BRADFORD Council has been criticised for providing non permanent lodging that didn’t settle for pets to a few going through homelessness – regardless of them having a remedy canine.
The Local Government Ombudsman has upheld a criticism towards Bradford Council, and ordered officers to evaluate its homeless insurance policies in addition to apologising to the couple.
A recently-published report into the criticism mentioned the couple had been put vulnerable to home abuse as a result of failure to supply them and their canine appropriate lodging.
The criticism was introduced by a pair that’s solely known as Mr X and Ms Y within the Ombudsman’s report.
It reveals that the couple’s landlord had instructed them their tenancy was coming to an finish, they usually contacted the Council informing them they had been quickly to develop into homeless.
The report provides: “The Council accepted the prevention (of homeless) duty and produced a personalised housing plan for Mr X and Ms Y.
“This set out the steps the Council and Mr X and Ms Y would take to prevent their homelessness. The Council’s steps included placing them in band one on the housing register, signposting them to housing providers and the Council’s scheme for assisting with deposits for private rented properties.
“A few weeks later Mr X and Ms Y notified the Council that they could not stay at their property until the expiry of the notice (from the landlord) due to an incident.
“The Council’s records show officers advised Mr X that they could offer interim accommodation. But the interim accommodation had a no pet policy so officers told him that he would have to find someone to look after his dog. The Council’s records note Mr X said this would be impossible.
Bradford City Hall (Image: T&A)
“Mr X and Ms Y then moved in with a relative. Mr X and Ms Y contacted the Council to request interim accommodation as they were experiencing domestic abuse from the relative.
“Mr X and Ms Y said they could not move anywhere without their dog who they said was a support dog. The Council’s records note an officer offered interim accommodation.
“The record notes the officer said dogs were not permitted in interim and temporary accommodation. The officer advised Mr X and Ms Y to approach charities to see if they could arrange foster care for their dog. Mr X and Ms Y declined the offer of interim accommodation.
“Mr X and Ms Y continued to report to the Council that they were experiencing domestic abuse. The Council’s records note that officers again discussed interim accommodation with Mr X and Ms Y. They again declined the offer as they could not take their dog.”
The report provides: “I asked the Council how it considered the requirements of the Homelessness Code of Guidance which provides councils should give careful consideration to whether they can offer interim accommodation which can accommodate pets.
“The Council has said that officers checked with providers whether they could accept Mr X’s and Ms Y’s dog.
“There is no evidence to show officers took this action.
“The Council’s records show it notified Mr X and Ms Y of providers’ no pet policy but there is no evidence to show officers checked with providers whether they would accept Mr X and Ms Y’s dog.
“There is no evidence to show officers attempted to find other accommodation which may be able to accept the dog. I therefore cannot be satisfied that the Council considered whether it could find accommodation which would accept pets in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance. This is fault.
“I cannot know if the Council would have found interim accommodation which could have accepted Mr X and Ms Y’s dog. So, I cannot say the failure to accept the relief duty and failure to offer accommodation which could accept pets caused them to be at risk of domestic abuse for longer than necessary.
“But the Council’s failure to consider if it could find such accommodation will have caused some avoidable uncertainty to Mr X and Ms Y.”
The ombudsman ordered the Council to apologise to the couple and award them a “symbolic payment” of £300.
It additionally requires the Council to “Review its procedures to ensure officers consider identifying and offering interim or temporary accommodation to applicants with pets that can accommodate their pet.”
