Council told to pay nearly £10k after woman forced to live in unsuitable accommodation for three years

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found that Croydon Council placed a woman fleeing domestic violence in “unsuitable accommodation” for three years, as well as finding poor complaint handling.

The council has been ordered to pay a financial remedy of £9,100 plus £300 on the first of every month from February 2023 until it has offered “suitable alternative temporary accommodation or discharged the full housing duty”.

The Ombudsman found that the council was at fault for its delay in deciding whether it owed the woman, (Miss D), the full housing duty after she became homeless, placing Miss D in “unsuitable” emergency accommodation that then became temporary accommodation once the council accepted the full duty, and its failure to answer the woman’s complaint made in January 2022.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said that Miss D moved to the council’s area in May 2018 when she was accommodated in a refuge after fleeing domestic violence.

Miss D approached the council for support with housing in October 2019 after her ex-partner relinquished his care of their three children, one of which is disabled. The council provided interim (or emergency) accommodation located in a third London Borough “LBY”. It is a one-bed basement flat with stairs to the entrance, the report revealed.

In the weeks that followed Miss D’s move to emergency accommodation, the council was contacted by a solicitor acting for Miss D. She said Miss D was “seeking a court order to require her ex-partner’s eviction from the property located in LBX (a different London Borough), so she could return there”. The council asked Miss D to keep it updated, the report said.

In February 2020, Miss D told the council that LBX would provide her with three-bed accommodation. However, in August 2020, LBX told Croydon that while it would support Miss D if she had a court order to return to her former property it “otherwise considered it owed no duty to support her, as she was not its tenant”. It said it was unable to offer her a three-bed property, the Ombudsman revealed.

In October 2021, the council made a decision that Miss D was homeless and “in priority need”. It decided she was not intentionally homeless and so it owed her the full housing duty, the Ombudsman said.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that while the council was considering if it owed the full housing duty to Miss D it received “several representations about the suitability of her interim or emergency accommodation”, including in November 2019 when Miss D said the steps made the property unsuitable for her disabled child as he used a wheelchair.

In January 2021 Miss D’s MP raised the unsuitability of the property with the council, the report noted.

In general comments to the Ombudsman, the council said that while it was “not ideal”, it considered the emergency accommodation it secured for Miss D was “the best possible at the time” being both “reasonable and suitable”.

Investigating the delay, the Ombudsman noted that there is “no statutory timescale in which a council must complete inquiries when deciding if it owes the main housing duty to someone who presents as homeless”. However, it noted that guidance suggests that councils should “aim to complete inquiries in 33 working days”.

The Ombudsman said: “In this case it took the council around fifteen times longer than this timescale to reach a decision on Miss D’s case.”

The LGSCO also found fault with the council’s complaint handling of the case, noting: “I find some effort must have been made initially to respond to Miss D’s concerns as there is evidence officers contacted the letting agent to make enquiries about the conditions of the temporary accommodation. But thereafter there was a communication breakdown, resulting in Miss D not receiving a reply.”

The report concluded that Croydon’s failings hadcaused Miss D the following injustice:

• distress in the form of uncertainty, while waiting for the Council’s decision on her request for housing assistance;
• being required to live in unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period of time;
• not being given the opportunity to make an informed choice on whether to withdraw her request for housing assistance;
• time and trouble.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council has agreed that within 20 working days of the Ombudsman's decision, it will apologise to Miss D and pay her a financial remedy of £9,100.

It will also give Miss D “20 working days to clarify if she still wishes to withdraw her request for housing assistance from the council in view of the findings of the investigation”. The local authority will as well pay a further £300 on 1 February “should she remain in unsuitable temporary accommodation”, and a further £300 on the first of every month thereafter until it has offered suitable alternative temporary accommodation or discharged the full housing duty.

The Ombudsman said the council should also consider what wider lessons it can learn from its handling of this case.

A Croydon Council spokesperson said: “Due to the national housing crisis, councils are experiencing huge demand for temporary accommodation. Unfortunately this means that there are not always permanent homes available for families as quickly as we would like.

“We are sorry for the delays that this tenant experienced and have extended apologies and provided her with financial compensation for the distress caused due to the time spent in unsuitable accommodation. We continue to review our procedures to ensure temporary accommodation is suitable and any complaints received are dealt with promptly.”

Lottie Winson