when deciding what, if any, duty it owes a homeless applicant. Councils will enquire to find out if a person;
• is homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• is eligible for support;
• has a priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.); and
• has not made themselves intentionally homeless.
15. If the council is satisfied that a person passes those tests, then it will owe a full housing duty to them. The Council usually provides temporary accommodation until it permanently re-houses a person in social housing or private rented accommodation.
16. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of a council’s decision about their homelessness application or the suitability of temporary accommodation. There is no right to review the suitability of interim accommodation provided while the council makes enquires.

The Law and the Council’s allocation policy

17. The Council is under a legal duty to have a scheme for allocating accommodation. The Council has the right to set its own housing policies and decide all aspects of the allocations process.
18. The law says the Council must give people with a high housing need “reasonable preference” through the allocations scheme. This includes people at risk of homelessness and those who need to move for medical or welfare reasons.
19. The Council decides reasonable preference by placing applicants in a certain priority band depending on their circumstances. Applicants have a right to ask for a review of this decision.
20. There are four bands, A to C. A is for applicants with a high priority and urgent need to move, B is for applicants who are a medium priority, and C for applicants who meet the homelessness criteria but have a low priority in relation to their need to move. D is for applicants who meet none of the criteria in bands A-C. The Council’s policy says that due to the high demand for social housing in its area, the majority of people will never be offered a permanent home.
21. If an applicant’s circumstances change, they can ask the Council to review their housing priority. Applicants would usually need to provide the Council with evidence to show why they need a higher priority.

What happened

22. In 2011, Miss X lived in permanent accommodation in another Council’s area (Council B). In 2012 Miss X had a child, A. Due to incidents of domestic violence, Miss X left Council B’s area and went with A to live in mother and child foster care. That meant she left her permanent accommodation in the Council B area, and also moved away from her other children whom she has joint custody of. During that period, A was the subject of an interim care order. Miss X wanted to move back into Council B’s area. However, her social worker recommended in a letter to the Council Miss X lived two boroughs away from Council B.
23. In 2012 the Council, which is the subject of this complaint, accepted Miss X as homeless. It carried out a parent assessment and decided Miss X no longer needed to live in foster care and could provide adequate care for A within the community.
24. In October 2012, the court ordered a supervision order in respect of A. It ordered the Council to supervise A for 12 months, and care was transferred to the Council’s children’s services. The court ordered the Council to assist and support Miss X with finding alternative accommodation should she require it. It said the Council and Council B should liaise and assist with costs to find such accommodation.
25. The supervision order contained an agreement between Miss X and the Council. For the duration of the order Miss X agreed not to travel to the Council B area without first consulting with her social worker. As Miss X did not want to live in the Council area, she agreed to provide details to her social worker of alternative housing which was at least 3 miles from Council B. The Council agreed as part of the supervision order to provide Miss X with rent and the deposit in the event she identified suitable accommodation.
26. Miss X moved into temporary accommodation in August 2012 and moved to another property in March 2013 due to the lease ending in the previous one.
27. The supervision order ended in October 2013. The Council wrote to Miss X and told her its children’s services were ending its involvement with A. The Council said there were no significant concerns about the care Miss X provided A, so there was no further need for social care. The Council referred Miss X to its family support service.
28. Miss X moved into another temporary accommodation, property C, in October 2015. During 2016 and 2017, Miss X reported numerous issues of disrepair to the Council about property C. The issues including blocked toilets, holes in walls, leaking wash basins, boiler problems and leaks.
29. In August 2017 Miss X received notice that the Council was evicting her because the lease had ended. The cases notes show Miss X contacted the Council on a number of occasions during September 2017, including to report that the property had maggots and mice. The Council sent pest control officers, however the problem continued, and the Council agreed Miss X should move properties as soon as possible.
30. The case notes show the Council struggled to find alternative accommodation for Miss X. It identified new temporary accommodation in September 2017, however that was no longer affordable to Miss X after she lost her job. The Council raised the possibility of Miss X moving to emergency accommodation, however Miss X declined to consider that option.
31. In September 2017 Miss X complained to the Council. She said the Council had breached the terms of the supervision order. Miss X said she was placed in the Council’s area by Council B due to fleeing domestic violence. Miss X said she had no friends or support network in the Council’s area and wanted to move back to Council B.
32. Miss X also said:
• every property the Council placed her in was in disrepair and this caused her a lot of stress;
• the current property had numerous issues of disrepair including an infestation of mice and maggots.
• the idea of emergency accommodation in a hostel was causing her stress and uncertainty; and
• she had received very little response or correspondence from the Council on the matters she had complained about.
33. Miss X said she wanted rehousing in suitable accommodation before the Council evicted her from property C.
34. The Council wrote back to Miss X at stage 1 in October 2017. It said its record showed that Council B said it was not safe for Miss X to return to its area in 2012 following her period in foster care. It said Miss X approached the Council who accepted her as homeless in August 2012. It said it placed Miss X in temporary accommodation in August 2012 and had managed her case ever since. The Council said it had consistently told Miss X it could not assist with moving her back to the Council B area because it had no available accommodation in that area. The Council said it was aware of the current issues in property C and was doing all it could to identify another suitable property. The Council said the previous issues of disrepair had been dealt with by the landlord who was responsible for any repair.
35. The Council found Miss X alternative temporary accommodation, property D, which she moved into in November 2017. However, that tenancy ended in May 2018 when the Council decided to move her to another property E. This was because of a dispute with a neighbour. Miss X said she was forced to leave the property at short notice leaving her belongings behind and over £100 in credit on the electric meter.
36. Miss X complained to the Council again in July 2018. She said the Council had not answered her concerns about the number of times she was forced to move between temporary accommodations. She said the Council had not provided her with any support in moving back to the Council B area which was in breach of a condition on the supervision order which expired in 2013. The Council said it would investigate Miss X’s complaint at stage 2 but it would not consider her complaint about the supervision order as that was a matter for the court.
37. The Council wrote to Miss X in August 2018. It said the main reason why it could not assist with moving Miss X back to the Council B area was because the Council had accepted her as homeless, with the recommendation for housing to be at least two boroughs away from Council B due to threats to her safety. The Council said it had a limited supply of temporary accommodation, and none in the Council B area. The Council said it also had a responsibility to consider the recommendation from Council B and consider the safety of Miss X and her child. It said Miss X should raise that issue with Council B if it no longer applied.
38. The Council acknowledged Miss X had moved to several different temporary accommodation since it accepted her as homeless. However, it said the reasons for the moves were outside its control which included landlord end of lease, significant disrepair and a dispute with her neighbour. The Council said there was no evidence its housing service had caused her any injustice.
39. Miss X requested a review of the suitability of property E. The Council responded to Miss X in October 2018. The review considered the concerns Miss X had previously raised, and whether property E was too far away from Miss X’s other children whom she has joint custody of. The Council concluded property Z was suitable, met her household needs and was reasonable for her to continue living there. The Council reiterated that the accommodation was on a temporary basis, and it would continue its ongoing duty towards her as an accepted homeless household.
40. Miss X remained unhappy and in January 2019 she complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

41. Miss X’s complained to the Ombudsman that that the Council breached conditions on the supervision order which expired in 2013. Miss X said the order contained a condition that said the Council and Council B should liaise to find her accommodation close to her support network when the order expired.
42. I have looked at the supervision order and the associated agreement attached to that order. There was no condition attached which stated the Council must find Miss X accommodation nearer to Council B. The court ordered the Council and Council B to liaise and help with reasonable costs if Miss X sought alternative suitable accommodation. The court order was for the Council to supervise child A for a period of 12 months. As the supervision expired in October 2013, so did that agreement. Following that the Council decided to end its social care involvement with child A. I find no evidence that the Council failed to carry out any duties contained within the supervision order. The Council was not at fault.
43. The evidence showed Miss X is clearly unhappy living in the Council’s area. There is a severe shortage of available and suitable temporary accommodation in its area. While the Council can consider accommodation outside its area, it said it did not have any near Council B’s area. In any case, the Council rightly considered the letter from Council B which said Miss X should not live within 2 boroughs of Council B’s area for her own safety. I find no fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s request to move nearer to Council B.
44. The other part of Miss X’s complaint was about the number of times she moved from one temporary accommodation to another. Miss X also complained about disrepair and the suitability of the accommodation.
45. The case notes showed the Council had already told Miss X it had applied for an eviction notice on property C before she reported the issue of maggots and mice on 7 September. They also showed the Council was making appropriate efforts to find Miss X alternative accommodation. However, there was some delay in Miss X providing her income details, and then a suitable property found by the Council fell through after Miss X lost her job. The notes also show Miss X would not consider emergency accommodation.
46. The Council found her property D before her eviction from property C at the end of November 2017. Although the threat of eviction and the issue of maggots and mice caused Miss X distress the Council made appropriate efforts to source her alternative accommodation. The Council was not at fault.
47. The evidence showed that when Miss X was at property D, she had an ongoing dispute with her neighbour who was a private tenant. The housing association, which was the landlord, decided it was no longer safe for Miss X to live at property D; therefore, the Council decided it was no longer suitable as temporary accommodation and it moved Miss X to property E. Given the circumstances I find no fault in that decision. The Council was not at fault.
48. Miss X complained she was forced out of property 2 at short notice and had to leave her belongings behind. Miss X said she also lost £100 worth of credit on the electric meter. In line with the Council’s policy, Miss X had to accept the offer of temporary accommodation at property E. Refusing meant the Council could have decided to end its housing duty to Miss X. The cases notes showed the Council offered to transport Miss X’s belongings to property 3, however Miss X changed her mind. Therefore, the Council cancelled its removal contractors and told Miss X to make her own arrangements. The £100 electric meter credit is a matter for Miss X and the landlord to resolve. The Council made appropriate arrangements to assist Miss X in moving her belongs from property D to property E. The Council was not at fault.
49. The evidence showed Miss X was unhappy about leaving property D because it had a garden. Therefore, she asked the Council to review the suitability of property E. It concluded it was suitable. Miss X had the right to appeal that decision, however there is no evidence that she did. I have considered the available evidence and the review carried out by the Council and found no evidence which showed property E was unsuitable. The Council was not at fault.
50. Miss X is unhappy living within the Council’s area, and unhappy about the number of times she has moved from one accommodation to another. Miss X does not agree with the Council’s decisions but as there was no fault in the process it followed, I cannot question the decisions it made. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

52. I have not investigated issues relating to the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation between 2012 and 2016. That is because Miss X was aware of the issues at the time and it is reasonable to expect her to have complain earlier to the Council. In any case, the Ombudsman would not look at these matters because Miss X could have asked the Council for a suitability review and appealed the outcome if she was unhappy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman