A city council has partially declined a recommendation from a government oversight body regarding compensation for a mother rendered homeless after escaping domestic violence. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman stated that the woman did not receive appropriate assistance when she sought help from Leicester City Council. After leaving her residence with her children, she was initially housed in a temporary bed and breakfast (B&B) before being directed to a refuge offering self-contained living arrangements. The city council indicated its willingness to compensate the woman £500, but it will not agree to the additional £1,300 suggested by the watchdog, arguing that this sum is derived from legislation over two decades old that “do not take account of the national housing crisis”. The ombudsman reported that the mother contacted the council “repeatedly” because she believed the refuge was adversely impacting her children’s health and was located too far from her support network, yet the authority did not reply. Under UK law, families are intended to be placed in B&B accommodation solely as a final option and for a maximum duration of six weeks. Nevertheless, this particular family was accommodated in a B&B, occupying two separate rooms, for a period of 19 weeks following their departure from the refuge. The ombudsman stated: “[The city council] failed to tell her that it had accepted the main housing duty towards her family, and of her right to appeal the suitability of the accommodation offered through the courts.” Ultimately, the family was presented with a one-bedroom dwelling, and even though the council admitted its unsuitability, it neglected to inform the mother of her right to appeal, according to the ombudsman. The ombudsman advised the city council to issue an apology to the mother and compensate her £500 for the distress resulting from its failure to address her concerns regarding the appropriateness of the refuge accommodation. Additionally, the city council was recommended to pay the family £1,300 for exceeding the appropriate B&B stay by 13 weeks, along with an extra £150 for every month she continues to reside in “unsuitable” temporary housing. Ms Amerdeep Somal, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, asserts that the city council is not “accepting the gravity of the injustice to this family”. She further commented: “While I acknowledge the work Leicester City Council has already done to improve its support for homeless people in the city, and its acceptance of the service improvements I have recommended, I am disappointed with its reluctance to fully acknowledge what has gone wrong in this case.” The city council contends that fulfilling all the suggested payments would have “disastrous” consequences for local authorities. The council declared a housing crisis in November 2022 and reports an annual expenditure of approximately £16m on services for the homeless. The authority states that the scarcity of appropriate housing is “out of its control”, notwithstanding its initiatives to supply more affordable homes, and notes that the legislation restricting B&B accommodation to six weeks predates 20 years. Elly Cutkelvin, the deputy city mayor for housing, remarked: “Five years ago we had no families living in B&B accommodation in Leicester.” She continued: “This year – owing to successive governments’ failures to tackle the housing crisis by building more new homes – we have 171 in B&Bs and a further 365 in other temporary accommodation, including hotels and self-contained flats.” She added: “I understand how distressing this must be, and the impact it will have on everyday life.” Ms Cutkelvin indicated that if the ombudsman’s complete recommendation established a precedent, the council would be required to disburse £220,000, which is “money we simply don’t have”. She further stated: “We do accept that there were some failings in our service in this case.” She concluded: “We are sorry for this, and have apologised to the family concerned. “Staff training and recruitment is under way to ensure these failings are not repeated.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *