LGO accuses officers of misunderstanding the law after family forced to spend night in car
The Local Government Ombudsman has accused officers at a London council of misunderstanding the law after a homeless family with two young children were forced to spend a night in a car.
The family had been refused temporary accommodation by the London Borough of Newham.
They had originally been sharing one bedroom at the father’s mother’s home, and had been nominated for an offer of a housing association property that was under construction.
In March 2011, the man gave Newham two weeks’ notice in writing that his mother had asked them to leave. However, the authority failed to act on this information.
The family attended Newham’s Housing Options Centre on the day they had to leave (17 March). They saw three different officers but were told they could not be given temporary accommodation.
The officers insisted that temporary accommodation could not be offered until a visit had been made to the grandmother’s home to verify that the family was homeless and would not be able to return.
The father, who brought the complaint before the LGO, was told to go to a police station in the evening if he could not find accommodation. The LGO investigation found that Newham had no records of the advice given. It was therefore unclear who had decided to refuse interim accommodation and the reasons why.
The father went to the police as instructed but claimed not to have been given any assistance. Attempts to find a room in a hotel were unsuccessful so the family spent a night in the car.
Another family member intervened and the grandmother was persuaded to take the family back.
An officer interviewed the father and the grandmother on 23 March and confirmed that the family was homeless. Even then, there was a seven-week delay in dealing with the case.
Concluding that there had been maladministration causing injustice, the Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, said the family had been in acute housing need and were let down by Newham.
She added: “I am concerned that officers investigating the man’s complaints repeatedly stated in their correspondence with him that their colleagues must be satisfied a person is homeless before they agree to provide interim accommodation.
“That demonstrates a misunderstanding of the law. The correct test is whether the Council has ‘reason to believe’ a person may be homeless and in priority need.”
Dr Martin also accused officers in Newham’s Prevention team of “unacceptably poor” record-keeping.
She called on the council to review its home visiting policy and produce clearer guidelines for officers “to ensure the policy does not operate in a way that unlawfully denies, or delays the provision of interim accommodation to eligible applicants.”
The LGO recommended that the council review its policy and procedures and make a progress report to the Ombudsman within three months. She also said Newham should send send a letter of apology to the complainant and pay him £300 compensation.
