City council refuses to implement Ombudsman recommendation on financial remedy in second homelessness case

In November 2024 the local authority declined to implement an Ombudsman recommendation that it pay a domestic abuse victim £1,300 after she and her family were forced to live in bed and breakfast accommodation for 13 weeks longer than the maximum six-week period.

The council said then that it would only be partially acting on the Ombudsman’s recommendations as the recommended sanctions were based on legislation that was more than 20 years old and did not take account of what the local authority said was a national housing crisis.

The standoff eventually prompted the Ombudsman, Amerdeep Clarke, to write to the Housing Secretary, Steve Reed, highlighting her concerns.

Leicester has now refused to implement the LGSCO’s recommendation of a financial payment in a second case, this time concerning a homeless family who spent nearly 10 months too long in bed and breakfast accommodation.

The LGSCO said it had found fault with how the council handled the family’s case, “including delays when reviewing their Personalised Housing Plan and not telling the family about their rights to appeal the suitability of accommodation offered”.

The council also took too long to decide it owed the family the main housing duty, and for failing to move the family to self-contained accommodation after six weeks of living in the B&B, contrary to the law, it concluded.

Leicester has told the LGSCO that it would apologise to the family concerned and pay them the recommended £500 for the uncertainty and distress caused.

However, it added that it would not make a further £3,525 symbolic payment recommended by the Ombudsman for the injustice to the family of having to live in unsuitable B&B accommodation for 42 weeks longer than they should have done.

“It said it would not agree to make the symbolic payment because the lack of suitable interim and temporary accommodation is caused by national and international factors, not fault in the actions of the council. It felt that paying the remedy set a precedent that would be repeated in other cases, leading to very significant costs to the council. It pointed to the large investments it is making to tackle homelessness in its area,” the Ombudsman’s report revealed.

Amerdeep Clarke, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “The council is not alone in experiencing increasing pressure and demands on its homelessness services. However, it is unique in repeatedly declining to agree to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to families impacted by its failings. We cannot become apathetic to failings simply because we see these repeated across different parts of the country and we will continue to hold councils to their legal obligations.

“By refusing to acknowledge and remedy the injustice caused to the family – including splitting them up across separate rooms – for nearly 10 months, I am concerned Leicester City Council has yet again not fully accepted the personal impact of what has gone wrong.”

Clarke added: “We hear the council’s concerns about wider impacts of paying a financial remedy to the family. Our report recognises the service improvements the council has made to address the use of B&B accommodation for homeless families. However, we have been clear that we have only recommended financial remedies for the two complaints brought to us and that these are based on the individual circumstances of each complaint. This is clearly reflected in the different remedies we have made in this and the previous case.

“I urge Leicester City to reflect on this case, and its responses to my office, and to put things right for this family.”

The city council now must consider the Ombudsman’s report at a full council meeting, or similarly senior decision-making level, and formally respond.

Leicester City Council has been approached for comment.