Ombudsman finds fault with London borough over “unreasonable” 24-hour notice offer to homeless single mother of accommodation 250 miles away

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has upheld a complaint about the London Borough of Enfield after the council made a woman living with her daughter in bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation only one offer of temporary accommodation at very short notice and 250 miles away.

In its report the Ombudsman also found that Enfield had failed to review the suitability of that offer.

The complainant, Ms B, said she had been living in B&B accommodation with her daughter in breach of the law. She also claimed that Enfield had failed to carry out a statutory review of the suitability of the accommodation in accordance with section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 or provide her with a right of appeal to the County Court if she remained dissatisfied.

Ms B also complained that Enfield had placed her and her daughter on a transfer list with no criteria or timescales which did not resolve their situation. She described having been caused significant distress and frustration throughout the period.

The Ombudsman said that it did not consider that simply adding an applicant to a ‘transfer list’ and waiting for a suitable property to become available was sufficient for a council to demonstrate how it was meeting its duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation.

“This is in line with the court’s decision that putting applicants who are owed the section 193(2) duty, and who are in unsuitable accommodation, on a waiting list for temporary accommodation is not a lawful means of fulfilling the unqualified and immediate duty to secure suitable accommodation for their occupation.” (Elkundi & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2021] EWHC 1024 (Admin) 308)

The Ombudsman’s report said: “We recognise that a list or database is useful. However, we may be critical of councils who prioritise applicants for rehousing by time spent on such a list without regard to the specifics of their case. Furthermore, any such list should take care to distinguish between those in accommodation that is unsuitable now and applicants whom the council considers will need to move in the short or medium term.”

It added that the LGSCO encouraged councils to maintain a policy or procedure setting out how they allocate temporary accommodation.

Ms B had first presented as homeless in June 2022, at which time the council said she refused some interim accommodation and so it discharged its duty to provide accommodation pending completion of its enquiries. It also wrongly ended its relief duty, the Ombudsman said.

After Ms B approached Enfield again in October 2022, she and her daughter were placed in a hotel with shared facilities (B&B accommodation) while the council made enquiries into her case.

In May 2023 the local authority accepted the main housing duty towards Ms B. Later that month Ms B requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation.

The council decided that the accommodation was unsuitable and placed Ms B on a ‘transfer list’. It said her review had been resolved and gave Ms B no further right of appeal.

Having been in B&B accommodation for more than eight months, Ms B requested a further review. The council acknowledged the statutory six-week limit on B&B accommodation and agreed it was not suitable for a family.

At this stage Ms complained to the Ombudsman.

At 2.30 pm on 12 September 2023 Ms B was offered a privately rented property in North-East England. The council said she would only get two offers of accommodation.

Ms B could not visit or view the property and the council required a response by 10 am on 13 September.

In relation to suitability the offer said: “We accept that it would be disruptive for any family to have to move away from an area where you have established social links over a number of years, and away from their family, and that it may be more disruptive for a family with young children, like yours. However, I do not accept that the support of your family, friends or local community is essential to your household's welfare… We are also of the view that you will not be isolated from community support and will be able to receive support should you require it.”

Ms B asked for more time to consider the offer and to take advice. She subsequently refused the property and requested a review of its suitability. She said she was a single parent with a support network in London and it was unreasonable to expect her to move so far away where she knew no-one.

When the Ombudsman approached the council, it claimed that Ms B had been unwilling to co-operate with the caseworker undertaking enquiries. It gave this as reasoning for the seven-month delay to reach a decision on the main housing duty.

It also said the personal housing plan had been incomplete, and a financial assessment had not been completed as Ms B did not engage fully with requests for information.

Enfield said the reasons for the delay in offering suitable housing included a long transfer list – some 459 people were on it – and an 80% drop in the supply of temporary accommodation and privately rented affordable accommodation in the borough.

The Ombudsman concluded that Enfield had been at fault in failing to find suitable alternative accommodation since 29 November 2022.

“I understand the pressures on housing in the area are immense and the delay is largely due to external factors beyond the council’s control such as a shortage of temporary accommodation. But the fact that a council has not met the statutory duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation is sufficient to make a finding of service failure,” the LGSCO said.

The Ombudsman found that this fault had caused, and continued to cause, Ms B and her daughter “significant injustice” as they had no access to cooking facilities, no space to study or relax and the environment was totally unsuitable for a child.

The report also concluded that the operation of the transfer list was unclear, and Enfield had not provided a policy or procedure explaining how the list operated, beyond a list of priority criteria which were very similar to the main housing register. This was fault, the Ombudsman said.

The council’s review response to Ms B in June 2023 was meanwhile unclear as to whether her review had been successful, and it did not give her a further right of appeal to court if she remained dissatisfied. This was also found to be fault.

In relation to the out of area offer, the Ombudsman said: “I understand the pressure on housing in the area has led the council to review its policy on out of area placements and it is able to offer placements out of area if it has properly considered the individual circumstances of each case.

“However, the council has given no reasons as to why Ms B‘s established social and support networks were not essential to her family’s welfare and why Ms B would not be isolated even though the council was asking her to move 250 miles away to a place where she knew nobody. It made no mention of the impact on her daughter’s education or Ms B’s employment. This was fault.”

Ms B had a right of appeal against the offer which she exercised, but Enfield had refused to consider it saying she was entitled to two offers of accommodation.

“I consider the council should have considered the review and decided if it was suitable, taking into account her objections,” the Ombudsman said.

“This would then determine whether Ms B was entitled to two further offers rather than just one. The failure to do so means that Ms B may be penalised for refusing an unsuitable offer.”

The Ombudsman also considered the manner in which the council made the offer to Ms B was unreasonable: it gave her less than 24 hours to consider and digest the prospect of moving 250 miles away. This was fault “which exacerbated an already stressful situation”.

The Ombudsman recommended that Enfield, within one month:

• make an offer to Ms B of suitable alternative temporary accommodation
• pay her £5,000 for the time she and her daughter spent in B&B accommodation since the six week statutory time limit expired in November 2022
• carry out a review of the suitability of the first offer made for the property in North-East England to determine if the resident is entitled to one or two further offers of accommodation;

The council should also, within three months:

• produce a published policy or procedure explaining how the transfer list works, including the criteria for being placed on the list, the criteria for priority within the list and how temporary accommodation is allocated within the list
• carry out a review of its procurement of temporary accommodation and identify ways of increasing the supply of different types of temporary accommodation suitable for families
• review the way in which it makes offers of out-of-borough accommodation to ensure sufficient time is allowed to consider the offer and that sufficient reasons are given as to why the council considers the offer is suitable.

The Ombudsman noted that Enfield had already made an offer of accommodation to Ms B which had been accepted and had agreed to pay her £5,000. The council also accepted the absence of the statutory right of appeal in its review letter.

Enfield agreed to the three procedural review recommendations and told the Ombudsman they were all underway.

An Enfield Council spokesperson said: “Enfield Council accepts the findings of the Ombudsman and we have agreed to the procedural review recommendations that were made in the report. The council made an offer of accommodation to the resident, which was accepted in December 2023.

"We take complaints very seriously and have improved our processes. We have moved to a national placement policy as a result of the extreme shortage of accommodation in London and the South East. We have communicated widely with all homeless households in temporary accommodation of our approach to make suitable offers of accommodation that are both affordable and meet the needs of individuals and families.”

Harry Rodd