A family will be paid £6,000 compensation by Enfield Council after remaining in emergency bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation 30 weeks longer than regulations allow.
The mother – referred to anonymously as Miss F – and her four children were placed in a hotel for nine months after they were evicted from their home in Enfield.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found this to be “unsuitable accommodation”.
A council spokesperson said they accepted the findings of the ombudsman and had agreed to the procedural review recommendation made in the report.
They added the council had recently introduced a national placement policy for temporary accommodation as a result of the “extreme shortage of accommodation in London” which they said had given rise to the use of hotels which they admit are “not suitable for families”.
Miss F contacted the council in September 2022 to say she was being evicted and the council accepted prevention duty in October, giving her advice on finding accommodation and searching for suitable options.
Miss F was eventually evicted on 1st March 2023 and was placed with her four children in a hotel as interim accommodation, with the council accepting its relief duty to house her and her children in temporary housing.
By law councils should not force families to stay in B&Bs such as hotels, where they don’t have access to their own cooking and washing facilities, for more than six weeks.
Records showed the council made housing offers to Miss F but “none were suitable” due to their location, size or affordability. While homeless, Miss F was paying £500 per month to store her possessions.
While the council’s relief duty for the family automatically ended in April, the local authority did not issue a decision letter on whether it accepted main housing duty and Miss F raised a complaint.
On August 15, the council issued a letter extending relief duty, and replied to her complaint on the 25th apologising for the way her case had been handled and saying it would assess the suitability of her accommodation.
The council accepted it had a main housing duty in September, however this letter was addressed to Miss F’s previous address.
Miss F and her solicitor continued to chase the council to find suitable accommodation, and in October a review concluded finding the hotel “not suitable”.
Miss F accepted the offer of a suitable property in November.
The watchdog’s report found the family staying in “unsuitable accommodation” for longer than regulations allowed was a “fault” and had caused them distress with “significant impact on the wellbeing and education” of the children.
The council should have decided if it owed Miss F the main housing duty and issued this decision in April instead of September, the report said, adding an extension was only necessary if more information was needed which “was not the case here”.
The ombudsman decided a payment of £200 per week for each week the family spent in B&B accommodation over the six-week limit was a suitable “remedy”, meaning £6,000 was owed to them in total.
The report acknowledged the council was “taking action” to reduce the time families spent in B&Bs and was contacting accommodation providers daily to increase supply.
The council spokesperson added: “The government has failed to develop a plan for housebuilding across the country and despite high numbers of affordable houses being delivered across London by councils, demand is outstripping supply.
“Councils urgently require additional financial help to meet the immediate needs of our residents during this national housing crisis, that has been caused by a lack of government action and funding.”
