The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to properly deal with her homelessness application and failed to provide access to her belongings after putting them in storage. She says this caused distress and that she became street homeless. There is no evidence of fault in respect of the decision that the Council did not owe the main housing duty. Regarding her belongings, the Council has provided Ms X with information about how to access them.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council failed to properly deal with her homelessness application and failed to provide access to her belongings after putting them in storage.
Ms X says the situation was distressing as she became street homeless.
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) 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
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; discussed the issues with the complainant; sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.
What I found
The main housing duty 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39) Accommodation pending review Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5)) Protection of belongings Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, 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) Key facts This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
Ms X was living in accommodation provided by the Council while it was deciding whether it owed her the main homeless duty. On 10 March 2023 the Council wrote to Ms X saying she owed £7,658.77 for charges at her current accommodation. Ms X telephoned the Council one week later regarding repairs at the property.
The Council wrote to Ms X on 28 March 2023 explaining that it did not owe her the main housing duty. It said while it was satisfied she was homeless and eligible for assistance, it did not consider she was in priority need. It set out in the decision why it did not consider she was significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person as a result of being rendered homeless.
The Council explained that because it had decided Ms X was not in priority need, it now only owed her a duty to provide advice and assistance so she could secure accommodation. It said that it would notify her shortly with a date it would cease to provide the interim accommodation she was currently living in. The letter also set out Ms X’s right to request a review of the decision. There is no evidence to suggest Ms X requested a review within 21 days.
In April the Council contacted Ms X requesting access to inspect the property in response to her repair complaint. There is nothing to suggest an inspection took place at that time.
On 30 June, the Council wrote to Ms X saying that as it had reached a negative decision on her homeless application it was now serving a notice to quit. It said Ms X must give up possession of the property on 7 August 2023. Ms X did not leave the property by 7 August and continued to live there.
In September, Ms X visited the Council offices to report that the boiler was falling off the wall. This information was passed to the agents managing the property who moved Ms X into a hotel the following day. Ms X never returned to the previous property due to the disrepair.
The Council took over responsibility for the hotel accommodation and notified Ms X that she had until 21 November to make alternative accommodation arrangements. The Council agreed to cover the rent for the hotel from 19 September to 10 November. On 10 November the Council collected Ms X’s belongings from the flat she previously lived in and moved them into storage. It is my understanding that Ms X continues to live in a hotel and that she has been awarded housing benefit to cover all the eligible rent costs.
Due to a leak at the property she was living in, Ms X had to move to hotel accommodation. The Council says that this was intended to be a temporary move but the extent of the repairs required meant Ms X never returned to the property. The Council arranged for contractors to collect Ms X’s belongings and to place them into storage. It confirms her belongings are still stored at the same storage facility Information provided by the Council shows that Ms X was in contact with it in February 2024 about access to her belongings. It confirmed the items were in storage but that it could not deliver them all to a hotel room. It said that once she secured a tenancy she should let it know and it would arrange delivery. It also said that if she preferred it could arrange delivery to a storage facility of her choice. It also offered to arrange delivery of religious books that she requested.
Analysis In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Ms X said that the Council was refusing to rehouse her and denying her access to her belongings. The information I have seen shows the Council did accept a homeless application from Ms X and provided interim accommodation while determining whether it owed the main housing duty.
After notifying Ms X of the decision that it did not owe the main housing duty in March, it allowed Ms X to remain in the interim accommodation until August. This was to give her time to find somewhere else to live. The Council had a duty to help Ms X find alternative accommodation. I have not seen any information to suggest Ms X contacted the Council during this period to request help.
I am satisfied the Council properly made the decision that it did not owe Ms X the main housing duty. It notified her of the reasons for its decision and explained her rights of review if she disagreed. Ms X did not use these rights of review. I find no fault in how the Council reached this decision.
The Council did not owe Ms X any duty to provide accommodation once the decision was made that it did not owe the main housing duty. However, it continued to provide accommodation until November, over seven months after its decision. This allowed Ms X time to find alternative accommodation but there is nothing to suggest she did this. The Council stopped providing the hotel accommodation in November and while I understand why Ms X was unhappy with this decision, I am not persuaded there was any fault. At the time the Council stopped providing accommodation, it had used its discretion to accommodate Ms X for several months.
Ms X complains the Council is denying her access to her belongings which it put in storage when she moved into hotel accommodation. I have seen emails between the Council and Ms X in which the Council explained it could not deliver her belongings to the hotel as there would not be enough space for all the items she has.
The Council has provided the address of the storage facility and says that Ms X can access her belongings if she gives prior notice. It says that while there is no ongoing charge for storage, there is an access charge for each visit. It has also provided an email address if Ms X wishes to collect belongings. It also says that it can deliver her items for no charge to a location of her choice. However, it warns that it will not accept liability for any items once unloaded if they do not fit into the chosen location.
Based on the information I have seen I am not persuaded the Council has denied Ms X access to her belongings. It is safely storing them, at no ongoing charge, as well as offering access and/or delivery. The Council has clearly explained the risks if Ms X requests delivery to the hotel room where she is currently staying. While I can understand that it is frustrating that Ms X does not have all her belongings with her, I am not persuaded there is any fault by the Council on this issue.
Final decision
I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice in this case.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman