Summary: Mr A complains the Council did not respond appropriately to his requests for help when his private tenancy was at risk. He complains the Council did not apply reasonable adjustments and this had a significant impact on his mental health. The Ombudsman’s finds there was fault by the Council. We consider the Council proposed a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mr A, complains the Council’s housing benefit service failed to respond adequately to his requests for help when it should have referred him to the Council’s housing needs and homelessness department. He complains the Council delayed responding to his housing benefit backdate request.
2. Mr A also complains the Council’s housing needs team failed to deal with his homelessness application properly leaving him very vulnerable due to his mental illness. He says the Council:
• Did not consider reasonable adjustments when interviewing him. This caused him significant anxiety.
• Asked for information which was not necessary when investigating his application.
• Showed him a property which it later said it could not offer to him when he wanted to accept it.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated how the housing benefit service responded to Mr A’s requests for help and to his backdate request. I have also investigated how the Council’s housing needs team dealt with Mr A’s approach to it from January to July 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. I have also considered the complainant’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr A claimed housing benefit in July 2017. He asked the Council to backdate his claim to May 2017. In August 2017, the Council refused Mr A’s backdating request because it said he had not shown good cause for making a late claim.
8. Mr A emailed the Council on 3 September 2017 and appealed its decision. He said he had provided medical evidence to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and it had agreed to backdate his benefit. He assumed the Council would too. He also asked the Council to refer him to any support services that could help him because he had a mental health condition and had been homeless before.
9. Mr A chased the Council for a response twice in September because he had not received a reply. He stated that he was on the brink of becoming homeless. He asked the Council for help again because of his increasingly urgent situation.
10. Mr A complained to the Ombudsman a week later when he received no reply. The Ombudsman decided that the matter was outside his jurisdiction because Mr A had appealed, and therefore a Tribunal would consider it.
11. In mid November, the Council considered Mr A’s backdate appeal and agreed to backdate his claim to May 2017. It also noted that Mr A had lived in the property for over 52 weeks and had not claimed housing benefit. Therefore, his rent was “protected” under the housing benefit regulations for the first 13 weeks. This meant the Council could pay housing benefit based on the full rent from May 2017 to August 2017. The Council wrote to Mr A to explain this. The Council also confirmed it had paid a discretionary housing payment of £30 per week from the beginning of September 2017 for 6 months. This was to help him make up some of the shortfall between the rent and housing benefit.
12. In a later response to Mr A’s complaint about the Council’s failure to signpost him to support because of his vulnerability, the Council says the housing benefit officer overlooked Mr A’s request. It says the officer should have signposted Mr A to its adult social services team for support or alerted the team regarding his request. The Council said the officer should have followed Department for Health guidance regarding social care safeguarding to ensure his mental, physical and medical needs were met. The Council apologised for its failure to do this and said it would provide training to the officer regarding safeguarding.
13. The Council notes there was delay in responding to Mr A’s appeal. He appealed on 3 September 2017 but the Council did not respond until 15 November 2017 just over 10 weeks later. The Council says that there was a slight delay in responding due to volumes of work at the time.

Homelessness application

14. Mr A says that after waiting for a response to his requests in September for the Council to refer him to support services, he managed to email the Council’s housing needs team in late January 2018 to ask for an appointment.
15. The Council gave him an appointment the next day. But when he arrived there was no record of the appointment. The Council says that the officer had not added Mr A’s name to the list. The Council suggested that Mr A waited until the officer was available as she was seeing an earlier client. Mr A became very anxious while waiting and did not want to discuss private information in a public area. He left after a short time. The officer called Mr A 20 minutes later but he had already left.
16. Mr A emailed the Council twice to request a private appointment. He explained he needed reasonable adjustments of a set appointment and a private interview because he was very anxious. The Council did not reply. He complained to the Council about the failure to respond and poor customer service.
17. The Council responded to Mr A’s complaint in mid February. It apologised that due to an error on the officer’s part she had not added Mr A’s name to the list for that day. It noted Mr A wanted to discuss matters in a more private area. It said that it would have been able to arrange this if Mr A had waited. It made an appointment for Mr A to discuss his housing issues.
18. Mr A attended the appointment at the end of February. However, the housing needs officer’s previous appointment overran. The officer was able to take copies of some documents from Mr A and made another appointment the next day when he carried out a full interview in a private room. The officer asked Mr A to provide some further information and evidence.
19. Mr A provided several documents. However, the officer explained that some information was too old and other documents could not be opened. The officer sent an email requesting the information and documents he needed. He gave a short deadline for a response and stated he would close the case if Mr A did not send the information.
20. Mr A immediately replied that the deadline was too short. He said if he was forced to go into a hostel he would kill himself. The next day he provided some information and said he would try and get recent medical evidence. He asked when the Council would recognise how vulnerable he was. The Council’s officer contacted housing benefit to ensure the correct benefits were in payment and sent a safeguarding referral to its adult social care department because of Mr A’s suicide threat.
21. Mr A emailed the Council complaining that it was taking too long and he was within 2 weeks of eviction. He said he had begged for help 6 months earlier. He said that it was unfair for the Council to threaten to close his case. He also stated the Council had ignored the safeguarding needs of a vulnerable person.
22. The Council replied that it had passed details to its safeguarding team. It said that Mr A should send the information he had and it would not close his case. It explained that the short deadline was because he had a short timeframe to leave the property. It explained the reasons why it had requested certain information
23. The Council made some direct enquiries for medical and other information. It also referred Mr A to other support agencies when he threatened to harm himself. Mr A contacted the Council again when he said he was within a few days of eviction. He said the Council’s officer had advised him to stop paying rent and his landlord was now about to evict him. The housing needs officer replied that he had not advised Mr A to stop paying rent. He said he had advised Mr A’s rent appeared unsustainable because he was borrowing from his credit card to pay rent. However, he did not consider the eviction notice was valid and advised Mr A not to move out until the landlord had a court notice.
24. The Council says the officer called Mr A’s landlord to see if he would be willing to allow Mr A to remain. However, he was not willing to do this as he had already incurred expense.
25. The Council advised Mr A that it could refer him to a charity which could provide housing. However, Mr A did not accept this because the accommodation offered would be a studio flat.
26. Mr A pursued his complaint that the Council was failing to support a vulnerable person at stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure. He said that the Council had failed to deal with his homelessness application properly. He stated the housing needs officer had told him to fall into arrears and had also asked him for information which he could not get.
27. The Council responded in April 2018. It accepted the Council’s housing benefit team had not responded to his requests for assistance in September 2017. It also agreed with the earlier response that there was fault regarding the handling of his initial appointment with housing needs.
28. The Council stated the housing needs officer would not have advised Mr A to get into arrears. It said he would have advised Mr A could still occupy the property until lawfully evicted, even though arrears may increase.
29. However, the Council noted that the officer should have advised Mr A regarding his tenancy rights and the eviction process to reassure him that he was not facing imminent eviction. It said the officer should also have contacted the landlord to advise the notice seeking possession may not be valid.
30. The Council considered that the officer may not have provided a clear explanation why he had requested certain documents. It also accepted the content and tone of the officer’s email stating he would close his case was not satisfactory. The Council said it would provide the officer with coaching to improve his communication skills.
31. The Council said that it could assist Mr A by referring him to a charity which helped homeless single people find accommodation. It had also referred him to the Find Your Own scheme to secure accommodation himself with the offer of a payment of £500. It said it could also refer him to a supported accommodation scheme for vulnerable single homeless people. The Council noted it was still considering whether it owed Mr A a statutory duty under the Housing Act. However, it said it needed further information regarding Mr A’s health and support needs. The Council concluded that its housing benefit and housing needs officers had not responded properly to Mr A’s requests for help and he had not received the appropriate support he needed. The Council offered Mr A £250 in view of the poor service he had received and his time and trouble making the complaint.
32. Shortly, after this the Council agreed to make a discretionary offer of a private sector studio flat. However, the letting officer showed Mr A a larger flat in error. Mr A accepted the larger flat but the Council then told him it could not offer this flat because the rent was not affordable.
33. Mr A pursued his complaint against the Council. He said that
• The Council failed to respond from September 2017 to his request for help.
• The Council failed to consider his request for reasonable adjustments due to his mental health and anxiety when he first called to make an appointment.
• It took more than a month for the Council to arrange another appointment.
• The housing needs officer advised to fall into rent arrears and get a notice to leave from his landlord
• He had not requested compensation, but £250 was a derisory amount in view of the impact on his mental health.
• The Council had not recognised the significant impact on his health caused by its delay and lack of action. He considered the Council had breached the Equality Act 2010.
• He could not accept the Council’s Find Your Own scheme because of his anxiety.
• The Council had offered him a flat he wanted to accept but then withdrew that offer, suggesting a smaller flat. Mr A said he would be able to afford the rent because of the compensation he would receive and the £500 payable under the Find Your Own Scheme.
34. The Council responded to Mr A’s complaint regarding arranging a viewing of a larger flat in error. It apologised that the property he saw had been withdrawn. But it said that it had a duty to ensure the accommodation was affordable. It said it would try to find a new property which was suitable.
35. In June 2018, the Council agreed to change Mr A’s housing officer. The Council obtained up to date information about Mr A’s mental health condition on 20 June. It referred this to its medical advisor for a recommendation on whether Mr A had a priority need for housing because of his health or circumstances. The medical advisor did not consider that Mr A had a priority need based on the medical evidence.
36. In July 2018, the Council decided it owed Mr A a statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation because he had a priority need. The Council explains the information it received in June 2018 indicated Mr A may be more vulnerable. While its medical advisor did not consider Mr A had a priority need, the Council had made a pragmatic decision to accept a statutory homelessness duty to him.

Analysis

37. I consider there was fault by the Council’s housing benefit team because it failed to respond to Mr A’s requests for assistance in September 2017. The Council should have referred the request to its safeguarding team as the Council has set out in its responses. There was also some delay in responding to his backdate request.
38. I consider there was fault by the Council’s housing needs team in its handling of Mr A’s initial approach to it in January 2018. The Council’s officer did not record the agreed appointment she made with Mr A in January 2018. This caused Mr A anxiety when he arrived the next day and led to him leaving the Council’s offices after waiting for 20 minutes. The Council apologised for this and arranged a further appointment which was at a specific time and in a private room. However, matters were delayed while it responded to his complaint.
39. I consider there was fault in the housing needs officer’s communication regarding the eviction process, the Council’s requirements and the reasons for the requested evidence. While the officer gave some explanations, it was not clear why certain information was necessary. The officer also said he would close Mr A’s case giving a short deadline to respond. The officer agreed the Council would not close the case when Mr A complained, but it had already caused Mr A anxiety because of this deadline.
40. The Council responded appropriately from March 2018 when Mr A stated he would harm himself. It referred the matter to its safeguarding team and advised him of agencies he could contact.
41. I considered Mr A’s complaint that the housing needs officer advised him to get into arrears. The Council states this is not advice that he would give. Mr A states that this is what he was asked to do. I note the housing officer responded to this issue when Mr A raised it and explained he had advised Mr A’s tenancy appeared unsustainable as he was paying his rent by borrowing. The two parties’ recollection is different and I do not have sufficient documentary evidence to support either side I have not come to any conclusion regarding fault here.
42. There was fault by the Council when it showed Mr A a flat which was not affordable. This caused Mr A distress when he wanted to accept the offer, which was withdrawn.

Agreed action

43. I consider that the Council has taken appropriate action in respect of the faults identified. It has apologised and states it will ensure the housing needs officer receives coaching regarding communication. It has also advised the housing benefit officer who did not respond to Mr A’s request will receive safeguarding training. The Council apologised that it showed Mr A a flat in error, which was not affordable.
44. The Council has also offered Mr A a financial remedy. I note that Mr A says this is inadequate because of the significant impact on his health and anxiety. He says his recovery has been affected by the Council’s errors and lack of action. However, I consider the remedy is suitable and proportionate in view of all the circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I find there was fault by the Council. I consider the Council has proposed an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman