You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
London borough pays out £4,500 after decision leaves woman unable to bid on permanent home
Haringey Council has been told to pay £4,500 in compensation after a decision to move a woman and her children from unsuitable temporary accommodation while repairs were carried out saw her blocked from bidding on a permanent home.
Offering the woman, Miss X, a temporary move meant she was moved to a new priority banding, under which any bids she placed on available properties would not be approved.
In effect, this meant she was suspended from bidding – at a time when her original priority status meant she was highly likely to have been successful.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found Haringey Council at fault for incorrectly applying a policy that is intended to only be used for secure tenants or leaseholders.
Compounding the situation, the council did not offer the family, to whom it owed a main housing duty, any alternative accommodation despite their existing home having longstanding leaks.
The situation persisted for 15 months, with Miss X eventually complaining to the LGSCO in February 2024.
READ MORE
In its case report, the watchdog said Haringey should allocate Miss X the first home she bids on “regardless of her actual position… to make up for her losing out on numerous properties since March 2023”.
Miss X and her family had originally been placed in temporary accommodation in 2017 by the council after being awarded a main housing duty. They reported maintenance issues in 2020.
According to Miss X, a leak under the bath that was not fixed for more than a year caused damage to flooring, which her son tripped on. She said he lost consciousness as a result of the fall.
After assessing that the repairs could not be fixed with the family in situ, the council eventually considered their situation in February 2023 and approved a temporary move the following month.
Haringey was unable to provide the ombudsman with a copy of a letter it sent explaining the decision. The council also admitted that the case should never have gone before panel because Miss X was not a secure tenant.
Despite this, the decision effectively barred Miss X from bidding.
The LGSCO found that prior to the decision being made, Miss X had been placing bids that put her within the top 20 applicants for properties she was interested in.
“This indicates she was getting closer to making a successful bid due to her priority and length of time on the housing register,” the case report said.
While her bidding rights were suspended, Haringey did not move Miss X and her family. After she complained to the council, it told her it was trying to find suitable alternative accommodation. Later, it said she might need to move to a hotel while repairs were carried out.
“In response to my enquiries, the council has failed to provide any evidence to show that it found or offered any alternative accommodation for Miss X to move into,” the ombudsman said.
“It is possible this failure to take action, despite upholding complaints to say that it would, is because the team responsible realised Miss X should not have a temporary [move].”
As well the compensation payment and agreement around Miss X’s bidding, the LGSCO said Haringey should issue guidance to staff to ensure homeless applicants in temporary accommodation are not treated as secure tenants and not prevented from bidding on available properties.
Responding to the ombudsman’s findings, Sarah Williams, deputy leader and cabinet member for housing and planning at Haringey Council, said: “Our handling of this case fell below the standards our residents should expect.”
She added that the council recognised the “distress, time and trouble” experienced by the family because they were living in unsuitable accommodation.
“We have apologised to the family for the mistakes made. We will absolutely learn lessons from the ombudsman’s findings and recommendations and have taken immediate action to improve our services,” Ms Williams said.
“I’m pleased that the matter has now been resolved and the family will be offered the first property they bid on.”
Sign up for our regulation and legal newsletter
Already have an account? Click here to manage your newsletters
