Council criticised for placing homeless woman in ‘squalid’ accommodation

The Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) has criticised a district council for leaving an older woman in temporary accommodation that was “at best shabby, dirty and in disrepair”.

Rother District Council had no temporary accommodation available across the whole borough at the time, the LGO said, and regularly placed people in nearby Hastings, Eastbourne and further afield in Kent.

The 68-year-old woman, who was in poor health and had mobility problems, was placed in hotel accommodation in a neighbouring borough, 14 miles away from her former home, GP and social networks. This was after her landlord sought repossession of her privately-rented home in March 2016.

The LGO said that contrary to Government guidance, housing officers had recommended she wait until she was evicted by bailiffs, leaving her with a £350 court bill. The woman also claimed she was told to approach a neighbouring authority for housing, even though she had no claim for help from that authority.

According to the Ombudsman, the woman subsequently made regular complaints about the poor state of the accommodation. She said the room was “squalid, filthy and damp,” that the toilet was “caked in faeces” and the room was infested with bedbugs and cockroaches

However, the council never told her of her right to appeal its suitability. Nor did it treat her complaints as an appeal, the Ombudsman said.

The LGO also found fault with the council for not treating her complaint about it cancelling her housing benefit in error as an appeal.

The woman was left to foot a four-figure bill – “when it decided on very little evidence she had swapped rooms with her adult son”, the LGO said. He had been placed in a different room in the same hotel when they were evicted.

The LGO made a series of recommendations after finding the council at fault and these have been accepted by the council. They were that Rother:

• provide an unreserved apology;
• pay the woman £1,250 in recognition of the injustice;
• settle any costs awarded against her resulting from her landlord taking possession action;
• take whatever action it needs to ensure a dispute about non-payment of housing benefit at the temporary accommodation can be heard by the Tribunal Service – “or else the council should arrange for the immediate write-off of any debt owing from her stay in that accommodation”;
• make improvements to its housing service when dealing with enquiries from households facing eviction from private tenancies;
• give urgent attention to providing a supply of temporary accommodation in its area, as it currently only provides temporary accommodation out of its area;
• ensure that homeless households know of their right to request a review and appeal temporary accommodation they consider unsuitable;
• make sure it properly considers all expressions of dissatisfaction with housing benefit decisions.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “The issues we have seen with councils’ capacity to cope with the growing homelessness problem are spreading from London to the wider south east and beyond. This case is an example of what can happen when councils fail to plan, and the impact this has on local people.

“The recommendations we have made are designed to improve services not just for this woman, but for other people faced with homelessness in the Rother area.

“We welcome the fact that, following our investigation, the council has now agreed to our recommendations.”

The LGO said that “while the council has since made modest efforts to identify temporary accommodation in its area, it has nowhere near enough to meet demand. This continuing failure to have any temporary accommodation within the Rother area is fault.”