The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council supported her while she was homeless. There was fault how the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness application and delayed carrying out a review of its decision which meant that Miss X lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have. The Council agreed to arrange accommodation for Miss X, decide what it needs to do to protect her belongings, apologise and pay her a financial remedy.
The complaint
Miss X complaints about the support the Council provided after she became homeless in December 2022. She says the Council: failed to properly record her information so she had to provide some information several times; failed to renew bookings for short-term accommodation while it was investigating her homelessness application; failed to properly take into account her circumstances and so offered her unsuitable temporary accommodation; took too long to decide her request for a review of the suitability of that accommodation; wrongly ended its duty to house her before it had made a decision about the suitability of the temporary accommodation; told her she owed rent arrears that she did not; failed to properly support her in moving and protecting her possessions from her former home; and communicated with her poorly, including not replying to her messages.
As a result, Miss X says she has had to live with family members and has been caused significant distress and upset. She wants the Council to provide her with suitable temporary accommodation and properly recognise the impact the delays have had on her.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her; the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and relevant law and guidance.
Miss X and the Council had opportunities to comment on my draft decisions. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Homelessness Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175) Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief Duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39) Suitability of accommodation The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters: the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district; the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012) The Council has a placement policy which sets out which applicants can be placed outside the Council’s area. Under the Council’s policy, only the most vulnerable people must be housed within the Council’s area.
Protection of belongings Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, including the main housing duty, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20) Review rights Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of some decisions about their homelessness, including: what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness; and the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19) Councils must complete reviews of the above decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
What happened Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in late 2022 because of the condition of her privately rented home.
The Council arranged a telephone interview with Miss X for late January 2023. However, the Council called Miss X on an old telephone number (rather than the one she had provided in her application) so could not contact her. Miss X contacted the Council about the missed appointment the following day.
The Council rearranged the interview for around a month later and the evidence suggests this interview took place. However, there is very little evidence in the Council’s records of what happened after this, apart from an email from Miss X asking for an update in March 2023. There are no records of any significant contact the Council had with Miss X or her landlord, or other action, until mid-2023.
Miss X said that, during this time, the officer responsible for her case told her they were new to the role and were overwhelmed by the volume of cases allocated to them. Miss X continued to stay in her private rented accommodation during that time.
Miss X contacted the Council again in mid-2023 and her case was reallocated to a different officer who decided the Council owed Miss X the Relief Duty. The Council confirmed this in around two weeks later and also offered Miss X interim accommodation while it considered her application further.
Miss X told the Council she did not consider the interim accommodation it had offered was suitable. The Council told Miss X it therefore no longer had a duty to provide her with interim accommodation and she remained in her former home.
Miss X then had to move out of her former home because the conditions got worse. There is some evidence in the Council’s records that it arranged for Miss X to go into emergency temporary accommodation in a hotel. Miss X said these were short-term bookings which the Council failed to renew, causing her and her child having to sleep in their car overnight between bookings.
Around three months after it reallocated her application, the Council decided it owed Miss X the Main Housing Duty and it offered her self-contained temporary accommodation outside the Council’s area.
Although Miss X disagreed the accommodation was suitable for her, she accepted it and asked the Council to review the suitability. Miss X told the Council the accommodation was too far from her child’s school, Miss X’s doctor and other family members who supported Miss X. Because of this distance, Miss X went to stay with a relative in the Council’s area instead, sleeping on her relative’s sofa.
Miss X chased the Council about her request for a review twice, several weeks and nearly a month after she asked for the review. During this time Miss X said she was reluctant to pay rent or claim housing benefit for the temporary accommodation, because she did not think she would have to move in. However, after the Council sent her a reminder, Miss X both made a payment towards her rent and claimed housing benefit, which covered her arrears and ongoing rent.
The Council acknowledged Miss X’s request for a review around two months after she made it and told her the time for it to complete the review started from when it acknowledged her request.
Three weeks later, the Council checked with the letting agent which managed the temporary accommodation. The letting agent told the Council Miss X had not moved into the accommodation. Three working days later, the Council told Miss X it no longer owed her the main housing duty because she had ceased to occupy the temporary accommodation.
Miss X replied to the Council, challenging its decision because there was still an outstanding review of the suitability of the accommodation. Miss X also sent the Council more information about why she did not consider the accommodation suitable, including several concerns about the condition of the property.
In early-2024, the Council upheld its earlier decisions about both the suitability of the property and its decision that it no longer owed her the main housing duty.
My findings
Miss X had the right to appeal the Council’s decisions on the review to the County Court. Where someone has a right of appeal to the courts, we can only investigate if we decide it was not reasonable for them appeal. Miss X has tried to find free legal representation to help her appeal, but she could not find any agencies which had capacity to support her. Miss X could not afford to pay for representation herself. Given the complexity of the issues Miss X believed were involved I am satisfied it was not reasonable for her to use her right of appeal without legal representation. Therefore, I have decided to consider both how the Council made its original decisions and how the Council carried out the review.
Late 2022 to mid-2023 When the Council first tried to call Miss X to discuss her homelessness application, it used an incorrect telephone number, rather than the one Miss X provided on her application. In my view, although likely human error, this was fault which caused an initial delay in taking Miss X’s homelessness application.
There is no explanation for the lack of progress with, or records about, Miss X’s homelessness application between the early-2023 interview and mid-2023. There is no evidence the Council contacted Miss X during this time, updated her on progress or made any decisions about her application, even after Miss X chased the Council for updates.
On the balance of probabilities, I accept Miss X’s account that these delays were caused by inaction by her assigned caseworker at the time. There is not enough evidence for me to say why there was a lack of action, but I am satisfied there was and that this was fault. That delay caused Miss X avoidable frustration. I cannot say that, if there had been no delay at this stage, the outcome would have been different but there is a remaining uncertainty about this which is a further injustice to Miss X.
Hotel bookings in summer 2023 The Council’s records about the interim accommodation it arranged for Miss X in the summer of 2023 is very limited. However, the records do refer to the Council booking accommodation for Miss X at the same times Miss X said she was placed in a hotel.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that: the Council arranged short-term hotel accommodation for Miss X in mid-2023; there were gaps in these bookings which meant that Miss X had to make her own arrangements, including sleeping in her car overnight with her child; and it was likely due to the Council’s poor record keeping that there was confusion about these arrangements at the time.
This was fault which meant that Miss X did not have suitable accommodation on more than one occasion. There were only a few occasions where Miss X had to make her own arrangements, and these were for very short periods of time. However, I am satisfied these occasions were very upsetting for Miss X at a time she was particularly vulnerable, causing her significant upset and distress.
Suitability of temporary accommodation It is not our role to decide if the accommodation the Council provided for Miss X was suitable; that was the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.
I am satisfied the evidence shows the Council considered all the required factors and the evidence available when it first offered Miss X temporary accommodation in mid-2023. This included both Miss X’s needs and the Council’s placement policy. The Council’s decision that it could offer Miss X accommodation outside its area is consistent with its placement policy. Since there was no fault in how the Council made its offer in mid-2023, I cannot question the outcome of that decision.
Delays in reviewing suitability and the Council’s review decision Miss X asked the Council for a review of the suitability of her accommodation the day after she accepted it. The Council should have completed that review within eight weeks.
However, the Council first acknowledged Miss X’s request around the time it should have made its decision, and told her at that time that the eight weeks ran from that date instead. That explanation was incorrect and was fault.
The Council sent Miss X its decision on the review in early 2024, just under 10 weeks later than it should have done. That delay was fault which caused Miss X both frustration and distress, especially because she had to chase the Council for updates several times while waiting for the Council’s decision.
I am also not satisfied the Council considered all the evidence available to it or all the required factors in its review of the suitability of temporary accommodation it provided for Miss X.
Miss X gave several reasons why she considered the property unsuitable: It was too far from her child’s school.
There were safety and repair concerns about the property, including means of escape in a fire and damp.
Her health problems meant she needed to be closer to her family, who provide support to her, and her doctor.
While the Council considered the distance Miss X and her child would need to travel to school (and that this was within the maximum 75 minutes each way recommended by the Department for Education), it did not address: whether Miss X would be able to transport her child to school or whether her child would need to use public transport (possibly with a longer journey time); how Miss X’s health conditions impact her ability to travel long distances as frequently as she would need to; or the condition of the property or the safety concerns Miss X had raised, including any conflict between the letting agent’s comments and the photographic evidence Miss X had provided.
Miss X said that, if the Council had made its decision on her review when it should have done in late 2023 and had fully considered all her reasons for disputing suitability, she would have accepted the Council’s decision and moved into the property. Miss X accepted the Councils’ offer and there is also evidence Miss X took steps, before the Council should have made its decision, to protect her interest in the property by paying rent and claiming housing benefit. She did all this before both the review decision was due and before the Council decided its duty had been discharged.
I am satisfied that, if the Council had: processed Miss X’s review request and asked her for more information promptly; made the review decision when it should have done; properly addressed all of Miss X’s concerns; and still decided the property was suitable; it is more likely than not Miss X would have moved into the temporary accommodation the Council had provided for her.
I am also satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that if the Council had done this when it should have done, the Council would likely not have ended its duty to house Miss X and would still owe her the main housing duty.
As a result, I consider Miss X has likely been living in unsuitable accommodation (sleeping on a family member’s sofa) for around seven months, between late 2023 and mid-2024.
Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is usually in the range of £150 to £350 a month. In Miss X’s circumstances, staying with a supportive family member close to her daughter’s school and other support, I consider a payment of £150 a month to be a suitable remedy.
Rent arrears There was no fault in how the Council wrote to Miss X to tell her there she was in arrears with her rent for her temporary accommodation. Although Miss X had asked for a review of the suitability of that accommodation, she had accepted it pending the review and therefore she had a responsibility to pay rent. Miss X later paid something towards the arrears and claimed housing benefit, which cleared all the arrears.
Protection of Miss X’s belongings The Council said Miss X never asked for help in moving or storing her possessions from her former home. However, Miss X said that she did, was promised help with this and encouraged, by the Council, to apply for financial support with this, which she did.
On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied Miss X did ask for help with moving and protecting her belongings or otherwise gave the Council reason to believe it might have a duty to help her with this.
The Council’s failure to consider what steps it needed to take to protect Miss X’s possessions while she was homeless was fault. This caused Miss X further avoidable distress and means that her belongings are still at risk.
Communication with Miss X The Council’s communication with Miss X during her homelessness was poor. Miss X had to contact the Council for updates several times at almost every stage of her application and there were significant periods when the Council did not reply to her. That was fault which caused Miss X further frustration and distress, set against a background of an already difficult and stressful period of homelessness.
Agreed action
Within one week of my final decision the Council should: reinstate the Main Housing Duty in respect of Miss X; offer Miss X suitable temporary accommodation; and decide (and take) what steps it needs to take to protect Miss X’s belongings while she is homeless.
Within one month of my final decision the Council should: apologise to Miss X for distress, frustration and her time in unsuitable accommodation caused by the delays to her homelessness application and its flawed decision making; and pay Miss X £2,400 to recognise that distress, frustration and to recognise her time she had to share her relative’s home.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
The Council recently agreed to complete service improvement recommendations around timeliness, suitability decisions and record keeping in homelessness cases. I would have made similar recommendations in this case, but I have decided not to repeat those recommendations at this time.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was fault how the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness application and delayed carrying out a review of its decision which meant that Miss X lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have. The Council agreed to arrange accommodation for Miss X, decide what it needs to do to protect her belongings, apologise and pay her a financial remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman