Report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

Transcription

1 Report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Investigation into complaints against London Borough of Redbridge (reference numbers: and ) 27 September 2017 Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman PO Box 4771 I Coventry I CV4 0EH

2 The Ombudsman s role For 40 years the Ombudsman has independently and impartially investigated complaints. We effectively resolve disputes about councils and other bodies in our jurisdiction by recommending redress which is proportionate, appropriate and reasonable based on all the facts of the complaint. Our service is free of charge. Each case which comes to the Ombudsman is different and we take the individual needs and circumstances of the person complaining to us into account when we make recommendations to remedy injustice caused by fault. We have no legal power to force councils to follow our recommendations, but they almost always do. Some of the things we might ask a council to do are: apologise pay a financial remedy improve its procedures so similar problems don t happen again.

3 Investigation into complaint numbers and against London Borough of Redbridge Contents Report summary... 1 Introduction... 2 Legal and administrative background... 2 How we considered these complaints... 4 Investigation... 4 Conclusions Decision Recommendations Section 30 of the 1974 Local Government Act says that a report should not normally name or identify any person. The people involved in this complaint are referred to by a letter or job role. Key to names used Mrs X a complainant Mr Y a complainant

4 Report summary Housing: homelessness and allocations Mrs X and Mr Y each complain the Council gave them and their families unsuitable temporary accommodation in connection with their homelessness applications. Mrs X also complains about the Council s handling of her application for social housing. Finding Fault found causing injustice and recommendations made on both complaints. Recommendations At our recommendation, the Council has agreed to do the following. Apologise in writing to Mrs X and Mr Y for the injustice caused by the Council s faults. Pay Mrs X 2,200. This comprises 250 a month for having to live in unsuitable accommodation from May to October 2016 when the family slept in two rooms, plus 300 a month for the three months from October 2016 to January 2017 when the family slept in one room, plus 300 for Mrs X s avoidable distress and her time and trouble pursuing matters. Pay Mr Y 2,300. This comprises 300 a month for the six months his family spent in the unsuitable accommodation plus 500 for Mr Y s avoidable distress and his time and trouble pursuing matters. The payment to Mr Y is slightly larger than to Mrs X because we consider the injustice from the unsuitability of his accommodation was slightly greater. Ensure the Council moves any other families from unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation, especially bed and breakfast (B&B), without delay. Ensure the Council formally adopts a policy on allocating temporary accommodation. The Council did this on 5 September Ensure that, each time it places an applicant with family commitments in B&B accommodation, the Council gives the applicant written notification that the law says B&B accommodation is unsuitable for families and that the Council must arrange alternative suitable accommodation within six weeks. The Council states it will explain this in writing to all affected families by 31 October Give us a progress report explaining how effective the Council s measures have been at reducing or avoiding the use of unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation, especially B&B accommodation for families. Advise us on how and when the Council will continue monitoring the effectiveness of its measures to avoid the use of unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation for families. 1

5 Introduction 1. Mrs X and Mr Y both made homelessness applications to the Council. They each complain to us that the Council gave them and their families unsuitable temporary accommodation. Mrs X also complains about the Council s handling of her application for social housing. 2. The two complainants contacted us separately. They do not know each other. However, their complaints raise similar matters. So we have decided to issue this single report covering both complaints. Legal and administrative background The Ombudsman s role 3. We investigate complaints about maladministration and service failure. In this report, we 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. We 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 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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) This means that, where an accommodation provider contracts with the Council to supply accommodation under the Council s homelessness duties, we can hold the Council responsible for the provider s actions or inactions. 6. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended) The Council s role in dealing with homelessness 7. A council must provide interim accommodation while it considers a homelessness application if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188 and Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraph 6.5) People with dependent children are in priority need. 8. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally a council carries out 2

6 the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) 9. 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) 10. When a council owes the main duty and provides temporary accommodation, the applicant can request a review of the accommodation s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) 11. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when deciding if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. Councils must consider, among other matters: the accommodation s distance from the Council s district (if the accommodation is elsewhere); the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant s household; and the proximity and accessibility of local services, amenities and transport. (The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012) 12. The law defines bed and breakfast (B&B) as accommodation that is not separate and self-contained premises and where more than one household shares a toilet, personal washing facilities or cooking facilities. There are exceptions, including accommodation owned or managed by a local housing authority (the Council is such an authority). 13. The law says B&B is not suitable as interim or temporary accommodation for families with dependent children. Councils can place families in B&B if there is no alternative available but only for a maximum of six weeks. (The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003) 14. Councils should notify families placed in B&B accommodation that it is unsuitable and that the Council must secure alternative suitable accommodation within six weeks. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2006, paragraph 17.29) 15. In October 2013 we published a Focus Report, No place like home: Councils use of unsuitable bed & breakfast accommodation for homeless families and young people. This drew councils attention to our views on the use of B&B. The report emphasised B&B is legally unsuitable for families and the law prevents councils having families in B&B for more than six weeks. Other points in the report included the following. Where using B&B is unavoidable, councils must notify applicants that the law says it is unsuitable and that the council must secure suitable accommodation within six weeks. Where families are in B&B for more than six weeks, councils should have a strategy in place to tackle the problem within a reasonable timescale. We have criticised councils for using B&B to house significant numbers of families for longer than six weeks, even when there is a plan for tackling the problem. 3

7 16. Applicants who consider their temporary accommodation unsuitable can ask the Council to review the suitability and, if they are still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law. We expect applicants to use this process unless it is not reasonable in the circumstances to expect them to go to court. It is not usually our role to decide whether accommodation is suitable. 17. However, in Mrs X s and Mr Y s cases, the Council itself accepted their accommodation was unsuitable. We have therefore taken account of that unsuitability as part of our investigation. How we considered these complaints 18. We produced this report after examining relevant files and documents and obtaining information from the complainants. 19. We gave the complainants and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited them to comment. We took their comments into account before finalising the report. Investigation Temporary accommodation for families in the London Borough of Redbridge 20. The Council, like many councils in London, has not found enough self-contained houses and flats to use as temporary accommodation for the number of homeless families it is dealing with. In summer 2017 the Council told us it had 2,300 households in temporary accommodation, many of whom needed to move to more suitable properties. 21. The Council reports the problem is due to a combination of an increase in homeless families and shortages of social housing and privately rented accommodation affordable to people on lower incomes in this part of London. There is a particular shortage of three-bedroom properties, which Mrs X and Mr Y both need. 22. As there are not enough houses and flats, the Council also uses shared accommodation that does not meet the legal definition of B&B, such as rooms in Council-run hostels or privately rented rooms with their own cooking and washing facilities. Even then, the Council states there is still a shortfall and...the Council therefore cannot meet its statutory duties towards families without providing bed and breakfast accommodation as emergency accommodation. 23. In a letter to Mrs X s Member of Parliament in June 2016, the Council said:...there are currently a large number of families in bed and breakfast accommodation and these families are regrettably having to remain in such accommodation for a number of months due to the shortage of self-contained properties. 24. At the time of the events we investigated, the Council said it was following a draft policy for allocating temporary accommodation. The document was dated April Relevant parts of the draft policy include the following. 4

8 Supply and demand factors can mean the Council cannot secure enough local, selfcontained accommodation. The Council aims to avoid using B&B or Council-owned hostels as interim accommodation for families but this is simply unrealistic at present and most families can expect to be offered such accommodation initially, with self-contained accommodation being prioritised for families to whom the Council owes a longer term duty and/ or are already occupying shared accommodation. Only households with an exceptional need to avoid shared accommodation are likely to be offered selfcontained straight away. The Council procures as much self-contained accommodation as it can. It normally allocates this to families already in unsuitable accommodation (such as B&B), then to families with children in shared non-b&b accommodation. Within those categories, it moves families in order of how long they have been in the unsuitable accommodation. However the Council can make exceptions for families it believes it needs to move sooner than if they waited their turn in date order. The Council tries to offer families accommodation locally or as close to Redbridge as possible. When local temporary accommodation is available, the Council prioritises this for families it considers in most need of local accommodation, for example, for work, education, medical or support reasons. 25. The Council formally adopted this policy on 5 September 2017, towards the end of our investigation. So the policy is no longer in draft. 26. Steps the Council has taken to increase the supply of suitable temporary accommodation for families include: leasing 148 more flats and studio apartments in London and 210 houses in Canterbury; converting former office space into a hostel; advertising to and providing incentives for local landlords to let the Council use their properties as temporary accommodation; and creating a joint temporary accommodation procurement system with three other London boroughs. The Council is also introducing a new programme to tackle the temporary accommodation problem. 27. The Council is committed to having no families in B&B for over six weeks by 31 March 2018 at the latest. The number of families in this position has already fallen in recent months. We welcome this but we would add that having families in B&B longer than six weeks is unlawful, not just undesirable. 5

9 28. The Council says it has not used any more of its own housing stock as temporary accommodation because it has London s second-smallest social housing stock and using more of it as temporary accommodation would increase already exceptionally long waiting times for housing applicants seeking permanent social housing. It adds family-sized properties in its housing stock rarely become vacant so relying on this would not significantly reduce the number of families awaiting suitable temporary accommodation. Our investigation of Mrs X s complaint Events related to Mrs X s homelessness 29. At the time of the relevant events, Family X included Mrs X, her then husband Mr X and three children aged 14, 11 and 2. They had lived in a privately rented property. Their landlord took back possession of that property. 30. On 5 May 2016 the Council provided interim accommodation while investigating Mr X s homelessness application. The interim accommodation was two rooms in a house in multiple occupation. One room was on the first floor, the other on the third floor. One room contained a double bed, the other had two single beds. Each room had a bathroom and one of the rooms also had a kitchen. The Council accepts this was B&B accommodation as legally defined because while one room had self-contained facilities, the two rooms were not together, separate and self-contained. 31. On 8 June 2016 the Council decided it owed the main homelessness duty. This meant it then had to provide temporary accommodation. The Council kept the family where they were and the interim accommodation became temporary accommodation. Mrs X and the children remained there until late January As paragraph 13 explained, having a family in B&B for over six weeks is against the law. Here, six weeks expired on 16 June This family was in B&B for over eight months. The family then moved to a Council-owned hostel, which does not count as B&B. After another three weeks they moved to a private rented property. Provision of B&B accommodation 33. The Council says it offered B&B because it had no self-contained accommodation at the time. It cites the general shortage of accommodation described above and adds that, in the week in question, it had no three-bedroom temporary accommodation properties and only three two-bedroom houses or flats. It says the latter would have been too small to offer this family and in any event went to families who were already living in B&B. 34. We accept the Council was working under considerable pressure and it has been taking steps to obtain more non-b&b temporary accommodation. However the Council regularly has families in B&B despite its plans. As paragraph 15 explained, that is fault. 35. However we cannot say the Council should have been able to avoid ever placing any family in B&B. So we do not conclude Family X should never have been in B&B accommodation at all, at least as an immediate measure. 36. The B&B was not in the London Borough of Redbridge but was in an adjoining borough. The Council s records show it considered the location of the older children s schools and 6

10 Mr and Mrs X s work. It concluded interim or temporary accommodation should be close to Redbridge but neighbouring boroughs would be suitable. The Council reached this decision properly so, as paragraph 4 explained, we do not criticise that decision. 37. When offering the accommodation, the Council did not state in writing that B&B is unsuitable for families and the Council must secure alternative accommodation within six weeks. The Council states it does not routinely put this in writing but says its staff tell people this when placing them. We have seen no supporting evidence for this nor is there any evidence Mr and Mrs X knew this. 38. The Code of Guidance says a council should tell applicants of these points if it places them in B&B. Our focus report also reminded councils of this. As the information about suitability is significant, we consider it should be given in writing. Giving written notification ensures applicants can consider and refer back to the information later and ensures there is evidence the Council has complied with the statutory guidance. We consider the Council was at fault for not giving written notification. 39. On 7 June 2016, the Council replied to a letter about Family X from a Member of Parliament. The Council s letter said the B&B accommodation would not be suitable past the next couple of weeks. However we do not consider that statement would have enabled Family X to understand the Council was legally required to provide non-b&b accommodation within six weeks. Concerns about the accommodation 40. When the Council accepted the main homelessness duty in June 2016, Mr X was legally entitled to ask the Council to review whether the accommodation was suitable. He requested a review in October The Council replied agreeing the accommodation was unsuitable as B&B is not suitable for families. It said it would arrange a move to alternative accommodation. 41. Given what the law says, we note the Council must have known the accommodation had been legally unsuitable since 16 June The fact that a suitability review was not requested until October does not affect this. 42. In any event, the family had expressed concerns about the accommodation several times, starting a few days after they moved in. Their early concerns included: having rooms on different floors meant the parents each had to be in separate rooms to ensure the children were safe at night; it was difficult going up and down two floors to deal with each other or fetch items, especially as each room had only one key; one child did not have a bed; there was no internet access, which was problematic as the eldest child s school issued homework online; and 7

11 there was no table or chair for the older children to do homework. 43. On 10 May 2016 the Council advised Mrs X to request a suitability review. That was fault as there was no legal right to such a review until the Council decided the homelessness application on 8 June On 17 May 2016 the Council advised Mrs X she could resolve the sleeping problems if she slept in one of the single beds, two children could share another single bed and Mr X and the other child could share the double bed. Given the number, ages and genders of the people involved and the distribution of beds between the rooms, we consider it was inadequate to have only three beds for five people in this case. The Council s advice in May 2016 did not cover the other problems Mr and Mrs X had raised about the accommodation. That, too, was fault. The Council s failure to move the family to adjacent rooms 45. On 17 May 2016 a room became available next to one of the family s rooms. Mrs X asked if they could have that room so the family would have two rooms together. The Council refused due to the paperwork involved. The Council now accepts this was fault. It is reviewing some of its practices about accommodating homeless people. The Council says its review will look at this point and it is also telling officers to seek to move families to the same floor as soon as possible. 46. The Council was clearly at fault here. This prolonged the inconvenience of the family being in different parts of the building. This difficulty was later compounded when Mr X left the family and Mrs X was the family s only adult, with children in different parts of the building. The Council s actions after Mr X moved out 47. In late October 2016 Mrs X told the Council her husband had moved out. The Council therefore closed Mr X s homelessness application and took a new application from Mrs X in her own right. It decided it owed Mrs X the main homelessness duty. 48. Mrs X told the Council as she was now a lone parent she could not continue having her family sleeping in rooms two floors apart. Understandably Mrs X did not consider this safe as other people she did not know also lived in the building. Mrs X therefore moved her whole family into one room at night, with some of them sharing beds. Even then there were not enough beds for everyone. 49. The Council s records show it told Mrs X it had nowhere else and they will have to stay like that for a while. There is no evidence the Council considered whether the change of circumstances warranted giving Mrs X more priority for a move to a single room big enough for the whole family, or to adjoining rooms or to self-contained temporary accommodation. 50. The Council should always consider the implications of changes of circumstances. Additionally, as the Council took a new homelessness application, this meant the temporary accommodation reverted to being interim accommodation while the Council considered Mrs X s application. The Council therefore had to consider the interim 8

12 accommodation s appropriateness as it should with any application. The Council was at fault for not considering whether the new circumstances affected whether it should expect any of the children to continue sleeping two floors away from Mrs X. 51. This fault compounded the injustice of being in already unsuitable accommodation. However we cannot know when the family might have moved to more suitable interim or temporary accommodation even had the Council given added priority. But that uncertainty and lost opportunity are also injustices resulting from the Council s fault. 52. It is worth adding that, had the Council dealt properly with Mrs X s request for two adjacent rooms in May 2016 (see paragraphs 45 and 46), this extra injustice would not have arisen. Offering alternative temporary accommodation 53. The Council has houses in Canterbury that it uses as longer-term temporary accommodation. It offered Mrs X one in July Mrs X declined because of the distance from London and the impact moving would have on her and her children s lives. In line with its normal practice, the Council did not penalise Mrs X for this refusal. As the Council only expects people to move to Canterbury on a purely voluntary basis, we did not give weight to Mrs X s refusal of this option when we considered the length of time she spent in the unsuitable temporary accommodation. 54. Apart from that, the Council did not offer Mrs X any alternative temporary accommodation until the offer of a room in a Council hostel in January 2017, which Mrs X accepted. The Council usually allocates such self-contained accommodation to families who have been in B&B the longest unless there are exceptional circumstances. 55. There is no indication the Council treated Mrs X as exceptional, nor has it said she was overlooked before January This implies Mrs X s family was not the only one in B&B for around eight months at that time. 56. The Council also advised Mr and Mrs X to keep looking for a private sector tenancy as it can take many years to obtain social housing in Redbridge. This is in line with advice we would expect councils to give anyone with such difficulties. However it does not absolve the Council of its obligation to provide suitable interim and temporary accommodation. 57. In February 2017, just after Mrs X had moved from the B&B to the hostel, the Council accepted she should not have been in B&B so long. It apologised and gave her homelessness application some additional priority for better temporary accommodation. This resulted in Mrs X and her family moving to new temporary accommodation, a self-contained flat, within three weeks. Responding to a draft of this report, the Council again expressed regret for keeping Mrs X in B&B longer than the law allows. Our findings on Mrs X s complaint about her homelessness 58. We agree the Council was at fault for having Mrs X and her children in B&B for so long. We accept the Council has considerable difficulty obtaining enough non-b&b interim and temporary accommodation and that the Council is taking steps to improve matters. 9

13 However that does not excuse keeping a family in B&B for so much longer than the legal maximum of six weeks. 59. The Council was also at fault for failing more than once to take proper account of the difficulties this particular accommodation caused and for not stating in writing at the outset that the accommodation was unsuitable and the Council must offer suitable temporary accommodation within six weeks. 60. We have considered how these faults affected Mrs X and her children. They clearly experienced considerable inconvenience and discomfort for over seven months longer than the maximum period they should have been in B&B. It was a stressful situation for all of them. Mrs X reports her older children fell behind with their schoolwork, which she says was linked to their unsuitable accommodation. These are all significant injustices. 61. Mrs X claimed the housing situation caused her marriage to break up, leaving her unable to afford her contribution to the rent after her husband left. We cannot blame the Council for the separation although the difficult housing situation was obviously a strain. We note Mrs X told the Council her husband had left for other reasons unconnected to the housing situation. The rent arrears aspect is also potentially related to a housing benefit claim, in which case Mrs X would have appeal rights if she believes the Council has miscalculated what she should pay. Mrs X s complaint about applying for social housing 62. Mr X had been on the Council s housing register since 2013 with Mrs X and the children included on his application. After the couple separated, Mrs X had to apply in her own right. The Council added Mrs X s application to the register in January 2017 but without the three-and-a-half years waiting time priority Mr X s application had accrued. 63. The Council says Mrs X did not use her right to request a review of its decision about her priority on the register and if she had done so, it would have considered the circumstances sympathetically. The Council now intends to review the application with a view to giving it the same priority as Mr X s application had. It will write to Mrs X with the outcome of this review. 64. In view of the action the Council is taking, we cannot usefully achieve more here. The Council s website says there is an average wait of about 11 years for three-bedroom social housing in Redbridge. So being without three years waiting time priority for some months is unlikely to have disadvantaged Mrs X significantly in practical terms. Our investigation of Mr Y s complaint 65. Mr Y and his family sought asylum in the United Kingdom. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodated them in northern England while the government considered the asylum application. The family was granted asylum so had to leave the NASS accommodation in August They came to Redbridge where they had relatives and had lived in the past. They presented as homeless with nowhere to stay that day. 66. The family consisted of Mr Y, his wife and their three children aged six, four and two years. One of their children has autism and learning disabilities. 10

14 67. The Council arranged a room in a privately owned building that houses numerous people on the other side of London from Redbridge. The room had its own cooking and bathroom facilities so it was not within the legal definition of B&B. Provision of accommodation 68. Mr Y and his family presented to the Council as homeless with nowhere to go that day. They had not previously contacted the Council about their housing situation. The Council therefore had no opportunity to plan their interim accommodation. It states the only other accommodation large enough and immediately available was two rooms in a B&B in a neighbouring borough. The Council decided against offering Mr Y that accommodation because: the Council considered another homeless family, who had children in local schools, had greater priority than Mr Y s family for accommodation in the area; the B&B accommodation involved sharing facilities with other families. The Council believed that would be more difficult for Mr Y s family than the other family, given Mr Y s son s autism and learning difficulties. 69. So the Council offered Mr Y the accommodation on the other side of London because, while other households lived in the building, the family would not have to share cooking, washing or toilet facilities. The Council says this was the only accommodation it could find without shared facilities at such short notice. In the circumstances, we do not fault the Council s decision to offer this accommodation on the day Mr Y presented as homeless. The Council s review of the accommodation s suitability 70. The day after moving to the accommodation, Mr Y requested larger accommodation. He reiterated this in September, providing a doctor s letter saying the accommodation s size was causing Mr Y s son s eczema to worsen and the boy could not sleep, which in turn kept the rest of the family awake. While there is no legal right to request a review of interim accommodation s suitability, that does not mean councils can simply ignore any problems with interim accommodation. 71. On 4 October 2016, the Council said it would move the family as soon as possible. The next day, it decided it owed Mr Y the main homelessness duty and told Mr Y he now had the right to request a review of the accommodation s suitability. Mr Y requested a review. On 24 October 2016 the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable. It says this was because of the following. While the accommodation was not within the legal definition of B&B, it is essentially bed and breakfast accommodation and it was privately rented. So the Council did not consider it suitable for families except in the relative short term. The Council knew Mr Y s son s autism was likely to accentuate the difficulty of being in short-term accommodation. Mr Y agrees, explaining his son became very distressed living in one room and this in turn disrupted and distressed the rest of the family. 11

15 72. The Council said it would arrange a move to alternative accommodation. Offer of alternative temporary accommodation in Canterbury 73. Also on 24 October 2016, the Council offered Mr Y alternative temporary accommodation, a house in Canterbury. Mr Y declined because of the distance from his relatives and place of worship and because it would involve changes of schools. The Council accepted Mr Y s decision. For the reasons given in paragraph 53, we did not give weight to Mr Y s refusal of this option when we considered the length of time he spent in the unsuitable temporary accommodation. The accommodation s distance from Redbridge and from shops 74. Mr Y says the unsuitability of the family s accommodation was worsened by its distance from Redbridge and from shops. 75. Mr Y argues the distance from Redbridge isolated them from family support and from attending a place of worship where they had links. The Council replies that, at that time, it had about 1,000 families accommodated outside the borough and it had to prioritise accommodation in or near the borough for families who needed it most. It considered Mr Y did not have high priority to be in or nearer Redbridge because neither of the adults was working there, they did not have children in schools in or near Redbridge and, while they had relatives in Redbridge, they had lived in northern England for three years before the day they presented as homeless in Redbridge. 76. The Council seems to have taken account of relevant factors here. We do not find fault with it in respect of the accommodation s distance from Redbridge. 77. Regarding the distance from shops, the Council points out there is a convenience store at a garage 150 metres from the property. It also states the accommodation is on bus routes, there are several supermarkets within two miles and the family could order shopping to be delivered. While the situation was certainly not ideal, we do not consider the Council s position here actually amounts to fault. Mr Y s waiting for alternative temporary accommodation until April After the Council agreed the accommodation was unsuitable, Mr Y continued requesting an urgent move, including via the family s health visitor, the children s school and a social worker from the borough where the temporary accommodation was. 79. The family did not move to alternative temporary accommodation (a two-bedroom flat slightly closer to Redbridge) until late April That was eight months after the Council placed the family in the single-room accommodation and six months after the Council agreed the accommodation was unsuitable. 80. The Council says it took so long to offer this move because of the number of people who needed to move from unsuitable accommodation. We understand the Council gave Mr Y extra priority rather than moving him strictly in date order. This implies Mr Y s was not an isolated case and that the Council had many families in unsuitable accommodation for eight months or more. Replying to a draft of this report, the Council acknowledged the family was in unsuitable accommodation for too long and expressed regret. 12

16 The option of Mr Y renting privately to end the family s homelessness 81. Meanwhile, the Council said it had offered Mr Y a private rented property in November However during our investigation the Council accepted there was no evidence it had offered a property. Inaccurately claiming to have offered a property was fault. This caused some avoidable confusion and frustration. 82. While the Council did not offer a property, it advised Mr Y to consider moving into private rented accommodation as this would be quicker than waiting for social housing, which could take many years. Mr Y preferred not to look into private renting at that time. There was no fault in the Council offering this advice, which Mr Y was free to act on or not. However, as we explained regarding Mrs X s complaint above, the Council s encouraging people to consider options that could resolve their homelessness does not absolve the Council of responsibility for ensuring homeless families have suitable temporary accommodation in the meantime. Problems with the accommodation s condition 83. Mr Y also complained of rodents in the room, the condition of the mattresses, damp and odours of drug use. The Council s response to our enquiries said monitoring conditions in B&Bs and houses in multiple occupation is the responsibility of the property s local authority. This is a reference to local authorities general environmental protection and housing licensing roles. 84. This seems to miss the point that the accommodation provider was acting on the London Borough of Redbridge s behalf in giving Mr Y accommodation pursuant to the Council s homelessness duties. So we consider the Council retains ultimate responsibility for the accommodation, as paragraph 5 explained. The accommodation s being outside the Council s area does not change this. The Council s apparent failure to recognise this point was fault. 85. Responding to a draft of this report, the Council accepted it has an ongoing duty to ensure accommodation outside the borough is suitable and in a reasonable condition. It explained it already checks the suitability of accommodation providers and requires them to confirm properties comply with certain standards. The Council accepts improvements are needed and states it is committed to avoiding a repeat of the problems in this case. It is producing an action plan to this end. 86. The Council states one of its officers visited the premises in March 2017 and said conditions were good. The Council has provided no evidence of this visit. Nor is it clear if the officer went into Mr Y s room or spoke to him or his wife. In any event, this visit was some months after Mr Y first reported poor conditions. We have considered how the Council dealt with the problems Mr Y raised. Rodents 87. In October 2016 Mr Y s Member of Parliament told the Council rodents (variously described as rats or mice) were entering the family s room. The Council replied it had instructed the managing agents to inspect and remedy this. We have seen no evidence action was taken then. 13

17 88. Mr Y ed the Council on 16 December 2016 saying there were mice in the room. We have not seen any evidence the Council acted. On 11 January 2017 we sent the Council a copy of Mr Y s complaint to us, which mentioned rats. The Council said a pest control visit on 8 February 2017 identified where mice were getting in and laid bait and the accommodation provider would close the gaps shortly. 89. Given the timing of the reports, it is inadequate there was no attempt at establishing the source of the problem until February In any event, Mr Y told us on 23 March 2017 that the family was still finding rodents in the room. The Council says the accommodation provider told it in April 2017 its pest control contractors are undertaking the necessary treatments. It is not clear why this did not happen much sooner, as the Council apparently requested this in October 2016 and the provider undertook in February 2017 to close the gaps the rodents were using. 91. The Council s role appears to have been reactive here with a lack of appreciation that it retained ultimate responsibility for the accommodation it had arranged. We consider the Council was at fault for not ensuring it knew whether pest control measures had been taken and for not checking the effectiveness of such measures, especially when Mr Y continued to report seeing rodents. The Council could easily have established this by telephoning Mr Y. The Council s faults here are likely to have caused the family the unpleasantness and distress of having rodents in their accommodation for several months after this should have been dealt with. Mattresses 92. On 16 December 2016 Mr Y told the Council the mattresses in the room were torn. There is no evidence the Council did anything then. On 11 January 2017 we sent the Council Mr Y s complaint to us, which mentioned torn, dirty mattresses with protruding springs. By 9 February 2017 these had been replaced. The Council then told Mr Y its provider acknowledged the mattresses were in poor condition and apologised. 93. It was fault to provide inadequate mattresses in the first place. The Council is ultimately responsible for this fault. The precise date of the mattresses replacement is unclear but it was at least January The Council compounded the original fault by its avoidable delay in dealing with the matter from December 2016 to January This caused Mr Y and his family avoidable discomfort. Damp 94. The Council was told of excessive humidity in the accommodation in October 2016 (by Mr Y s Member of Parliament), November 2016 (in Mr Y s formal complaint) and December 2016 (when Mr Y ed the Council). There is no evidence of any action until the accommodation provider said it had treated mould that had built up due to condensation in February In April 2017 the provider reported there was no mould or damp. 95. The Council was at fault for the lack of action between October and February. This covered a cold time of year, when problems with condensation or damp are more likely. The lack of action is likely to have caused the family to live in unpleasant conditions longer than necessary. 14

18 Odours of drug use 96. Mr Y s complaint to us, which we sent the Council on 11 January 2017, mentioned an odour of illegal drugs in the building. Mr Y had not previously raised this with the Council. The only evidence of any action on this is the provider telling the Council in April 2017 it had investigated (it did not say how or when) and found no evidence of illegal drugs use, which it would not tolerate. 97. We realise such reports might be difficult to act on. Nevertheless, the Council s response here seems cursory, not least because it apparently only obtained comments from the provider three months after we made the Council aware of this allegation. However we are not persuaded this point in itself caused Mr Y and his family a significant injustice. Our findings on Mr Y s complaint 98. Mr Y and his family were in the accommodation for eight months. Six of those months were after the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable and undertook to move them. We appreciate the Council is under considerable pressure trying to provide suitable accommodation for the number of homeless families it has. Nonetheless, as with Mrs X s case, we consider the Council was significantly at fault for leaving Mr Y and his family in unsuitable accommodation for so long. 99. The Council was also at fault for how it handled the reports of rodents, inadequate mattresses and mould and for wrongly saying it had offered a private rented property in November These faults caused the family significant distress, discomfort and inconvenience for around six months longer than necessary. Conclusions 101. We realise the Council, like many councils, faces real pressures with finding enough suitable accommodation for the number of homeless families who seek its help. The Council is evidently taking steps to increase the supply of accommodation and we do not criticise those steps. Nevertheless, despite those pressures, the Council has to follow the law and statutory guidance, including about housing families suitably Our investigations of these two complaints have found the Council was at fault for keeping both families for so long in temporary accommodation the Council knew was unsuitable. This caused significant injustices to both families. It is evident these cases are part of a more widespread fault as the Council also has many other families who have been in unsuitable accommodation for months, seemingly including families in B&B for over six weeks. Decision 103. Fault found causing injustice and recommendations made on both complaints. Recommendations 15

19 104. At our recommendation, the Council has agreed to do the following. Apologise in writing to Mrs X and Mr Y for the injustice caused by the Council s faults. Pay Mrs X 2,200. This comprises 250 a month for having to live in unsuitable accommodation from May to October 2016 when the family slept in two rooms, plus 300 a month for the three months from October 2016 to January 2017 when the family slept in one room, plus 300 for Mrs X s avoidable distress and her time and trouble pursuing matters. Pay Mr Y 2,300. This comprises 300 a month for the six months his family spent in the unsuitable accommodation plus 500 for Mr Y s avoidable distress and his time and trouble pursuing matters. The payment to Mr Y is slightly larger than to Mrs X because we consider the injustice from the unsuitability of his accommodation was slightly greater. Ensure the Council moves any other families from unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation, especially B&B, without delay. Ensure the Council formally adopts a policy on allocating temporary accommodation. The Council did this on 5 September Ensure that, each time it places an applicant with family commitments in B&B accommodation, the Council gives the applicant written notification that the law says B&B accommodation is unsuitable for families and that the Council must arrange alternative suitable accommodation within six weeks. The Council states it will explain this in writing to all affected families by 31 October Give us a progress report explaining how effective the Council s measures have been at reducing or avoiding the use of unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation, especially B&B accommodation for families. Advise us on how and when the Council will continue monitoring the effectiveness of its measures to avoid the use of unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation for families We welcome the Council s acceptance of our recommendations. We are pleased to note Mrs X and Mr Y are both satisfied with our recommendations. The Council now has three months to consider this report and tell us what it has decided to do. Its formal response should update us further about progress on implementing each of our recommendations. 16