Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in making decisions on Ms X’s homelessness application, for not taking sufficient steps to protect their belongings, and for not discussing the case with her by telephone or in person at the review stage. The Council will apologise, pay Ms X £500 to remedy the uncertainty caused and the damage to/loss of belongings. It will give guidance to relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. In particular, that the Council provided unsuitable temporary accommodation and required the family to move temporary accommodation many times.
2. Ms X said these faults caused significant distress and anxiety to the family. At times, their hotel accommodation had no cooking facilities, and the family could not afford to eat in the restaurant. This made providing food for their children more difficult and more expensive. The frequent moves also meant the children’s education was disrupted.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. The Council initially decided Ms X was not homeless in October 2022. It carried out a review of that decision and issued a review decision in January 2023. The review decision was that Ms X was intentionally homeless. The Council told Ms X she could appeal that decision to the county court on a point of law.
9. The law says we should not investigate where a complainant has the right to appeal to court unless it would not be reasonable to expect them to do so. In this case, Ms X did not appeal because of a mix-up with her solicitor and because she had to leave the accommodation provided by this Council, at which point she made a fresh homelessness application to another council and essentially started the process again. In the circumstances, it was not practical for her to pursue the appeal so I decided to investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered:
• the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the information the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
11. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

12. 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.
13. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
14. A person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 6.4)
15. The Code says there is no simple test of reasonableness and councils should judge each application on the facts of the case. However, it says it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic abuse or other violence against the applicant or anyone who might reasonably be expected to live with them. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 6.24)
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.
17. After this period, the council should decide whether it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
18. When the council has completed its enquiries, it must write to the applicant with its decision. If it is a negative decision, for example, it decides they are not eligible for assistance, not homeless, not in priority need or homeless intentionally, the council must explain the reasons for its decision.
19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions including a notice to bring the relief duty to an end. The review should be completed within eight weeks, although this period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
20. If an applicant is not happy with a council’s review decision, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.
21. There is no right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation provided by a Council under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996.

Interim and temporary accommodation

22. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide emergency accommodation whilst it assess the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it. Applicants with dependent children are in priority need.
23. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
24. The factors councils should consider when deciding if accommodation is suitable are set out in section 206 of the Housing Act 1996 and chapter 17 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance. This includes ensuring the accommodation is affordable for the person, taking into account their income, housing costs and other reasonable living expenses. The person should be able to afford the housing costs without being deprived of basis essentials such as food, clothing, heating, transport and other essentials specific to their circumstances.
25. 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 from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.32)

Protection of belongings

26. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)
27. Relevant to this complaint, the duty is owed where the council is under a duty to provide interim accommodation and where a relief duty is accepted.

Complaints handling

28. The Council’s policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 days, and will respond within 15 working days at stage 1 of its process, or within 20 working days at stage 2.

What happened

29. This decision statement sets out the key facts and issues only. It does not provide a full account of everything that happened or all the records I reviewed.

Handling of the homelessness application

30. Ms X, her partner, Mr Y and their children approached the Council for assistance after fleeing their council property in Council B’s area following threats of violence against them. Ms X said they left their home on the advice of the police and Council B, and that they used their savings to secure a caravan on a holiday park for a week during which they contacted this Council for assistance.
31. Council records show Ms X first contacted the Council on 16 June. She gave brief information about her situation, including:
• she had fled her previous property due to incidents which social services and the police were involved with;
• the family were staying in a caravan in this Council’s area as it was all they could afford, and they could only stay there another couple of nights; and
• the police and social services wanted to speak to the housing team and provide relevant evidence.
32. Ms X asked the Council to contact her as a matter of urgency. The same day, the Council called Ms X and left a voicemail message asking her to complete an online referral through its website. It also sent an email with the same information.
33. It is not clear when Ms X completed an online referral. The Council tried to contact her on 21 June and a further voicemail message was left. Ms X emailed the Council on 22 June and spoke to a Council officer at the end of the afternoon. Ms X said the family would be homeless on 24 June. The officer explained the information provided showed the police in area C had suggested a managed move, which did not mean the family had to move immediately. Ms X disputed this. She said her tenancy officer could confirm they had advised her to leave immediately.
34. On 23 June, an officer spoke to Ms X, who said:
• there was an incident at the family’s council home in Council B’s area during which the family, including their children, were threatened. The police for area B were investigating;
• she believed the threats of violence were linked to an extended family relative, based in area C, and gave information about the family background. She said the police in area C were investigating other threats and harassment relating to the extended family member;
• she booked a caravan in this Council’s area immediately after being advised to leave by the anti-social behaviour (ASB) team at Council B and spent all their money getting there;
• she had signed an agreement with the children’s social services at Council B confirming she would not return to the area.
35. On 23 and 24 June, an officer made some preliminary enquiries. They spoke to:
• the ASB team at Council B, who confirmed the family were at risk, but said the risks could be managed through its housing team. They said Ms X had refused to consider a move within Council B’s area. They also said they were currently taking action against Ms X and Mr Y for ASB by them in Council B’s area;
• the housing team at Council B, who said they had encouraged Ms X to make a homelessness application there, but she did not want to do so;
• children’s social services at Council B, who said there was no open case and no written agreement that Ms X would not return to the area;
• the police in area B, who said their view was the family were not safe at their previous address but said this was more likely to be due to their own actions in the area rather than linked to extended family;
• the police in area C, who also said they believed the family were not safe at their previous home. They said they could not say if there was a link between the recent threats and the extended family member, but this was an issue for the police in area B to consider.
36. The Council record says the officer understood the caravan booking may have been pre-planned, but it is not clear where that suggestion came from. Later, when the Council considered bank statements Ms X provided, it identified a deposit for the caravan was paid on 18 March and a further payment on 18 April, and a rail booking was made on 18 April. This was prior to the incident, which caused the family to flee. Ms X said this related to a previous stay in the area and she could have explained this if the Council had asked her about it.
37. On 24 June, the Council accepted a relief duty. This means the Council was satisfied Ms X and Mr Y were homeless, and eligible for housing assistance. Ms X said the Council did not send her a letter to confirm this, and the Council has not been able to find a letter on its system.
38. Also on 24 June, the Council provided interim accommodation for the family.
39. The Council should also have prepared a personalised housing plan (PHP) around this time, setting out the steps it and Ms X needed to take to resolve their homelessness. The Council said it had a partially completed PHP on its housing database. It said officers sometimes complete the PHP using MS Word and share this with applicants and update the housing database later. It could not say if this happened in this case as the officer who dealt with the application at this stage has since died and it has not been able to access their emails. Ms X said she did not receive a PHP, and I have seen a record showing she queried this in March 2023 after making a further homelessness application to another council.
40. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days, following which councils are expected to decide whether they owe a main housing duty. In this case, the relief duty was due to end on 25 August 2022.
41. Council records show it considered documents Ms X provided in July. In July and August, it made further enquiries with Council B and with both police forces involved to try to establish whether the threats were due to the ASB by Ms X and Mr Y, in which case they may have been intentionally homeless, or whether the threats were from people connected to their extended family.
42. In September, the Council responded to an enquiry from the local MP and to concerns raised by Ms X’s solicitor, including about its delay in making a decision.
43. Ms X also said she was advised by the citizens advice bureau and later by her solicitor, not to give up the council tenancy in Council B’s area as this would mean they were intentionally homeless and would make it more difficult for them to secure long term accommodation. Therefore, Ms X continued to pay the rent for their former home. However, this was not covered by housing benefit because the family were not living there and had said they did not plan to return. Council records show Ms X advised the Council of this in August and again in September 2022, and explained this was why the family was struggling financially.
44. On 10 October 2022 the Council wrote to Ms X with its decision the family were not homeless as they had a property they could return to. Ms X immediately asked for a review of the decision.
45. The reviewing officer agreed to extend the interim accommodation for the family pending the outcome of the review. An internal email dated 18 October stated that, based on the information they had, they expected to overturn the original “not homeless” decision.
46. The Council made further enquiries with Council B and with both police forces involved as well as considering further emails and evidence from Ms X.
47. The police for area B:
• confirmed they believed the family were at risk if they returned to Council B’s area;
• explained they had been involved in addressing Ms X and Mr Y’s own ASB for about three years;
• were not able to locate and interview a suspect in relation to the incident that caused the family to flee; and
• could not say whether the threats were related to extended family or a response to their own ASB, but their guess was it was more likely the latter;
48. The police for area C:
• also said they believed the family would be at risk if they returned to Council B’s area; and
• suggested it was not correct that action had been taken against Ms X and Mr Y for ASB and allegations of anti-social behaviour made against Ms X had been proven to be false and malicious.
49. In early November 2022, the Council sent a letter to Ms X, as part of the review, saying it was “minded to” decide the family were homeless because they could not return to their former home due to the risks. However, they were intentionally homeless because the risks were more likely to be a response to their own ASB than connected to the extended family member.
50. The “minded to” letter said Ms X, or someone acting on her behalf, could make comments orally, in writing, or both. In an email the following day, Ms X said: “Please can I speak with you by phone before you make your decision” and said she was seeking help from a solicitor. In three emails between 3 and 7 November, the reviewing officer said Ms X needed to speak to her solicitor so the solicitor could challenge anything they thought was wrong. They did not respond to the request for a phone call. In her complaint on 13 November, Ms X said she wanted someone to take the time to listen to her.
51. In mid November 2022, Ms X’s solicitor said they could not respond fully to the “minded to” letter because they had still not got the full case file. On 19 December 2022, the solicitor confirmed they had received the file. In late December, the reviewing officer told Ms X they did not need further information from her “because you have sent me many emails about your situation”.
52. The solicitor responded to the “minded to” letter in early January 2023. The solicitor said the Council should not make a value judgement about whether the threat related to the family’s own ASB or to the extended family member nor require the family to provide evidence of the source of the threats. The solicitor’s view was the family was homeless due to threats from an extended family member, who had been charged with criminal offences.
53. On 26 January 2023, the Council issued the review decision. It set out the evidence considered and its reasons for deciding the family were intentionally homeless. As a result of this decision, it explained the Council did not owe a main housing duty and had no duty to continue providing interim accommodation. It initially gave the family four weeks’ notice to leave the interim accommodation, although it later extended this. The interim accommodation ended on 25 March 2023.
54. Ms X said she has difficulty with writing emails and wanted to speak to an officer to discuss her situation. Records show she did speak to officers in June, and there is no record she asked for a further call or meeting to discuss her housing situation again until after the original “not homeless” decision was made.
55. Ms X approached another council for assistance. She told me the new council immediately accepted a relief duty and provided suitable interim accommodation.

My findings – homelessness application

56. When Ms X approached the Council on 16 June, she said the family would be homeless in a couple of days.
57. From my review of the records, I find the Council had sufficient information to have “reason to believe” Ms X “may be” homeless and eligible for assistance on 16 June. As Ms X has children, she was in priority need and therefore the Council was under a duty to provide interim accommodation at that point. The failure to consider arranging interim accommodation then was fault.
58. The Council arranged interim accommodation on 24 June, which was not an undue delay, and Ms X had said they did not need to leave the caravan she had booked until 24 June, so they were not left without accommodation. On this basis, the injustice suffered was limited to the uncertainty about whether the Council would provide accommodation during the period 16 to 24 June.
59. The Council accepted a relief duty on 24 June. It did not send Ms X a letter confirming its decision. On balance, I find it did not issue a PHP either. This was fault. As a result, Ms X did not know what was happening or what steps she and the Council needed to take to resolve the family’s homelessness.
60. The 56 days for the relief duty ended on 25 August 2022, but the Council did not issue its decision until 10 October. I appreciate the officer initially handling the application was seriously ill and unexpectedly died, which meant the case had to be passed to another officer. I also appreciate the Council had to make enquiries of various agencies. However, there were periods of inactivity, and on balance I find the delay in issuing the decision, was fault.
61. Ms X immediately asked the Council to review its decision. The review should have been carried out and a decision issued within eight weeks, which would have been mid December. The review decision was issued on 26 January 2023. The records show the delay was largely due to the Council’s delay in sending Ms X’s solicitor the full housing file, which meant the solicitor could not respond to the “minded to” letter within the usual timescales. This delay was further fault.
62. But for the Council’s delay, the family would have had a final decision around two months earlier and could have approached the other council area sooner.
63. We are not an appeal body, and it is not our role to substitute our view for that of the Council.
64. I have not considered the original decision since that was overturned at review. The review process was the appropriate way to address the challenge to the original decision.
65. I have considered the decision-making process at the review stage. The review decision and Council records show the Council made additional enquiries and considered all relevant information at the review stage, including the information Ms X provided and her solicitor’s comments on its “minded to” letter. The Council accepted the family were homeless due to the risks of returning to their former home. It considered whether these risks were a response to behaviour by Ms X or Mr Y, or whether the risks were connected to criminal activity by an extended family member. In doing so, it considered information from Council B and from the two police forces involved. It was for the Council to decide how much weight to attach to the evidence these agencies provided and, where evidence conflicted, which version of events it preferred. I have not found fault with the decision-making process and therefore cannot comment on the decision reached.
66. Ms X complained the reviewing officer advised her to give up her former tenancy the day before issuing a decision that she was intentionally homeless. Council records show it had previously suggested this may be appropriate, given the financial difficulty caused by continuing to pay the rent on that property whilst not being able to claim benefits towards the rent, and because the family were clear they had no intention of returning there, nor wished to consider a managed move in Council B’s area. It was not fault for the Council to suggest Ms X considered giving up the tenancy in these circumstances.

My findings – communications

67. In relation to Ms X’s complaint that she was not able to explain her housing situation in person, I note the Code says at paragraphs 11.13 and 11.14 says councils should provide assessment services that are flexible to the needs of applicants, and that in most circumstances an assessment will require at least one face to face interview.
68. Although the Council did speak to Ms X by telephone in the early stages of dealing with the homelessness application, there is no record that it offered a face to face interview. Nor is there a record Ms X requested this prior to the “not homeless” decision in October 2022.
69. The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc) Regulations 2018, which are summarised in chapter 19 of the Code say where the council is minded to make a review decision that is against an applicant’s interests, it should:
• write to them to explain the decision it is minded to make and its reasons; and
• explain the applicant, or someone on their behalf, may make both oral and written comments within a reasonable period.
70. Council records show the reviewing officer did not respond to Ms X’s requests for a telephone call in November 2022. In December 2022 they told her they did not need a discussion because they had sufficient information from her emails. Throughout this period, the reviewing officer emphasised the need for the solicitor to make written comments if they disagreed with the “minded to” letter.
71. On balance, I find the Council was at fault for not agreeing to a telephone call or meeting with Ms X at the review stage. Although I have not found fault with the decision-making process at the review stage and cannot say a discussion with Ms X would have made a difference to the outcome, the lack of a discussion leaves Ms X feeling she has not been heard, which is an injustice to her.
72. I have seen no record Ms X told the Council she had difficulty writing emails and, having reviewed many of the emails she sent, there was no indication she had difficulty writing emails. On this basis, I have not found fault with the Council for not considering and making reasonable adjustments.

Complaints about the interim accommodation provided

73. The Council arranged interim accommodation at property 1 for the family on 24 June. When asked why it had not done so earlier, it said Ms X had said the family were homeless from 24 June when their holiday booking ended.
74. Property 1 was a caravan on a holiday park. When asked how it consider whether this was suitable accommodation, the Council said it did not keep a record of its suitability decisions at that time. However, it said it considered the size of family, any health or disability issues, and the family’s wish to be in a particular area.
75. The Council said it provided interim accommodation in 2022-23, as follows:

76. Ms X raised a number of concerns about the interim accommodation, including:
• accommodation was booked for four or seven nights at a time, which meant frequent moves;
• information about the next accommodation was given at the very last minute causing uncertainty and stress;
• the Council failed to assist them with the moves between sites so they had to pay for taxis, which they could not afford. It also meant they had to throw away food because they could not transport it and other belongings were lost or damaged in the moves;
• when the family were at holiday park 2, they were moved to a different caravan every week. They had to pretend to be on holiday as the manager said it was not appropriate for the caravans to be used as homeless accommodation, although the manager later agreed to turn a blind eye to this as they recognised the family had nowhere else to go;
• each week the family had to leave a caravan at 10 a.m, but could not check in to the next one until 4 p.m. This meant they had to hang around with their children and all their belongings all day. Ms X said requests for an early check-in were either ignored or they were told to pay for this themselves;
• some of the caravan accommodation was not large enough to store all their belongings, which meant they had to store some of them underneath the caravan. As a result, clothing and other items got wet and were ruined. Ms X provided photos and videos to evidence this;
• at times the accommodation did not include laundry facilities so she was not able to wash the children’s clothes;
• there were no cooking facilities when the family were in bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation and no storage for food. This meant food purchased before the move had to be thrown away so the family had to rely on food parcels and buy takeaways as they could not cook. Ms X said the takeaways aggravated Mr Y’s health condition;
• there was also insufficient storage space for their belongings whilst they were in B&B accommodation. Ms X has provided photos showing their belongings piled up in hotel rooms and corridors;
• the Council refused to extend the last accommodation over the weekend so they had to pay for this themselves;
• the frequent moves meant her children were not able to attend school for nine months. She said she repeatedly asked the Council about this but got no response and the issue was not addressed until the stage 1 complaint response. She said the children are now anxious about school after being out of education for so long;
• as explained above, Ms X said she had been advised to not to give up the tenancy on the former council home, so the family were paying rent on that but not able to get benefits towards this. This meant they were struggling financially so could not afford taxis, laundry costs, early check-in fees or takeaway food.
77. In September 2022, Ms X’s solicitor wrote to the Council raising various concerns. They said the B&B accommodation was not suitable and suggested caravan accommodation would be suitable, provided the family could remain in the same caravan.
78. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it accepted short term holiday accommodation would not be regarded as suitable temporary accommodation and rarely uses it but did so because the family wanted to be in a particular area and there were no other options available. Apart from a short period in B&B accommodation, it made efforts to keep the family in their chosen area to reduce disruption and, although there were several moves, the distances involved were quite short;
• it did not expect to accommodate the family for as long as it did, particularly given its initial view was the family could return to their council home and Council B could arrange a managed move. However, the case proved complex and there was some delay in concluding it as the officer initially dealing with the application was unwell and died;
• it considered accommodation suggested by Ms X on multiple occasions, but these were not booked because either they were not suitable (for example, there were not enough beds) or the providers would not accept bookings by the Council;
• it does not usually pay for early check-ins, which it explained to Ms X was because it needed to made the best use of public funds. An income and expenditure form completed by Ms X indicated she could afford to pay the additional charge if she wanted an early check-in;
• it avoids using B&B accommodation where possible and where it must be used, it does so for as short a time as possible. In this case, it accommodated the family in B&B accommodation for less than six weeks, making weekly bookings because this was a period of high demand, and because it was continuing to look for suitable accommodation in the area the family preferred to live;
• it does not routinely record the steps taken to identify suitable accommodation for the family as this is not proportionate. It holds weekly meetings to review all cases where applicants are in temporary accommodation, but does not keep minutes of these;
• it does not own any housing stock and therefore leases a range of temporary accommodation across its area. It is considering leasing a further four bedroom property to reduce the likelihood of having to use holiday accommodation in future;
• Ms X did not ask for advice or support with the children’s schooling, and it understood she was home schooling them until she could secure school places in the family’s chosen area. Its records show it advised Ms X to seek support from children’s social services at the local county council, but Ms X was clear she did not want social services at that council or at Council B involved.

My findings – interim accommodation

79. Councils may only accommodate families in B&B accommodation where there is nothing else available and for a maximum of six weeks. From my review of the records, I am satisfied the B&B accommodation was a last resort and did not exceed the six week limit the law allows.
80. The Council accepts holiday accommodation will not usually be suitable as interim accommodation. When arranging the accommodation the Council considered the size of the family, their health needs, and their preferred location.
81. Ms X’s solicitor accepted caravan accommodation would be suitable, provided the family could remain in the same caravan. However, it was peak holiday season when the Council initially accommodated the family, which meant it was not possible for them to remain in the same caravan due to the high demand for accommodation. There is a conflict between Ms X’s account of moving to a different caravan every week, and the Council’s account, which says accommodation was provided as set out in paragraph 73, meaning a lot fewer moves. I have not been able to establish precisely how often the family moved but the need to move would not, of itself, make the accommodation unsuitable.
82. I have seen two records indicating accommodation was booked at the last minute, including B&B accommodation in early September, and in relation to arranging alternative accommodation after that booking. However, taking into account this was peak holiday season and the Council was struggling to find accommodation large enough for the family due to high demand, I do not consider this was sufficient to find fault.
83. I have seen no record to show Ms X asked the Council for support because her children were missing school prior to the formal complaint. And have identified only one reference to home schooling in an email on 21 November 2022, which was in the context of not being able to send the children to school due to the frequent change of area. The appropriate body to assist Ms X to find a school place for her children and to assist with home to school transport was the local county council, not this Council. Further, for much of this period the children would not have been in school as it was the main summer holidays. On balance, I do not find the Council at fault for not discussing schooling with Ms X when arranging interim accommodation.
84. After the decision the family was not homeless on 10 October 2022, the Council agreed to continue providing accommodation, but it was not required to do so. The same rules about suitability apply to the accommodation the Council provided after 10 October 2022, and I find, on balance, the accommodation the Council provided pending the review was suitable.
85. When the Council decided on review that the family were intentionally homeless, it gave the family four weeks’ notice to leave their accommodation, which was an appropriate period for them to find alternative accommodation. In the event, the accommodation as extended to 25 March 2023, but was not extended further when Ms X requested this because the provider told the Council they needed the property back. The provider later agreed an extension over the weekend on the basis the family paid for this. The Council had already extended the notice period and was not at fault for refusing to extend it further.

Protection of belongings

86. Councils have a duty to assist homeless applicants protect their belongings. In this case, the Council was not asked to store large items for the family as these initially remained at their former council home, and were later stored by Council B.
87. I have not found a record to show the Council was told about the cats at the outset, although Ms X said she spoke to the original officer, who later died, about them. There is an email from Ms X in early August 2022 saying an officer had advised Ms X to rehome the cats and Ms X said she would ask the RSPCA to take them, which I understand was not possible.
88. I have seen emails from Ms X asking for help with moves between accommodation and explaining their difficulties in moving and storing their belongings. Ms X sent the Council photos to show their belongings piled up in corridors and in B&B rooms. Ms X also told the Council some of the caravans were not large enough for them to store all their belongings inside the van. Ms X told it belongings were getting lost or damaged as a result and sent photos and videos to evidence this.
89. Ms X told me that significant amounts of clothing had to be thrown away, and other items, such as the children’s electronic toys were damaged beyond repair when stored under the caravan because there was no room to store all their belongings in the caravan. She said she had to borrow £800 from a friend to replace essential items.
90. In response to an earlier draft decision, the Council said:
• it was aware on at least one occasion that the family were struggling to fit their personal belongings into the interim accommodation. However, Ms X had not told it about this on the day she moved and, if she had, it could have offered advice and assistance. It acknowledged it should have spoken to her about this when she raised concerns and there is no evidence it did so;
• the photos Ms X provided do not evidence whether the family could or could not fit their belongings into the caravan, nor that their belongings were damaged or thrown away. Some of the photos are dated the same day the family moved so could indicate they had just been placed there after being dropped off by the taxi;
• it accepts a large family would have a lot of belongings, most of which would be needed day-to-day, and that it could have asked whether the accommodation provided was suitable for the storage of their personal belongings; and
• it will remind staff about its responsibilities for the protection of personal property and will review its policy. It has already introduced a suitability checklist for all interim and temporary accommodation.

My findings – protection of belongings

91. Ms X sent several emails to the Council, particularly in the period June to August 2022, asking for help to protect their belongings, which were getting lost and damaged due to the frequent moves and due to a lack of storage space in the accommodation provided. She also sent photos and emails, some of which show belongings piled up in hotel rooms or corridors, and some of which show belongings stored under a caravan. The Council accepts there is no evidence it considered their storage needs when deciding if the accommodation provided was suitable, nor responded to Ms X’s concerns when she raised them.
92. On balance, the Council did not take sufficient steps to help the family protect their belongings, which was fault. On balance, I find some of the family’s belongings were lost or damaged as a result of this fault.

Complaints about communications and complaints handling

93. Ms X made a formal complaint in November 2022. She set out why she disagreed with the Council’s recent letter indicating it was “minded to” decide the family were intentionally homeless at the review stage. She also complained about the interim accommodation (as set out above), the difficulty getting to health appointments, the loss of one of the family’s two cats due to the Council’s failure to assist with protecting their belongings, and the Council’s refusal to let her to talk officers by telephone or in person.
94. The Council responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 13 January 2023, thanking Ms X for agreeing an extension to the time for responding. It apologised for the time taken to make its homelessness decision and review decision but said this was because it was a complex case, which needed input from several agencies. It also said:
• it had reviewed the case and believed officers had been thorough with their enquiries, but the decision itself could be challenged in court;
• it had provided interim accommodation throughout, although it accepted the family had to move regularly due to the limited availability of accommodation; and
• the frequent moves would not have stopped the children attending school as the local county council could have provided transport.
95. Ms X made a further complaint on 14 March 2023 after the Council had issued a negative review decision. She repeated the concerns raised at stage 1. In addition, she said:
• the Council had discriminated against them on grounds of race because it stated they were eligible for help on immigration and nationality grounds;
• it had not provided a PHP; and
• the reviewing officer had been unprofessional, although she did not explain her reasons for stating this.
96. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 12 April 2023, the Council:
• apologised for the delay in responding;
• explained there was a separate process for challenging its homelessness decisions;
• said all customers can ask for communication orally or in writing. If Ms X had made it aware at any point of her difficulties with writing emails, it would have made reasonable adjustments;
• said it was satisfied the complaint had been appropriately investigated at stage 1 and there were no further issues to address or explain.
97. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us in April 2023.

My findings – complaints handling

98. The Council’s policy says it will respond to a complaint within 15 working days at stage 1 of its process. It took two months to respond in this case . It is not clear why it needed so long since many of the issues raised related to the homelessness decisions made, which was outside the scope of the complaints process. However, I note Ms X agreed to an extension to the time for responding so I make no finding of fault.
99. Its policy says it will respond within 20 working days at stage 2 and it responded a month after receiving the stage 2 complaint in this case.
100. I am satisfied the Council responded to the issues that did fall within the complaints process.
101. For completeness, I note that councils always have to consider whether an applicant is “eligible” for housing assistance, which is essentially an assessment of their immigration status. The Council decided Ms X and Mr Y were eligible, and there is no evidence of discrimination on grounds of race.

Back to top

Agreed action

102. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by its delay in issuing the homelessness decision and review decision, its failure to allow her to make oral comments at the review stage, and its failure to take sufficient steps to protect their belongings when they were moving frequently between June and October 2022; and
2. pay her £500 to remedy the uncertainty caused by not sending a decision letter or PHP in June 2022, not giving Ms X the chance to discuss her case with the reviewing officer, and not taking sufficient steps to protect the family’s belongings, resulting in some loss and damage to them..
103. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
1. share the final decision statement with relevant staff to ensure they can learn from the failings identified, including the need to allow applicants and/or their representatives to make oral representations in response to the Council’s letter informing them it is “minded to” make an adverse decision; and
2. provide evidence it has reminded relevant staff about its protection of belongings duty, evidence it has reviewed its policy on this, and provide a copy of its suitability checklist for interim and temporary accommodation.
104. From my review of the records and the Council’s response to my enquiries, I am satisfied the Council only uses holiday accommodation as a last resort and is taking appropriate steps to reduce the need to do so in future. Therefore, no further recommendations are needed in relation to this.
105. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation. I have found fault causing personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman