Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to deal with Mr X’s complaints of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour in his supported accommodation. It was also at fault for failing to respond to his complaint at stage two of its process. The Council was not at fault in how it dealt with issues of disrepair and the quality of support provided or for ending his housing benefit. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £150, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council:
1. failed properly to address his reports of inadequate service and support from his supported accommodation provider
2. failed properly to address his complaints of disrepair, anti-social behaviour, and noise nuisance in his supported accommodation.
3. wrongly stopped paying his housing benefit
4. refused to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaint process.
2. As a result, Mr X experienced avoidable distress and went to significant time and trouble trying to resolve issues in his accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. In issuing a decision statement, the Ombudsman shall not normally mention by name any person or include particulars which are likely to identify any person and can be omitted without impairing the effectiveness of the decision. However, the Ombudsman has the power to decide it is necessary to mention the name of a person or include relevant particulars, after taking account of the public interest as well as the interests of the complainant and of other persons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(3))
6. In this decision, I have named the provider of the complainants supported accommodation. I consider it to be in the public interest to do so given the current government interest in improving the quality and value for money of supported accommodation and this council’s role as a pilot authority.
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided.
9. I considered the information provided by the Council along with relevant law and guidance.
10. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
11. Mr X and the council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Exempt accommodation and housing benefit

12. Housing benefit is a payment made by a council to help pay rent.
13. Usually, housing benefit is restricted to a particular amount. However, for certain “exempt accommodation” housing benefit can pay a higher amount. This is the case for accommodation which provides support to tenants. The higher amount covers the additional costs for services provided in supported accommodation.
14. Support includes giving advice and assistance to help the claimant cope with the practicalities of everyday life. To meet the criteria for exempt accommodation status, the support provided must be “more than minimal” and ongoing throughout the tenancy.

Supported accommodation review team

15. The Council was part of a government pilot scheme about Supported Housing Oversight. The pilot ran from October 2020 to September 2021 to test ways of improving quality and value for money in supported housing.
16. As a result, it established the Supported Accommodation Review Team (SART). SART reviews the support provided and makes recommendations to improve support. It uses information from reviews of support to recommend reviews of housing benefit claims where it finds providers are not providing sufficient support.

Noise and anti-social behaviour

17. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. A statutory nuisance can include noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street.
18. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
19. For example, they may approach a complaint:

• as an environmental health issue, where the complaint is about noise or pollution;
• using their powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Disrepair

20. Councils use the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess the condition of residential housing. The HHSRS looks at the risks to the health and safety of occupants or visitors to a particular property.
21. The HHSRS calls these risks ‘hazards’. There are Category 1 and Category 2 hazards. Category 1 hazards are the most serious hazards.
22. The Housing Act 2004 places a duty on councils to take enforcement action when it identifies a Category 1 hazard.

What happened

23. Mr X lives in supported accommodation. The support is provided by a company called Humbercare Ltd.
24. In February 2021, the police contacted the Council on Mr X’s behalf about ongoing issues of noise, anti-social behaviour, and disrepair in the property. The Council says this resulted in SART reviewing the support provided by Humbercare.
25. In April, the Council wrote to Humbercare. It asked:
• Whether it told Mr X about his options to report noise nuisance to the Council
• What it had done to address the issues Mr X complained about
• Whether it had responded to Mr X’s complaints
26. The Council said Humbercare’s response was “minimal in detail and does not resolve the issues raised” by SART.
27. In June, the Council wrote to Humbercare again. It asked again for information about how it responded to Mr X’s concerns. It said SART was going to review the support provided and the exempt status of the accommodation.
28. The Council wrote to Mr X to explain it would be reviewing the support provided by Humbercare. As part of this review, the Council identified that Mr X received very little support from Humbercare. Both Humbercare and Mr X told the Council he did not need much support.
29. In July, the Council inspected the property under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The inspection found hazards in the communal area and in several flats, including Mr X’s flat.
30. In August, the Council wrote to Humbercare about the hazards. It provided a schedule of works necessary to remedy the hazards. It warned that if the landlord did not respond within two weeks, the Council would issue a statutory notice.
31. In September, an Officer from SART visited Mr X. In a follow up letter, the Council provided advice about Mr X’s options to move on from the supported accommodation. It said his support worker from Humbercare should help him apply to the Council’s housing register.
32. In November, the Council wrote to Mr X to say it was cancelling his housing benefit because his accommodation no longer met the criteria for exempt accommodation. It said he should apply for Universal Credit for help with housing costs.
33. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2022. He said SART and environmental health had visited and inspected but failed to take any of the actions agreed to.
34. The Council responded at stage one of its complaint process in March. It said:
• SART had reviewed the support provided by Humbercare and communicated the outcome to individual residents
• The concerns Mr X raised about the behaviour of residents in the property is the responsibility of Humbercare and the police.
35. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two. He said the Council had not addressed his complaint about Environmental Health and raised the issue of his housing benefit ending. In April, the Council said it would not consider Mr X’s complaint at stage two because there was nothing new in his request to justify doing so.

My findings

Exempt accommodation

36. There is no fault in how SART dealt with Mr X’s reports of issues with the support in his accommodation. It reviewed Humbercare and made recommendations to improve the service.
37. The Council decided the support Humbercare provided to Mr X did not meet the criteria for exempt accommodation. It therefore cancelled his housing benefit. The letter told Mr X about how to ask for a review of the decision and there is no evidence he asked for one. This was a decision open to the Council and it was not fault.
38. The Council had advised Mr X by letter in July that its review could affect the exempt status of his accommodation. It therefore recommended he apply for social housing. SART asked Humbercare to support him to do this, which it did.

Noise and anti-social behaviour

39. Mr X’s landlord is a registered provider of social housing. Such landlords must have policies and procedures for dealing with ASB. (Housing Act 1996 s218A (2))
40. The records show the Council expected Humbercare to deal with any issues in the first instance. This is not fault. However, the Council had ongoing concerns about the quality of the support provided by Humbercare. As part of its review, the Council asked Humbercare if it told Mr X about his options to report noise nuisance to the Council.
41. The Council has a duty to investigate where there may be a statutory nuisance. At the very least, the Council should have told Mr X directly about how to report issues of noise and anti-social behaviour. Failure to do so was fault.
42. As a result, Mr X experienced avoidable distress and frustration. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Disrepair

43. There is no fault in how the Council dealt with issues of disrepair at the property. Its Environmental Health Officer inspected under the HHSRS, identified hazards, issued a schedule of works, and confirmed the works were completed.

Complaint handling

44. In his request to go to stage two, Mr X pointed out that the Council’s response at stage one had not addressed his complaint about the Environmental Health Officer. He also raised the issue of his housing benefit stopping. Either of these points was sufficient for the Council to have investigated the complaint at stage two. The Council refused to consider Mr X’s complaint at stage two because it said he had provided no new information. This was fault.
45. Instead, Mr X had to go to further time and trouble bringing a complaint to the Ombudsman. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X
• Pay Mr X £150 in recognition of his avoidable distress and time and trouble.
47. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
48. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff of the circumstances in which a complaint should be considered at stage two of the complaints process, including where the complainant points out parts of the complaint not considered at stage one.
49. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action is has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

50. I have completed my investigation. There was some fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman