Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not provide him with sufficient assistance since he presented as homeless and threatened with homelessness. The Ombudsman has not found the Council to be at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his request for help to find suitable housing when both homeless and when he was threatened with homelessness. Specifically, Mr X complains that the Council:

• placed him and his son in unsuitable emergency accommodation.
• arranged for him to move to a private rented flat which was also unsuitable.
• failed to take any action about inadequate heating and other issues. affecting his flat.
• unlawfully entered his flat without notice.
• failed to provide enough help to finding suitable alternative accommodation since served with a notice to quit.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and information provided by Mr X;
• spoken to Mr X on the telephone;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the documents and comments provided;
• considered the relevant law and guidance; and
• sent a statement setting out my draft decision to Mr X and the Council and invited comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2006/2018 set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Some of the events complained about took place before the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 in April 2018. My investigation takes account of the changes and revised Code for events after this date.
6. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 6.6) 
7. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
8. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
9. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

What happened

10. In October 2017, the Council provided a security bond enabling Mr X to secure a room in a shared house. However, very shortly afterwards, his young son came to live with him. Because this accommodation was unsuitable for a child he was asked to leave. Mr X said he was homeless and asked the Council to help find somewhere suitable for him and his son to live.
11. Whilst making its enquiries about Mr X’s circumstances, the Council provided Mr X and his son with emergency hostel accommodation.
12. Mr X says this was unsuitable because there were drug users on the premises. He said he needed a two bedroom property. The Council’s temporary accommodation provider refused to provide accommodation because of Mr X’s previous conduct during another tenancy. Mr X has strongly denied the allegations made against him.
13. There were ongoing court proceedings between Mr X and his former partner over custody of their two children. The Council said it was unable to offer Mr X a two bedroom property until it was confirmed by the Court that he had sole custody of his son. The Council says Mr X understood and agreed to this. Mr X disputes this. Shortly after Mr X moved to the hostel, his son returned to live with his mother. Mr X says this was only because the hostel was unsuitable for a child.
14. In February 2018, the Council arranged accommodation in a private sector, one bedroom flat.
15. Whilst he agreed this was better than the hostel, Mr X soon complained to the Council about its poor condition. He said it was damp, the shower did not work, was inadequately heated and the outside area was hazardous. He told the Council he was unable to have his son return to his care because of this.
16. A Council officer visited the property straight away and spoke to the landlord. The Council recommended the landlord should insulate the loft, make the shower safe and clean the yard.
17. In March 2018, the Council reached its decision about Mr X’s housing situation. It said there was there was no duty to assist his any further because Mr X had, in the meantime, gained an assured shorthold tenancy on the flat. He was advised he had the right to request a review of this decision. I have not seen any evidence that Mr X requested this review.
18. Mr X was unhappy about this situation because he said the only reason he was unable to have his son live with him was the standard of his accommodation. The Council said it would review its position should the court confirm Mr X was his son’s full time carer. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2018.
19. In response to his complaint, the Council carried out another inspection of the condition of the property. The outcome was the landlord still needed to insulate the loft, check the thermostats on the storage heaters and clear the yard of waste. Despite this, the Council took the view Mr X could continue to live there whilst the landlord carried out these works.
20. The Council did not uphold his complaint because:

• The Council provided emergency accommodation straight away in November 2017.
• His public sector housing options were limited because of his previous conduct.
• Mr X had agreed to the one bedroom flat and this would be affordable in the longer term if he was not awarded custody of his son.
• The Council had responded to Mr X’s reports about the poor condition of the flat and had assessed it as being suitable.
• There was no evidence of Mr X being named as a bully.

21. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman who advised the Council to escalate his compliant to stage two of its complaints procedure. Its second response was broadly similar to the earlier reply.
22. In September 2018, Mr X’s landlord contacted the Council as he was concerned his property had been abandoned by Mr X. The Council visited the property with the landlord. They said the front door was open and when they called up the stairs nobody answered. A neighbour had told him Mr X was no longer living there. The landlord locked the property and left an abandonment notice on the door.
23. Mr X said he had not left the property but had been house/pet sitting for a friend. He was returning as and when necessary. He had lost his key and this was why the property was unlocked.
24. Mr X complained to the Council about this and two other matters:
1. the date of the abandonment notice. Mr X said the date had been changed by the landlord; and
2. incorrect advice given by a housing officer. Mr X says he was full time carer to his son as evidenced by the fact he received child benefit – he was therefore wrongly advised he would not be given a two bedroom property and was so pushed into accepting unsuitable, smaller accommodation.
25. The Council did not uphold his complaint for the following reasons:

• The Council’s records confirmed the date of the visit to the property and the date of the notice.
• The landlord was allowed by law to protect his property and it was unsecure at the time of the visit.
• At the time the one bedroom property was made available, parenting assessments were still being undertaken and there were no legal orders preventing Mr X’s son living with his mother. This was confirmed by the child’s social worker. Mr X was told he could apply for a two bedroom property once the outcome of the parenting assessment was known. The Council was therefore satisfied it had no legal duty to provide an extra bedroom.

26. Mr X was advised to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied, which he did.
27. In October 2018, Mr X’s landlord served Mr X with a notice to quit, effective in December 2018.
28. Shortly afterwards, Mr X again asked the Council for housing assistance.
29. An assessment was carried out and a decision was made that Mr X was:

• eligible for assistance, and
• threatened with homelessness.

30. He was advised the Council had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent his homelessness. He was provided with a Personal Housing Plan.
31. Unfortunately, Mr X’s children were taken into care, causing a decline in his mental health. His housing officer was aware of this so sought a medical opinion from Mr X’s doctor. This could affect his priority for housing.
32. Two doctors’ reports were received. One letter referred to mental health and other issues and concluded that “it would seem sensible to try to accommodate Mr X in a residence that helped to alleviate these problems”. The other said Mr X had reported that his current accommodation “exacerbated both his mental and physical health problems”.
33. In February 2019, the Council made an offer of a minimum six month tenancy of a room in a shared house. He was told that the offer discharged its duty to Mr X.
34. Mr X told the Council a room in a shared house was unsuitable because of his mental health. He relied on the letter from his doctor to support his case than the shared accommodation was unsuitable.
35. Mr X’s request for support with housing is ongoing.

Analysis

36. The documentation available shows the Council has offered Mr X assistance and advice regarding his housing options. It has considered his individual circumstances and helped him find somewhere to live. While Mr X says what has been offered has been unsuitable because of his parental responsibilities and medical needs, I have not found any fault in what the Council has done.
37. Dealing with Mr X’s specific complaints in turn:

The Council placed him and his son in unsuitable emergency accommodation in 2017

38. In November 2017, the Council placed Mr X and his son in temporary accommodation. This hostel accommodation, with shared facilities is often referred to as “bed and breakfast”. Government guidance says children should only be placed in such places as a last resort and if so, for no more than six weeks.
39. Shortly after the move to the hostel, Mr C’s son had returned to live with his mother. I cannot say with any certainty whether this was because of the accommodation issues or for other reasons. The case records show there was some positive contact between Mr X and his former partner over the Christmas period. It is possible his son may have returned to his mother’s care in any event.
40. The records show the Council was actively trying to source more suitable accommodation during this time. Its efforts were affected by Mr X’s previous behaviour. It is not within the scope of this investigation to make a finding about this matter, nor do I need to. Irrespective of this the Council, sourced alternative temporary accommodation in a one bedroom flat within 10 weeks.
41. Therefore, Mr X was moved from the hostel to more suitable accommodation within a reasonable timescale. For this reason, I have not found the Council to be at fault when it accommodated Mr X in the hostel.

The Council arranged for him to move to a private rented flat which was also unsuitable by refusing to accept he was his son’s primary carer

42. At the time his first application for housing was being considered in early 2018, It had not been confirmed by the Court that Mr X was his son’s permanent full time carer. Because of this there was no duty to include his son within his housing application. I have considered Mr X’s argument that he was a “chicken and egg” situation i.e. he would be unlikely to be awarded custody without suitable accommodation. But that he could not secure such accommodation without the court order in his favour.
43. While this is an unfortunate situation for Mr X, there is no anticipatory housing duty on the Council to provide accommodation in the event of him being awarded custody.
44. The law says the Council was under a duty to provide suitable accommodation to a child who either normally resided with him or “who might reasonably be expected to reside with him”. The Council took the view that at that stage there was no duty to include Mr X’s son within his application for housing. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. It had considered the facts and decided that because the matter was still unresolved and Mr X’s son was living with his mother that its duty to assist with housing was to Mr X alone.
45. The Council made it clear to Mr X it would review once the court proceedings were resolved. This was an appropriate approach to the situation.
46. Because of this, there was no fault in the Council’s approach.

The Council failed to take any action about inadequate heating and other issues affecting his flat

47. For private sector housing to be deemed suitable the Council has to be satisfied it complies with certain minimum standards. The standards that were relevant to this case, were that it had to be in a reasonable physical condition and for electrical equipment to meet certain requirements.
48. The Council had carried out an inspection prior to Mr X moving in and afterwards when he complained. While the landlord was asked to carry out a number of remedial works, Mr X still felt the flat fell below the required standard.
49. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make a judgement about the condition of the property. This is the role of the Council. I am satisfied it carried out inspections at the correct times. It decided the flat was acceptable by reference to the standards. It provided Mr X with advice on how he could improve his home environment.
50. While I acknowledge the Council’s decision about this was disappointing to Mr X, it is not a matter the Ombudsman can interfere with as long as the correct procedures were followed. I am satisfied they were in this case.

A Council officer assisted his landlord to unlawfully enter his flat without notice

51. Under the terms of his tenancy, Mr X agreed to “not leave the property unoccupied for more than seven days without providing the landlord with reasonable notice in writing”.
52. The landlord was obliged to give Mr X at least 24 hours notice to inspect the premises except in an emergency.
53. Possible breaches of these terms of the tenancy are a private contractual matter between Mr X and his landlord. For the purposes of this investigation, I must consider whether there was any fault by the Council when its officer accompanied the landlord for the purpose of establishing whether Mr X had left the property.
54. The Council had entered into a damage deposit agreement with the landlord in respect of Mr X’s tenancy. This meant it had met the cost of the security bond. Because of this the Council had a vested interest in ensuring the property was secure and not at risk of damage. The landlord had already made reasonable enquiries to satisfy himself there was a possible risk. He has been told by a third party that the property was empty and it was unlocked. This left the premises extremely vulnerable.
55. As an additional precaution he had asked the Council officer to accompany him. I consider this to be both a reasonable and sensible course of action. As was his decision to secure the premises which was in line with local police guidance.
56. I have found no evidence of bad practice on the part of the Council officer and therefore no fault.

The Council did not provide enough help to find alternative accommodation since served with a notice to quit

57. Under the new Homeless Prevention Act the Council owed what is called “the Prevention Duty” to Mr X once he was served with a “Notice to Quit” by his landlord.
58. The Council says it satisfied this duty by completing a “Personal Housing Plan” and offering him the room in the shared house in February 2019.
59. Mr X has so far refused this because he says it is unsuitable because of his mental health issues. He submitted medical evidence to support his case. The Council considered this and decided it did not make a difference.
60. I have read the doctors’ reports and they do not say Mr X must live in a self-contained flat. I cannot criticise the Council for reaching the decision it has done. It has not gone against medical advice.
61. For this reason, I have not found the Council to be at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

62. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mr X’s requests for support with housing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman