The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms D says the Council delayed providing temporary accommodation. We found evidence of fault by the Council and have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council agrees to pay redress.
The complaint
The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council delayed providing suitable interim and temporary accommodation in 2023. As a result, she had to pay for B&B accommodation for seven nights and wants the costs refunded.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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)
What I have and have not investigated Ms D referred to damaged possessions, I have explained that is a negligence claim and not for the Ombudsman. Ms D is aware how to pursue that matter. I am looking at how the Council dealt with providing interim and temporary accommodation.
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response and case records.
I shared my draft decision with both parties.
What I found
What happened On 5 May 2023 the Council’s Housing Team spoke with Ms D because she had been served a possession order by her landlord meaning she would need to vacate her home. A Housing Officer advised Ms D about interim accommodation which the Council could consider providing. She explained the process and that one offer of suitable interim accommodation would be made. On 9 May the Council notified Ms D she had been allocated interim accommodation at a property (property A). This property had been subject to an inspection before it was available to let (a void inspection). The inspection did not note any issues with property A. On 12 May Ms D contacted the Council, she been to property A and it was unsuitable because of strong odours and it was dirty. The Council said its inspection of the property before it was let found it in a suitable condition, but it would arrange for a deep clean. On 14 May Ms D told the Council she would not live at property A. The Council said it had booked for deep clean and explained that it would discharge its duty to secure interim accommodation if she refused the offer. The Council reiterated this on 16 May to Ms D and wrote to her on 17 May explaining it had discharged its interim housing duty. It was still examining her application for a full housing duty.
On 24 May the Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms D.
On 31 May a Housing Officer spoke to Ms D who stated she was being evicted the next day. The Officer noted she told Ms D the interim accommodation decision would not be overturned (although she referred incorrectly to temporary accommodation), and she would make an urgent referral to Social Services. The Officer told Ms D the Council would “not offer temporary accommodation” but would work with her and provide information about looking for accommodation. It is unclear to me what information was provided to Ms D. The Housing Officer then sent an urgent referral to Childrens Services to see if it could assist Ms D.
On 1 June Ms D was evicted from her home. She booked her own B&B accommodation for two nights. She says Officers had previously told her the Council would not provide housing, so she did not go to the Council for help. Also on that day the Housing Officer noted they had spoken to Social Services and advised that Ms D needed to bid for advertised properties using the Council’s allocations scheme and continue looking for a private rental property.
On 2 June (a Friday) Ms D did contact the Council and explained she was now homeless. The Council allocated her temporary accommodation (property B). The Council provided a license agreement which included details of how to contact an Officer out of hours if assistance was needed. The Council told Ms D the landlord would contact her about access to property B. Ms D says she did not hear from the landlord until late on Sunday 4 June. The Council says it has no record of Ms D contacting it over the weekend about not being able to access the accommodation. Ms D says the Council told her to wait for a call from the landlord of property B. She states she did call the out of hours service on 4 June and this was how she was put in contact with the landlord.
On 5 June Ms D moved her possessions to property B. Later that day she contacted the Council and sent photographs of the property. There were pest infestations, and it was in a state of disrepair. The Temporary Accommodation Team requested urgent repairs by the landlord that day. On 6 June Ms D told the Council she would remain in her privately sourced B&B accommodation and would not return to property B. The Council advised Ms D that day it had secured alternative temporary accommodation which was available from 7 June. It noted that Ms D had paid for B&B accommodation for the night, and she would move in tomorrow. On 8 June the Council visited Ms D at the new temporary accommodation and noted she was satisfied with the accommodation.
On 20 July Ms D made a formal complaint to the Council. She had been forced to pay for seven nights B&B accommodation because of fault by the Council and asked for compensation. On 25 July the Council responded. It said interim accommodation had been provided to Ms D in May, but she had refused it. The Council’s void inspection of property A found there were no issues “so severe it would have been considered unreasonable” to live there. It was therefore correct to discharge its interim duty at that point. In respect of property B the Council apologised and acknowledged the accommodation fell short of its expectations. It would not offer Ms D a refund of her B&B costs because there had been no procedural errors.
Ms D continued to correspond with the Council about her complaint. On 31 July the Council said she had paid for B&B accommodation prior to the Council finishing its investigation into the issues she had raised. If she had not booked her own accommodation, it was “entirely possible” the Council would have provided hotel accommodation. It reiterated that a refund would not be paid because Ms D had secured B&B accommodation at her own discretion. Ms D responded that Officers had told her not to ask the Council for housing assistance on 1 June and to wait until 2 June.
What should have happened Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018 they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5) If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on: preventing homelessness; securing accommodation when homeless; the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness; the duties of the authority; any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and how to access that help.
A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation. 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 called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188). If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
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) There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) The Council provides an out of hours service for homeless applicants. The details on how to use the service is included in the license agreement given to applicants who are provided with temporary accommodation and it is also on the Council’s website.
Was there fault by the Council I have not found fault in how the Council dealt with the offer of interim accommodation to Ms D. The evidence shows the correct process was followed by the Council and it clearly explained to Ms D what would happen if she refused the offer for property A. I appreciate Ms D says she could not stay at the property, but the void inspection record (photographs) did not find the property unfit to use.
There is fault with the information given to Ms D by the Council the day before her eviction on 31 May. The Officer was aware of the impending eviction, but the record of the call does not at any point refer to advice about what Ms D should do on the eviction day in respect of approaching the Council for temporary accommodation. Instead, the Officer told Ms D she would not be offered temporary accommodation. I assume the Officer meant interim accommodation but of course this would add to any confusion because it was temporary accommodation that Ms D was eligible to receive from 1 June. This corroborates Ms D’s recollection of events. She told me that an Officer had said the Council would not provide accommodation and that is why she did not approach the Council on the day of the eviction. The Officer should have clearly, at a minimum, advised Ms D about the actions she needed to take on 1 June to secure temporary accommodation from the Council. The reference to the interim accommodation was irrelevant at that point given the Council had already accepted a main housing duty towards Ms D. In view of that fault, I can see why Ms D felt she had no option other than to pay for B&B accommodation for 1 June.
Ms D did go to the Council as homeless on 2 June. The Council allocated her temporary accommodation at property B. Ms D says she did not receive the keys for the property until 5 June. She says she contacted the Council’s out of hours service to report that she had no access to property B on 4 June. There is fault by the Council because it had a duty to ensure Ms D was able to access property B and had accommodation for the night of 2 June. It was not sufficient for the Council to tell Ms D on a Friday afternoon to wait for contact from the landlord. In view of this I find the Council is responsible for the cost Ms D incurred securing B&B accommodation for 2 June.
Turning to the weekend. I acknowledge that if Ms D had contacted the Council and been given earlier access to property B it remains the case that property B was unfit to live in. Ms D would then have had to request alternative accommodation. The Council had a duty to ensure Ms D and her family were housed, so if no flats were available, it could have provided hotel accommodation. Ms D says she was unaware of what the Council should do to accommodate her but there was an onus of responsibility on her to notify the Council as soon as an issue arose so that the Council was afforded a chance to resolve it. As such it is reasonable to expect Ms D to have contacted the Council by 3 June, before she extended her B&B booking. This would have allowed the Council a chance to see what actions it could take to assist over the weekend with alternative accommodation. In view of this I do not consider the Council is responsible for the B&B costs incurred by Ms D for that weekend.
Ms D told the Council property B was in a poor condition on 5 June. The Council followed the usual process by contacting the landlord. The Council has subsequently accepted the property was not fit to stay in. Ms D was left without suitable accommodation for the night of 5 June and had to extend the B&B booking for one more night through no fault of her own.
The Council found alternative temporary accommodation for Ms D on 6 June and said it was available from 7 June. It says it did not offer alternative housing for 6 June because Ms D was already booked at the B&B. I do not see the Council is responsible for those costs because Ms D could have allowed the Council a chance to offer alternative accommodation for 6 June before renewing her B&B booking for that period.
Did the fault cause an injustice The faults by the Council caused Ms D and her children avoidable uncertainty at an already difficult time. In addition, Ms D incurred the cost of paying for B&B accommodation to ensure her family had somewhere suitable to occupy. The evidence shows me there was fault by the Council which led to it being responsible for those costs for three nights (1,2 and 5 June).
Agreed action
The Council originally offered Ms D £50 redress because it accepted the problem with the state of property B meant Ms D “paid for a [B&B]”. It had not specified which day this payment was for. That was not an acceptable remedy to the faults I identified. I asked the Council to consider additional redress and it agreed to: Pay Ms D £150 for avoidable uncertainty Pay Ms D a total of £403.42 for the three nights accommodation (I have seen the receipts for the payments made by Ms D) The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the investigating being completed.
Final decision
I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman