Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council provided support to her and her son after they became homeless. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to assess the needs of Ms X and her son, placed them in unsuitable temporary accommodation and lost Ms X’s personal property. The Council has apologised and paid Ms X £200. It agreed to make an additional payment of £500 to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to assess the needs of her son and did not effectively liaise with children’s services after it accepted a homeless duty to her. She said the Council placed her in unfurnished temporary accommodation which had no cooking facilities and then moved her again at short notice into unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council also lost Ms X’s belongings and it took six months to return them.
2. Ms X and her son spent a total of 3 months in unsuitable temporary accommodation and which she said caused avoidable distress.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries. I also considered:

• The Housing Act 1996
• The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Allocation policy

6. Ms X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The authority has a duty to persons who are not intentionally homeless or those threatened with homelessness. (Housing Act s193 and 195)
8. The authority must take reasonable steps to help the applicant to secure accommodation and in deciding what steps to take, the authority must have regard to their assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, s195 (2) and (3)
9. Where an authority has become subject to a homelessness duty it must take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of, or damage to, personal property of the applicant. (Housing Act s20.2)
10. The Council’s policy confirms that all homeless households are individually assessed prior to placement to determine the type and location of temporary accommodation that should be offered. Any decision will have regard to the Children’s Act 2004 and the Council’s need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
11. Not all the Council’s self-contained accommodation is furnished but cookers and fridges are provided.

What happened

12. In May 2017, the Council completed a housing assessment on Ms X and accepted a duty to house her. It placed Ms X in property 1. At this time, Ms X was living by herself as her son, Y was in the care of the Council. Following a court decision, Y was due to be returned to Ms X’s care on 17 March 2018.
13. Y’s social worker assessed property 1, a one bedroomed studio flat, as unsuitable for Y. They wrote to the Council’s housing department on 5 March 2018 to notify it. The Council moved Ms X and Y into temporary accommodation at property 2 on 5 April 2018.
14. Property 2 was unfurnished and had no cooking facilities. The Council funded the purchase of new cooking facilities for Ms X and provided her with a subsistence payment of £80 to support her until the cooking facilities were provided. Ms X only stayed in property 2 for just over a month because the Council said the building was due to be redeveloped and needed to be empty.
15. On 21 May 2018 the Council moved Ms X and Y to property 3. This was also temporary accommodation.
16. Property 3 was furnished; therefore, Ms X was unable to take some of the white goods and furniture she had previously purchased. The Council agreed to store the items for Ms X.
17. Ms X did not think that property 3 was suitable for her and Y’s needs as it was another studio flat and not big enough for her and Y. Following an appeal from her solicitor, the Council accepted property 3 was not suitable and moved Ms X and Y to new temporary accommodation, property 4 on 30 July 2018.
18. Between July and November 2018, eight e-mails were exchanged between the Council and Ms X or her solicitors to try to trace Ms X’s white goods and furniture which the Council were storing.
19. On 19 November 2018 Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council. She complained the Council:
• Did not move her out of property 1 in time for Y being placed back in her care. This meant he spent two weeks living in unsuitable accommodation which was distressing for him;
• Moved them into a flat without beds, fridge or cooker- this move was disruptive for Y who had just returned to her care:
• Did not tell her property 2 would only be available for a short time because it was part of a regeneration project. This meant she was asked to move after only four weeks, on a couple of days’ notice;
• Moved them into property 3, a studio flat, without proper planning, and the flat was unsuitable;
• Delayed by two weeks in helping pay the removal costs to move Ms X out of property 3 into property 4, after a review has found property 3 unsuitable;
• Moved her into property 4, which was not ready for habitation as the electricity did not work for three days; and
• Lost her cooker and wardrobes after she moved out of property 2.
20. Ms X was also unhappy about the council’s lack of communication between its social care service and housing service.
21. In December 2018 the Council located Ms X’s white goods and furniture. They were found still at property 2 and had not been moved.
22. On 24 December the Council provided its stage one complaint response. It upheld Ms X’s complaint, apologised for any inconvenience caused and said it would contact Ms X to arrange the return of her belongings. The Council returned Ms X’s white goods and furniture on 31 January 2019.
23. On 15 February 2019 Ms X took her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process because she was not satisfied with the Council’s explanation of what had occurred. She also requested compensation and information about how the Council intended to improve its procedures.
24. On 19 March 2019 the Council sent its stage two reply. It again apologised for its lack of consideration of her needs throughout the process, but it was unable to provide an explanation as to how it lost track of her property. It offered Ms X £200 in recognition of the distress caused.
25. Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 April 2019 as she was dissatisfied with the remedy the Council had offered.

The Council’s response to enquiries

26. The Council stated that it intends to end its storage service for homeless households to prevent similar issues occurring. Instead it will provide information on available storage facilities and it will support those unable to arrange their own storage. It says this will be a more streamlined process which is easier to monitor and manage.
27. In terms of transfers for applicants in temporary accommodation, the Council says its list of applicants has been amended so that special needs are more clearly identified.
28. Regarding its consideration of individual needs, the Council says that the Accommodation Needs Form allows for support services to be identified and will be considered when signed off by managers.
29. When arriving at a remedy, the Council pointed out that it did not charge Ms X for removal fees, which would normally be payable, and she was not charged storage fees, normally £300.
30. The Council said that it considered £200 to be reasonable as it did not feel it was appropriate to compensate the period in unsuitable temporary accommodation, because it moved Ms X straight away after its review decision.
31. The Ombudsman guidance on remedies says that between £150 and £350 may be awarded for each month spent living in unsuitable temporary accommodation, dependant on circumstances. Guidance also states that between £250 and £500 may be awarded for avoidable distress.

Back to top

My findings

32. The Council has accepted it was at fault and fully upheld Ms X’s complaint. It has apologised and offered Ms X £200 to remedy the distress caused. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman the Council’s apology and financial offer does not remedy the injustice caused.
33. The Council placed Ms X and Y in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 13 weeks. Ms X said the fault by the Council caused frustration, avoidable distress and time and trouble in bringing her complaint to the Council. She said it has also had a negative effect on her son Y, whose behaviour at school had deteriorated due to the disruption and lack of his own space.
34. The Council states that it did not award more than £200 as it chose not to charge Ms X removal fees or storage fees when it was entitled to do so. Given the Council moved Ms X three times, at short notice, and into unsuitable accommodation, it is correct that she was not charged for removal. She was not moved through any fault of her own.
35. There is no evidence the Council stored Ms X’s belongings but left them in a property it moved her out of. Given it was unable to locate these items when she requested them, I would not expect the Council to charge Ms X for ‘storing’ these items.
36. The Council has offered Ms X £200 for distress, however Ms X is a vulnerable adult because of her mental health needs. Her son Y had just returned to her care after being looked after. Therefore, the injustice caused to Ms X and Y are more significant because of their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities.
37. The council has not provided a remedy for the 13 weeks Ms X and Y spent in unsuitable accommodation. The Ombudsman recommends between £150 - £350 per month for unsuitable accommodation.
38. The service changes and improvements put in place by the Council as a result of Ms X’s complaint are appropriate and it has provided evidence of these where possible.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within four weeks of my decision, the Council will:

• Pay Ms X £700 to remedy the injustice caused. This is made up of £450 for the 13 weeks spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation and £250 for avoidable distress.

40. The Council has already paid Ms X £200. It agreed to pay Ms X an additional £500.
41. Within three months of my decision, the Council will:

• Run its new property storage policy past its Legal Service department to ensure it complies with its duty under section 211 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the new policy.

Back to top

Final decision

42. There was fault causing injustice when the Council failed to assess the needs of Ms X and her son, placed them in unsuitable temporary accommodation and lost Ms X’s personal property. The Council has apologised and agreed to make an additional payment to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman