London borough to review approach to Equality Act duties when providing temporary accommodation for homeless

The London Borough of Haringey has agreed to review how it takes account of its Equality Act duties when considering the suitability of temporary accommodation for homeless families.

This comes after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld the complaint of a Haringey resident, Mr B, who said the council did not properly support his family and their non-verbal autistic children, X and Y, when they were evicted.

The Ombudsman found fault by Haringey amounting to service failure and recommended an apology, a payment and a review of the council’s processes regarding temporary accommodation provision.

The background to the complaint was that Mr B and his family had been evicted from temporary accommodation provided by the council. They were subsequently placed, between April 2023 and August 2023, in unsuitable hotel accommodations with no cooking facilities, and were forced to move between different hotels frequently.

The tenant complained that the moves and the unsuitability of the accommodation led to significant instability for the family and significantly impacted their children. This caused the children to record numerous absences from school.

The Ombudsman’s report revealed that the family were placed in five different hotels within the same hotel chain, moving seven times between them.

Haringey eventually identified private sector accommodation for the tenant and their family in May 2023, but void works took longer than expected before the family were able to move in. They finally moved in on 9 August 2023.

TheOmbudsman said that under the main housing duty, which states if that a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to ensure accommodation is available for their occupation.

The Housing Act 1996 and Homelessness Code of Guidance state that the council has a duty to ensure all accommodation provided to the family is ‘suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household’.

The Ombudsman noted that this duty applies to both interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty.

Additionally, the report said that B&B accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent children when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks.

Haringey's policy on temporary accommodation meanwhile stated, amongst other things, that a child’s attendance at a specific school in its borough was not sufficient grounds for an applicant to refuse an offer of temporary accommodation. However, finding accommodation within the borough is given some priority for `pupils who have special educational needs or those close to taking examinations`.

Haringey told the Ombudsman that it was aware of the family’s circumstances and needs, but it was unable to secure accommodation that was any more suitable. It suggested that if the council was in a position to provide accommodation that was better suited, it would have done so.

It also highlighted a report to its Cabinet in October 2023 which had noted the homelessness crisis in London and that the council had been forced to use hotel accommodation as temporary accommodation for the first time in a decade. As at September last year, the council had 103 households placed in hotels.

The Cabinet report recognised the need to address the issue as a priority. It suggested that there had been an increase in demand and a severe downturn in the supply of accommodation the authority could use as temporary accommodation. This report also included a detailed B&B elimination plan setting out actions to address the issue.

The Ombudsman concluded that Mr B’s family had been placed in B&B accommodation for 18 weeks between early April and early August 2023.

It found that the use of B&B accommodation for the family represented service failure by the council. However, it was noted that Haringey had identified the issue, and the council was taking positive steps to end the reliance it currently has on B&B accommodation via an action plan.

In relation to the Equality Act, the Ombudsman said the Homelessness Code of Guidance made it clear that B&B accommodation was unsuitable for families in general.

“The council told us, despite being aware that Y and Z were autistic, it was not in a position to provide other accommodation. I note the difficulties the council has with the housing market in its area. However, because of Y and Z’s autism, the unsuitability of this type of accommodation and the instability caused by the need to move regularly between different locations, is likely to have placed them at a particular disadvantage,” the report said.

“The council did not indicate that it considered how this disadvantage could be mitigated. For example, by planning accommodation to ensure no, or less frequent moves for the family, or by taking additional steps to source hotel or other TA accommodation within its borough for the family which would better enable Y to attend the school named in his EHC plan.”

The report said Haringey’s policy for providing temporary accommodation stated that some priority would be given to providing accommodation within the borough where an applicant’s children have special educational needs and attend a school in the borough.

“Y’s EHC plan named a school in the borough, but there is no evidence that any additional priority was afforded to the family to be accommodated in the borough,” it added.

Based on the information the council provided, the Ombudsman found Haringey did not have sufficient regard to its duty under the Equality Act to prevent indirect discrimination to Y and Z. This was fault, it said.

The Ombudsman recommended that, within four weeks of the decision, Haringey should:

• provide a written apology to the tenant and their family for the length of time they spent in unsuitable B&B accommodation and for the impact this had on the family.
• pay the complainant £3,600 to recognise the difficulties that the stay in B&B accommodation caused for the family.
• make a payment of £1,000 to recognise the distress caused to the family.

Within six weeks of the decision the council should also review how it takes account of its Equality Act duties when considering the suitability of temporary accommodation for homeless families.

The council has agreed to adhere to these recommendations.

Cllr Sarah Williams, Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning at Haringey Council, said: “We will absolutely learn lessons from the Local Government Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations and have apologised to the family for the mistakes made.

“Whilst we appreciate that hotel accommodation is not ideal, at the time the family became homeless there was no suitable fixed, self-contained accommodation available.

“We moved as quickly as possible to secure settled accommodation, which I hope the family is happy with.

“There is a chronic shortage of family-sized accommodation in the borough and last year alone we received 4,400 homelessness applications, one of the highest in London. That’s why we have an extensive plan in place to help us address the increases in demand and reductions in supply, so we rely less on hotel accommodation.”

Harry Rodd