Two East London councils have been ordered to apologise and pay compensation to at-risk residents after failing their housing needs.
Three separate complaints against Redbridge and Havering borough councils have been upheld by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
All complaints are related to the failure of the councils to rehouse residents appropriately and promptly.
Councils act as social landlords and are required by law to provide housing for residents facing homelessness. It is the role of the LGSCO to investigate complaints about councils, which can cover social care, education, and housing.
In one case, Havering Council was told to pay £4,325 to a resident who had been the victim of a violent crime but was not prioritised on the housing register.
The resident, referred to by the ombudsman as ‘Miss X’, told the council in November 2022 she felt unsafe and “feared seeing [her neighbour] on a daily basis,” the ombudsman said. She also claimed the house was unsuitable for her medical needs and those of her three children.
Between May and June 2023, the council noted concerns that she had been struggling with her mental and physical wellbeing. She had been hospitalised due to panic attacks and felt “very vulnerable”.
The town hall offered her accommodation outside the boroughs she requested but she declined, saying she needed to be near her support network. An offer of housing in West Yorkshire was similarly declined, as was the offer of a hotel.
Miss X complained to the ombudsman in January this year, which ruled in August the council had been at fault.
The ombudsman said: “I recognise the difficulties the council faced in finding suitable accommodation to meet the complexity of Miss X’s needs, but it was under a legal duty to find and offer something that was suitable.
“It did not meet this, and Miss X and her family were left in accommodation it accepted was not suitable or safe for them to reasonably remain.”
A council spokesperson apologised and vowed the council would improve its services.
They said: “We are sorry that we did not provide the quality of service that our resident should have expected. However, we will ensure that we learn from this judgement and improve the service we deliver to our residents.”
The £4,325 compensation comprises a ‘symbolic’ payment of £3,575 and £750 to “recognise the distress caused”, with the council also told to apologise and remind its housing officers of the appropriate procedures.
The spokesperson said it had apologised and “complied with the actions outlined by the ombudsman”.
Meanwhile, Redbridge Council was told to pay £2,325 compensation to a resident after he and his family were forced to live in bed-and-breakfast (B&B) style accommodation for an “unsuitable” amount of time.
‘Mr F’ and his wife and child told the council they were homeless in August 2023 and were put up in a hotel as a temporary measure.
B&B-style emergency housing should only be offered to households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and, even then, for no more than six weeks.
Though the council struggled with finding alternative temporary housing amid a “serious shortage”, it did not find more suitable accommodation until the following May. Mr F and his family spent approximately 37 weeks in the hotel, 31 weeks beyond the maximum.
The ombudsman wrote: “As the council has mentioned, we are conscious there is a critical shortage of suitable accommodation for homeless people and families, particularly in London.
“This being so, I do not suggest the council’s inability to rehouse Mr F’s family sooner was due to any administrative failure. Rather, this appears to be an example of what we call ‘service failure’, which is where an authority is unable to discharge a duty, despite its best efforts, because of the unavailability of a necessary resource.”
The council was found at fault in another instance, where it delayed in dealing with a resident’s medical assessments. However, the LGSCO said there had been “no significant injustice”.
Redbridge Council was approached for comment but did not respond in time for publication.
