Summary: Mr H complains about the Council’s delay in processing discretionary housing benefit applications. And the way it carried out its homeless prevention duties. The Ombudsman does not uphold Mr H’s complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr H, complains that:
1. The Council has repeatedly delayed making decisions on his discretionary housing benefit (DHP) claims.
2. The Council has accepted problems with its IT system taking DHP claims. Mr H suspects this is a continuing issue that is slowing down decisions.
3. The Council has not properly dealt with his personal housing plan. He complains:
• Organisations the Council referred him to suggested he look at properties that were not fit for human habitation. The Council did not do enough to make checks about this.
• This created a cycle of referrals back to his housing support worker.
1. The Council has delayed dealing with his application to its Private Sector Initiative (PSI) scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr H;
• considered witness statements Mr H has provided;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its responses;
• considered the records of organisations the Council referred Mr H to;
• spoken to Mr H;
• sent my draft decision to Mr H and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

7. Housing benefit is a means tested benefit payable to people on a low income to help them pay their rent. Housing benefit awards for private rented sector tenancies are calculated by reference to the local housing allowance (LHA) regulations. The LHA outlines the size of dwelling suitable, according to family size. It sets the maximum amount of benefit payable for that size of dwelling, which is based on the 30th percentile of rents in a broad rental area.
8. For working age claimants, there is a cap on the maximum amount payable in all welfare benefits. If the total amount of benefit entitlement goes above the limit, councils must make the deduction from a claimant’s housing benefit.
9. Discretionary housing payments are not payments of housing benefit and not part of the benefits system. But the same councils that pay housing benefit also manage DHPs. And only claimants receiving housing benefit are eligible for DHPs. DHPs are discretionary, as is the amount and period of payment. The Tribunal Service cannot consider appeals about DHP decisions. But councils must have their own internal review processes.

Homelessness

10. The law about homeless applications says that Councils have a full duty to re-house applicants who are eligible, homeless or threatened with homelessness, in priority need, not intentionally homeless and who have a local connection. (Part VII of the 1996 Housing Act)
11. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for help from the council (after 3 April 2018), he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4))
12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take a homelessness application. From April 2018, councils have new duties to applicants who are not in priority need. They must provide applicants with assistance to secure their accommodation, so it does not stop being available for their occupation. This is known as a council’s ‘prevention duty’ (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
13. If an applicant is homeless, councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as a council’s ‘relief duty’.
14. Councils must try to agree with an applicant steps the applicant needed to take to secure suitable accommodation in a ‘Personal Housing Plan’ (PHP), which also includes steps the council would take. If a council and the applicant cannot agree about actions, the council must record in writing why they could not agree and what steps it sees as reasonable for the applicant to take.
15. When a council decides this duty has ended, it must tell the applicant in writing. There is a right of review against that decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The Council’s housing options and homelessness services

16. The Council runs a walk-in service Single Homeless One Stop Shop/Hub at ‘The Greenhouse’, in partnership with a voluntary agency. It is for single Hackney residents without a tenancy. The service has housing advisers and support workers, providing housing advice and information.
17. In partnership with neighbouring Boroughs, the Council runs a No First Night Out (NFNO) project. NFNO aims to work with ‘community-based referral partners’, and a network of private rented and specialist accommodation providers. 
18. The NFNO team aims to use the ‘…partner organisations to quickly put clients on the road to resolving any potential barriers to sustainable accommodation, including: existing debt or benefits issues, physical and mental ill health, tenancy and employment, training and education skills gaps.’
19. The Council, in partnership with neighbouring Boroughs, has a New Routes scheme which offers help with rent deposits for non-priority single households, when homeless prevention has failed. The Council also has a Private Sector Initiative (PSI) scheme available for residents of Hackney with no rent arrears.

What happened

Background

20. Mr H is a single man who advises he does not have needs that would make him a priority applicant under the homelessness rules. He moved to a hotel in the Borough in October 2016. Mr H claimed housing benefit for the hotel. At first the Council was paying him the wrong rate of LHA. In September 2017 it noted its error. It decided that it could not recover its overpayment from Mr H, as it was due to its own mistake. The new award did not cover all Mr H’s rent and was also subject to the benefit cap.
21. Mr H’s complained to the Ombudsman in October 2018. I have considered events from a year before Mr H’s complaint to us.

Discretionary Housing Payments

22. From 20 October 2017 the Council awarded Mr H a DHP to 29 January 2018 to help him to pay the part of his rent that housing benefit did not cover.
23. On 7 November, in response to a complaint, the Council advised Mr H it had awarded him a DHP ‘…to afford you time to either make provision to meet the shortfall between your rent and Housing Benefit award yourself, or find alternative accommodation’.
24. In November 2017 the hotel told Mr H it would stop trading at the end of January 2018.
25. On 24 January 2018 Mr H made a new DHP application, after the hotel advised him he could stay longer. On 19 February, the Council extended Mr H’s award to 5 March. On 6 March an officer contacted Mr H to advise him his award had ended. Mr H submitted a new paper application on 16 March. The Council contacted him by telephone and email on 22 March, arranging an appointment to assess his circumstances.
26. On 9 April Mr H attended a meeting. The Council’s records say that it discussed with Mr H:
• how he could access a scheme providing help with rental deposit and removal costs.
• That he could not expect the Council to automatically award a DHP to cover his shortfall in rent.
• There was a housing problem and he needed to find cheaper accommodation.
27. On 10 April the Council awarded Mr H a DHP from 5 March to 28 April. The latter date was the date Mr H was meant to be leaving the hotel.
28. On 23 April, the Council responded to a complaint from Mr H about delay in dealing with his DHPs applications. It did not uphold the complaint. It set out the history of the DHP awards and noted:

• ‘…I would have expected you to have found alternative affordable accommodation, or a means of meeting the shortfall between your rent and Housing Benefit award yourself within this time frame.

Whilst there is no time limit to the length of time over which a DHP may be made, the Department for Work and Pension’s guidance states that ‘it may also be appropriate to make a short term award to give a claimant time to organise their financial or housing circumstances, particularly if they are trying to find alternative accommodation or gain employment’’’.

• It also noted an advisor from No First Night Out had been trying to contact Mr H to register him as a client, so that organisation could provide advice if Mr H was evicted. It gave Mr H the advisor’s contact details.

29. The Council later extended the DHP to 1 July, because the hotel extended Mr H’s stay.
30. In June the Council responded to a complaint from Mr H about his DHP claims. It advised:

‘There were some intermittent issues with the online [DHP] facility during February, March and April 2018, however, I note that the site does advise alternative methods for making applications i.e. in writing, or by email.’

31. On 23 July, Mr H moved to student accommodation that was available for rent during the summer vacation. Mr H made a DHP application for this property. The Council received this on 23 July. On 27 July it rang Mr H about missing information from the form. Later that day it awarded Mr H a DHP for his period at the property. Later in Mr H’s stay it made a one off DHP payment to cover Mr H’s costs of removal.
32. On 7 September, Mr H made a new DHP claim. On the form, Mr H:
• asks for payment from 3 September;
• states he was homeless;
• ticks a box saying he had not changed address within the previous twelve months;
• asks for help with rent in advance, a deposit and removal costs, for a property he was moving to on 26 September.
33. On 21 October the Council refused Mr H’s DHP claim for rent in advance, a deposit and removal costs. Its letter to Mr H about this decision was returned to it, marked ‘addressee gone away’, as was a later letter. Benefits suspended payment of Mr H’s housing benefit claim between 1 and 19 December 2018, while it sought information from Mr H.
34. Mr H made a statement explaining the hotel manager had sent a letter back in error. The Council reinstated the benefit. It advised Mr H it could consider a DHP claim. But he would need to fill in an application form, as his 7 September claim was for a deposit, rent in advance and removal costs. Mr H made the new application on 10 January 2019.

Homelessness and homelessness reduction

35. The hotel Mr H was living in advised him in November 2017 that it would stop trading at the end of January 2018. Later the hotel extended this period. On 12 March 2018, it served Mr H a notice to quit the property by 22 April. The hotel later extended Mr H’s stay to the end of July.
36. Mr H approached the Council about his threatened homelessness. On 13 April, its housing adviser met him and completed a PHP. The PHP actions included:
1. For Mr H:

• To contact Benefits about his DHP, so the Council could consider a referral to its PSI scheme;
• to clarify the end date of his tenancy.
2. The Council would refer Mr H to No First Night Out for help in sourcing temporary accommodation.
3. They would carry out a telephone review meeting on 19 April.

37. Mr H attended an interview with an organisation that works to match homeless applicants with private tenancies (Organisation B). On 16 April an ‘agreement of understanding’ followed this interview. This advised:
1. That it worked with private sector landlords, mainly in the outer districts of London.
2. Mr H to:
• provide identification and contact details;
• attend tenancy training.
38. The Council has a record that it called Mr H on 19 April, but there was no response.
39. I have seen records of Organisation B referring Mr H to view accommodation from 20 April. Mr H was concerned with the quality of most of this accommodation. He asked to see proof that landlords were not ‘rogue landlords’.
40. On 25 April NFNO accepted Mr H onto its project.
41. The Council’s housing team’s next record of contact with Mr H is an email asking when his hotel placement was ending. On 6 June the Council wrote to Mr H, extending its prevention duty for a further 56 days.
42. On 21 June, NFNO wrote to Mr H advising:
• ‘You were made aware of our 1 offer policy from the beginning but despite this when given the opportunity to view a property through [a housing provider] you refused demanding that both the landlords personal details and a blank tenancy agreement be given to you prior to viewing the property. Subsequently, we had a meeting discussing your options and reservations and agreed that you will attend another viewing and if I deemed it suitable, but you do not accept it, I will serve you a 28-day notice as evidently, I would not be able to meet your requirements.

You attempted to renege on the agreement when I told you a viewing opportunity has arisen but nevertheless later agreed to go. During the viewing, your main contention with the property was that it was dirty. I replied the property will be cleaned to an appropriate standard before you move in and not to worry as that is the landlord’s responsibility. Despite this, you emailed me to let me know you had decided to refuse your 2nd offer.

As a result, the NFNO Project is no longer under any obligation to provide you with further support to secure alternative accommodation. I therefore give you 28 days, as reasonable notice, making 20th July 2018 the date our service will cease being accessible to you.’

43. On 29 June Mr H met with a Council housing support worker. He confirmed the Council had agreed to extend its prevention of homelessness provision for a further 56 days. The Council referred Mr H to New Routes. It also agreed to refer him to a hostel.
44. On 2 July Mr H attended The Greenhouse. Its records say it:

• Advised it had spoken to the manager of the hotel Mr H was staying in. She wanted Mr H’s rent arrears cleared to get an extension to stay until 28 July.
• Arranged viewings.
• Advised Mr H to contact hostels daily in the run-up to his eviction.
• Gave Mr H details for housing associations.

45. Later the Council agreed to take a PSI application from Mr H. It was also in communication with the hostel.
46. In later July Mr H moved to student accommodation, available for the summer vacation. On 30 July Mr H went to The Greenhouse to ask for financial help in securing the student room. The adviser he spoke to explained the Council’s deposit scheme would not be suitable for that accommodation, as it was a guarantee, not a payment scheme. The Council responded to follow up emails with Mr H to advise him:
• The PSI scheme would assist Mr H in finding private rented accommodation.
• Mr H could speed up the process by finding himself properties/landlords and letting the PSI team know.
• The adviser was still checking with the hostel about a referral.
47. On 2 August the Council wrote two letters to Mr H:
1. A letter to advise its duty to prevent him from becoming homeless had ended. It advised Mr H of his right of review.
2. A letter advising:

• he was eligible for assistance and was homeless.
• In April it had carried out an assessment of his housing needs and support he needed.
• It had a duty to take reasonable steps over the following 56 days to help Mr H secure accommodation.
• It reminded Mr H of the PHP it provided during its first assessment.
• It recommended Mr H liaise with PSI, including using its ‘self-source guide’.
• It noted Mr H’s disagreement with the PSI scheme. But the Council’s view was it was reasonable for Mr H to use the PSI scheme.
• Its view was Mr H was not in priority need. So it had no duty to provide him with temporary accommodation.
• It advised Mr H of his right to request a review.

48. On 6 August the support worker provided Mr H with an update:
• He noted Mr H’s concerns were the PSI scheme benefited landlords. He suggested Mr H could be proactive and try to source accommodation itself.
• He had made a referral to New Routes. He gave Mr H contact details to follow that up.
• The hostel had advised his application was on hold. This was because it needed proof Mr H had a payment plan in place to deal with his rent arrears.
49. On 24 August, New Routes advised the support worker its offer of accommodation would be from Organisation B, who would link Mr H to private rented studio accommodation. Mr H advised New Routes he was not interested in that alternative, as his experience of Organisation B was that its accommodation was not up to standard. New Routes advised Mr H’s support worker it was closing the referral.
50. On 4 September Mr H attended The Greenhouse to advise he had to leave the student accommodation. The support worker met Mr H and later emailed New Routes to advise Mr H had reconsidered his earlier decision and now accepted a referral to Organisation B was his best alternative. He asked New Routes if it could refer Mr H.
51. Mr H moved to a new hotel around this time. The Council says on 6 September it wrote to him at that hotel. But the mail was returned to it.
52. The Council’s support worker emailed Mr H at the end of September, asking for an update.
53. The Council’s Housing Team’s next record is dated 25 October and is an email from the hostel noting it had placed Mr H on its waiting list. The record notes the Council passed this contact to Mr H.
54. On 6 November the support worker emailed Mr H to say he had received an email from New Routes. It had not been able to contact him. The support worker asked Mr H to contact New Routes by 13 November, or it would close his case.
55. Mr H contacted New Routes and met and attended an interview on 23 November. New Routes’ record of the meeting said Mr H and it had agreed:
• Mr H would attend pre-tenancy training and look for property after this.
• It would make Mr H an offer of accommodation 28 days after he attended training. This would be via a referral to Organisation B.
• It could not guarantee the offer would be in Mr H’s preferred areas.
56. On 5 December the Council wrote to Mr H advising him it was ending its relief duty to him, as 56 days had passed since the duty started. It advised him of his right to a review of the decision. Mr H asked the Council to review its decision.

Was there fault by the Council?

Discretionary housing payments

57. I cannot fault the Council’s DHP decisions on the first hotel Mr H moved to. It was appropriate for it to make short awards, given the uncertainty of Mr H’s housing and the temporary time it intended the DHP to last for. There was a delay in one of the extensions in the DHP. This was so Mr H could attend an interview. I am unsure of the reasons for the delay. But the Council did later extend the DHP. So there is not enough injustice to warrant the public expense of further investigation.
58. My view, on the balance of probabilities, is the IT issues Mr H refers to were likely intermittent and not in themselves fault by the Council.
59. The Council did not delay awarding a DHP for the summer accommodation. Again, an award for the length of Mr H’s stay there was appropriate.
60. In September 2018 Mr H moved to a new hotel. He made a DHP claim. Later, the Council suspended payment of Mr H’s housing benefit while it clarified why the hotel had returned the mail as addressee unknown. But when it had clarified the issue and started payment, it advised Mr H he needed to make a new DHP, as the one he made in September did not ask for payment of rent.
61. I have looked at the form Mr H filled in. This asks for help with the costs of moving to a new address later in September. It would seem Mr H also intended to claim for shortfall in rent at the hotel. But that would have been a separate claim. And the information on the form does not make it clear Mr H was also requesting this. So I cannot say any delay in considering a DHP for the shortfall in rent was fault.

The Council’s prevention and relief duties

62. My view is there was no fault by the Council in the way it discharged its prevention and relief duties to Mr H. It referred or signposted Mr H to a hostel, housing associations and organisations that try to match citizens to the housing that is available. It also referred him for help in meeting some the costs of moving; most importantly a deposit.
63. The Council also gave Mr H tasks to undertake. On one occasion, this was not through agreement. But the Council correctly set out why its view was this was a suitable action for Mr H to take.
64. A key part of Mr H’s complaint is that the organisations the Council referred him to were sending him to view housing that was sub-standard. But my view is, on the balance of probabilities, the Council’s referrals were appropriate for it to fulfil its duties. While there are minimum standards about how suitable accommodation should be, I do not find the Council at fault for not checking the suitability of all accommodation its partner organisations offer.
65. The reality facing Mr H is that he wishes to stay in the Borough, or in neighbouring inner-London Boroughs. But the effect of the benefit cap and LHA rates (set at the bottom third of rental properties), mean the funding for the rent of many of the properties in those areas is no longer available through housing benefit. DHPs are not intended to fill that gap on a long-term basis. This reality is not because of any fault by the Council. So I cannot uphold Mr H’s complaint about the housing options the Council gave Mr H.

Back to top

Final decision

66. I do not uphold the complaint as I see no evidence of fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman