Summary: Mr C complains about how the Council terminated his interim accommodation and how it subsequently managed his housing register application and a subsequent bid for a property. However, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with any of the matters raised by Mr C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains about how the Council managed the termination of his interim accommodation, his housing register application and bid he made on a property. Mr C says:
• The Council illegally evicted him from interim accommodation, without sufficient notice.
• Items of his property were stolen from his interim accommodation.
• The Council mismanaged his housing register application, meaning he missed out on a suitable property due to delays in processing his bid.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr C’s complaint about how the Council terminated Mr C’s interim accommodation. I have also investigated how the Council processed his housing register application and his subsequent property bid.

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. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Mr C about his complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness & interim accommodation

7. If Councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take a homelessness application. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking from assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days.
8. If an applicant is eligible for assistance and has a priority need, the Council will owe them a housing duty. If applicants are eligible for assistance but do not have a priority need they will have a relief duty towards them, meaning they must take reasonable steps to help them secure accommodation but do not need to provide temporary accommodation.
9. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so.
10. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review.  Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household.
11. The courts have held that the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 does not apply to interim accommodation provided under section 188. So, generally, it is not unlawful for applicants to be evicted without four weeks’ notice and a court order.
12. However, the authority must give reasonable notice of the cancellation. In a legal judgment where notice was given to a single man to leave interim accommodation, six days was not considered to be unreasonable. R v LB Newham ex p Lulmley [2000]

Housing allocations

13. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
14. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

15. The Councils Housing Allocations Policy explains the criteria people need to meet to be accepted onto the register.
16. It explains that all applicants must meet two qualifying criteria. The first being that they have a local connection and secondly that they have a housing need.
17. The Council’s own policies do not provide information on how quickly it should process housing applications. We consider that councils should deal with applications promptly.
18. Applicants will not be accepted on to the housing register until all the requested information has been provided. Incomplete new applications will not be processed and the applicant will be contacted to provide the required information. The applicant will be given 28 days to provide all their relevant information; otherwise the application will be declined.
19. Applicants who have been assessed as having a housing need by a member of the Homelessness Prevention Team may be given a further 28 days to provide all their relevant information at the discretion of the Prevention Officer.

What happened

Homelessness & interim accommodation

20. In February 2019, Mr C approached the Council and asked for assistance with his homelessness problem. At the time Mr C was the sole carer for his son.
21. The Council concluded that Mr C was eligible for assistance and was homeless, but he did not have a local connection. The Council therefore referred Mr C’s application to the Local Authority to which it considered he had a local connection.
22. Pending the outcome of the referral to the other Local Authority, the Council provided Mr C with interim accommodation.
23. On 10 April 2019, the Council assessed Mr C’s homelessness application, and reached a decision that he did not have a priority need. One of the factors that influenced this decision was that Mr C’s son had since returned to the full-time care of his mother.
24. The Council wrote to Mr C and explained that it’s duty to provide him with accommodation had ended, and it was giving him 8 days to vacate the interim accommodation. The Council also said that its relief duty had come to an end, as it was more than 56 days since it had referred him to the other Local Authority.
25. The Council said that it sent the letter by post, but Mr C says he had not received the letter until 3 or 4 days before the notice period, Mr C also said there was no post mark on the envelope. The letter also said that it had been emailed to Mr C, but Mr C says he did not received the email and the Council have been unable to provide a copy of the email.
26. Mr C has provided documents which indicate that he vacated the property on the 24 April.
27. Mr C appealed the Council’s decision. On the 25 April, the Council wrote to Mr C and explained that because he had provided evidence of a local connection it was withdrawing its previous decision and issuing a new one.
28. The Council sent Mr C a new decision letter on the same day which explained that, whilst it still did not consider he had a priority need, it did consider that it owed him the relief duty, because he has proved he has a local connection. The Council said that the relief duty would last for 56 days from the date of its letter.

Housing register and bid

29. Mr C had previously been on the Council’s housing register, in 2012 the Council changed from a points based system, which allowed anyone to register, to a banding system where people had to be eligible to apply.
30. The Council said that it wrote to everyone on the old register in 2012, asking they provide evidence that they met the criterial for the new register. The Council said that Mr C did not respond, so was not added to the new register.
31. The Council provided Mr C with a copy of the envelope which contained the letter it sent in 2012, it showed the letter had been returned to the Council as the address on it was incomplete.
32. The Council also provided Mr C with a document which Mr C had signed in 2011. The document includes the address that was on the envelope.
33. Upon becoming homeless in 2019, Mr C was added to the housing register. On 21 May Mr C placed a bid on a vacant property which the Council was advertising on behalf of a local housing association. Bidding for the property closed on 27 May, and the Council passed a shortlist of bidders, which included Mr C, to the Housing Association.
34. On 25 June, the Council wrote to Mr C and said its relief duty had ended. The letter explained that he may still be eligible to remain on the housing register, but would need to complete a change of circumstances form. The Council said his housing register application would be changed to ‘awaiting documents’ until his application could be verified.
35. The Council subsequently emailed Mr C requesting he provide it with copies of documents in support of his housing register application.
36. The Council say that Mr C’s housing application remained as ‘awaiting documents’ until 4 July, when it verified his application and was subsequently accepted onto the housing register.
37. The Housing Association offering the property which Mr C had placed a bid on contacted the Council and requested it provide an updated shortlist of applicants. The Council provided this list on 25 June. However, Mr C was not included in this shortlist as he did not have a live housing register application at the time.

Analysis

Homelessness & interim accommodation

38. Mr C complained that the Council illegally evicted him from his interim accommodation, as it did not give him sufficient notice.
39. When determining that Mr C did not have a priority need, the Council wrote to him giving him eight days’ notice to vacate the property. It said that the letter had been sent by email, but Mr C says he did not receive the email and the Council have not provided a copy.
40. The Council also said that the letter was also sent to Mr C in the post, which should have been delivered to Mr C the following day. However, Mr C says he did not receive this until 3-4 days before the date of the notice period.
41. The Courts have deemed that in similar circumstances to Mr C’s, 6 days’ notice would be sufficient. If the Council had emailed the letter to Mr C, he would have been given eight days’ notice, which would have been deemed sufficient. But, the Council have been unable to provide evidence that the email was sent.
42. By posting the letter to him, it should have been delivered the next day, meaning he would have received seven days’ notice.
43. Mr C says he did not receive the letter until 3 or 4 days before the notice period, and therefore the notice period was insufficient. However, there is no statutory requirement for Council’s to prove delivery of letters, and we cannot hold it responsible for any delays or errors caused by Royal Mail.
44. Furthermore, Mr C says he received the letter 3 or 4 days before the notice period of the 18 April, but he did not vacate the interim accommodation until the 24 April, some 9 or 10 days after he received the letter.
45. I am therefore unable to find sufficient evidence fault with how the Council notified Mr C of his notice period. This is because it cannot be held responsible for delays by the Royal Mail.
46. However, even with these delays I do not find that Mr C suffered an injustice. This is because since becoming aware of the 8 day notice period he remained in the interim accommodation for a period in excess of that, and in excess of the courts deem to be sufficient.
47. Mr C says that the letter he received withdrawing its previous decision suggested it was reversing its notice period. It does not, the accompanying letter clearly states that Mr C does not qualify for temporary accommodation as they concluded he does not have a priority need.

Housing register and bid

48. Mr C complains that the Council unfairly penalised him when reinstating his housing register application, and that a bid he made was mismanaged, meaning he missed out on a property.
49. The Council have explained that prior to 2019, Mr C had not contacted it about his housing register since 2011, and his application was eventually removed from the housing register in 2012, after he failed to respond to a request to provide evidence that he was eligible for the new closed system.
50. Documents showed that the letter sent in 2012, was returned to the Council as the address was not complete.
51. Evidence suggests that the address the Council had for Mr C was a building containing a number of flats. The address on the form he signed, and on the envelope, did not contain a flat number.
52. Mr C could have challenged the incorrect address at the time however neither Mr C or the Council have provided any evidence to suggest he did. I therefore cannot find fault with this element of Mr C’s complaint.
53. When the Council’s relief duty to Mr C ended, it concluded that this constituted a change of circumstances and requested he provide further supporting documentation. This is a decision it was entitled to make. The Council explained to Mr C, until it received this his application would be on hold pending receipt of documents.
54. It is unfortunate that the same day that Mr C’s housing register application was placed on hold, the housing association requested an updated shortlist for the property he had bid on. However, as Mr C’s application was on hold at the time, I find that the Council provided the housing with accurate information and therefore I am unable to find fault with how it dealt with this matter.
55. Mr C says that he has been penalised by the Council reinstating his application. However, on reviewing the documents provided I have seen no evidence of any penalties imposed.

Back to top

Final

56. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matters raised by Mr C.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

57. I have not investigated Mr C’s allegations that items of his interim accommodation. Mr C threatened legal action against the housing provider regarding this, and told me that he reported this matter to the police. This matter would ultimately be a matter for the courts to decide.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman