Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to advise Mr Q about applying for a Discretionary Housing Payment. This is because the complaint is late. And Mr Q or Organisation B (acting on Mr Q’s behalf) could have asked for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation sooner.

The complaint

1. Organisation B complained on behalf of Mr Q. It said the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham failed to tell Mr Q he could apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) to help pay the rent for his temporary accommodation. This meant Mr Q had rent arrears and, as a result, the Council would not allow him to bid for permanent accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Organisation B provided. I invited Organisation B to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
6. We would normally expect someone to request a review if they think their temporary accommodation is unsuitable.

Key facts

7. In February 2017 Mr Q made a homelessness application. The Council accepted the main homelessness duty towards him and placed him in temporary accommodation. Mr Q received Universal Credit but this did not pay for all his rent. He went into rent arrears.
8. In October 2017 Mr Q received a letter about his rent arrears. The Council told him he could not apply for permanent housing until he cleared his arrears.
9. In January 2018 Mr Q approached Organisation B for help. It applied for a DHP. In February 2018 the Council awarded Mr Q a DHP and backdated it to May 2017. But the DHP was not ongoing.
10. In April 2018 Organisation B made a second DHP application for Mr Q. The Council awarded him a DHP from April to July 2018.
11. In May 2018 Organisation B asked the Council for a review of the suitability of Mr Q’s temporary accommodation. It said it was not suitable because it was not affordable for Mr Q. Later the same month the Council accepted it had to offer Mr Q suitable accommodation.
12. The Council rehoused Mr Q into permanent accommodation in July 2018.
13. Organisation B, which has previously brought complaints to us, complained to us on Mr Q’s behalf in June 2019. It said the Council’s failure to tell Mr Q about applying for a DHP meant he had rent arrears and so could not bid for permanent accommodation.

Analysis

14. We will not investigate this complaint.
15. The Council’s alleged failure to tell Mr Q about applying for a DHP happened in 2017. Organisation B started helping Mr Q in January 2018 and applied for a DHP at that point. But we did not receive a complaint about the matter until June 2019. The complaint is late, therefore. Organisation B has brought complaints to us previously. So there are no good reasons for the complaint being made late, or for us to consider it now.
16. I realise Mr Q did not get rehoused into permanent accommodation until July 2018. I also realise that Organisation B thought his temporary accommodation was unsuitable because he could not afford it. We would normally expect someone to request a review if they think their temporary accommodation is unsuitable. In this case, Organisation B asked for a suitability review in May 2018 and the Council found in Mr Q’s favour. Mr Q or Organisation B could have requested a suitability review earlier. Had they done so, it is possible Mr Q could have been rehoused into permanent, suitable, accommodation sooner.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman