Summary: Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with his homelessness application and about the interim accommodation it placed him in. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice to Mr B. To remedy this a recommendation is made for a payment and an apology to Mr B, in addition to service improvements by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council failed to deal properly with his homelessness application and placed him in sub-standard interim accommodation.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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. I considered all the information provided by Mr B about his complaint. I made written enquiries of the council and took into account its response. I considered the legalisation and statutory guidance relevant to homelessness applications at the time of the events complained of.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
7. I wrote to Mr B and the Council with a draft of this decision and gave them an opportunity to comment. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background – homelessness

8. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, a number of duties arise, including:

• to make enquiries;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries;
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.

9. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty.
11. After completing enquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184).
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
13. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

Background

14. Mr B was homeless. After being asked to leave a relative’s home he had been staying at a hotel for two months supported by finance from his brother, but on 2 January 2018 he told the Council this support was ending and he needed temporary accommodation while awaiting housing in the Council’s area. He explained that he had health problems and would like sheltered housing. He also completed a ‘health assessment for homeless applicants’ form on the same day.
15. The Council says he first approached it on 8 January, although the evidence referred to above does not support this. On 16 January Mr B completed a further form, a ‘vulnerability questionnaire’, in which he gave details of his health conditions (a heart problem and depression), and said he could not afford private rented accommodation and did not know what he would do to find accommodation if the Council did not help him.

The homelessness application & interim accommodation

16. The Council arranged to take a homelessness application and did so on 18 January 2018, after which it began its enquiries to inform its decision on his homelessness application. Mr B spent his last night in the hotel accommodation on 17 January and from 18 January was placed in interim accommodation the Council arranged for him.
17. Towards the end of February Mr B wrote to advise the Council he wanted to apply for sheltered housing, and he completed a sheltered housing referral form. The Council says it had been recorded on the homelessness application form that sheltered accommodation would be suitable for his housing needs.
18. At the end of March 2018, the Council says Mr B’s medical information was considered by the medical advisor and the Council determined Mr B was deemed not vulnerable by virtue of his health needs. In April 2018 Mr B’s medical practitioner sent information to the Council to support Mr B’s request for sheltered housing. The Council says this was considered again by the medical advisor and Mr B was still deemed not vulnerable. Neither of these decisions were notified to Mr B.
19. In June 2018, an organisation acting to assist Mr B wrote to the Council to ask about his homelessness application, as Mr B had not received any decision on it. The target time for the completion of enquiries on a homelessness application set out in the relevant statutory guidance is 33 working days, and Mr B’s application had been made on 18 January 2018. The organisation also raised concerns about the condition of the interim accommodation Mr B was occupying. I will return to that issue later in this statement.
20. Mr B contacted his MP, who made an enquiry to the Council on his behalf. An internal email from 4 July 2018 on the Council’s files referred to this enquiry and referred to a similar case in which a woman of a similar age had been allocated sheltered accommodation and asked if this could also apply to Mr B. It noted he would need help to complete an online application form and a sheltered accommodation assessment then hopefully could be fast-tracked.
21. The relevant form for sheltered accommodation was completed on 7 August 2018 and the following day the Council advised Mr B his application was being made active to allow him to bid for sheltered accommodation and he would receive notification of his bidding number. This notification was issued on 15 August and on 20 August the Council made Mr B an offer of sheltered accommodation which he accepted.

Mr B secures a tenancy in sheltered accommodation

22. Mr B’s tenancy in the sheltered accommodation began on 27 August 2018. From this date the Council considered Mr B was no longer homeless: it felt this accommodation was reasonable for him to occupy; he had a legal right to do so; and it was affordable. On 23 October 2018 the Council wrote to Mr B advising that as he had secured accommodation there was no duty to secure further accommodation for him. The letter offered the right of review, if he was dissatisfied with the decision.
23. The notification letter referred to S189(7)(a) of the Homeless Reduction Act 2017. But as Mr B’s homelessness application had been made in January 2018 and this legislation did not come into force until 3 April 2018, that was incorrect and was fault. Mr B did not receive the notification but in any event was still awaiting the notification he should have received under S184 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘a S184 decision’) in respect of the Council’s decision on his homelessness application. He continued to ask the Council for that notification in February 2019, and in March 2019 he contacted his local councillor and made a complaint.

Mr B’s complaint to the Council

24. Mr B complained the interim accommodation he had been housed in between January and August 2018 was in a poor state, suffering vermin infestation and several water leaks from the room above causing damp. He reported that he had complained to his homelessness officer about this several times without response. He also complained about the Council’s failure to issue a S184 decision in respect of his homelessness application despite this also being requested many times.
25. Responding to Mr B on 20 March 2019 the Council said that his request for a S184 decision would not be appropriate and that the relevant legalisation was the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and that accordingly it had issued its decision on 23 October under S189(7)(a) of that Act. I noted at paragraph 17 above that the Council had not issued the appropriate notification, and it failed when responding to Mr B at this point to correct this. That was fault. However, on 26 March when it issued its formal response to the complaint at the first stage of its complaints procedure it acknowledged that Mr B should have received a S184 decision notification letter. It said the Council had been operating as pilot authority for the new legislation and trialling the new notification letters, and this had led to the error on Mr B’s case.
26. The Council issued the correct notification letter on 1 April 2019. It said Mr B was eligible but not homeless as he now had accommodation it was reasonable for him to occupy.
27. Mr B requested escalation of his complaint to the next stage of the Council’s procedure. Responding to this the Council confirmed that Mr B should have had a S184 letter and that there had been a significant delay in him receiving this. It said this had not affected his housing situation. It apologised and offered him a payment of £250 for distress caused by the delay.
28. The Council noted Mr B’s complaint about the interim accommodation he had been in (referring to ongoing water leaks, vermin infestation, filthy mattresses and a violent tenant), and a query about whether properties were inspected. In response to this it simply said: “There is a vast amount of correspondence that indicates enquiries and activity was undertaken by the placement team during this time”. That did not provide an adequate response to the complaint and was fault, because it did not address the problems with the property Mr B had listed.
29. The Council incorrectly said if he remained dissatisfied Mr B could refer his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS), rather than to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). That was fault. This is because the HOS normally considers complaints about housing associations, local housing authorities and other members of its scheme. The LGSCO considers complaints about homelessness including how applications are dealt with and decisions about eligibility for and allocation of interim and temporary accommodation”.
30. During my investigation I asked the Council to provide me with evidence of all action taken in response to Mr B’s complaints about the interim accommodation. No evidence has been provided. The Council has said that the Housing Solutions Officer spoke to the provider who offered Mr B alternative temporary accommodation, but he did not want to move. But there is no documentary evidence to support this. That is fault.
31. I asked the Council for confirmation of any action taken to inspect this accommodation pre- or post-letting to Mr B or to satisfy itself of the standard of that accommodation. In response the Council says it last inspected the property in February 2014, but the provider said the property was inspected regularly and that issues reported by clients are investigated and dealt with immediately. But once again there is no documentary evidence to support this. That is fault. The Council has now said it is reviewing all contracts with providers to ensure a minimum standard is met, and this will include regular reports from the providers and Council checks for compliance with minimum standards.

Analysis

32. In respect of the interim accommodation, as noted above the property was last inspected four years before it was let to Mr B. While the Council’s housing duties require it to secure a lot of accommodation, even if it could not be expected to inspect before every letting it should react when issues are reported and there is no evidence it did so here. Mr B was in this accommodation for seven months and on balance given the lack of evidence to the contrary I find that the Council did not respond appropriately to his reports about the condition of the property where Mr B was accommodated for seven months.
33. In respect of the allocation of sheltered housing, as set out above it was noted at the homelessness interview in mid-January that this would be suitable for Mr B. He had already given details of his health conditions and asked for sheltered housing. In February he was provided with a sheltered housing referral form and at beginning of March submitted medical evidence. It was not until his MP raised a query on his behalf that the Council looked again at his case and decided he could be fast tracked to sheltered housing, even though his circumstances and medical information had not changed. Overall on balance I am satisfied the action to place Mr B in sheltered accommodation could have been done sooner, reducing the time spent in the interim accommodation.
34. In respect of the homelessness application taken on 18 January (which might have been taken sooner given that on 2 January he advised his funds were exhausted and he needed housing), the Council should have completed enquiries within 33 working days. It should have issued the S184 decision by mid-March 2018. It did not do so until 1 April 2019, a delay of a year. If the letter had been sent mid-March 2018 and Mr B immediately asked for a review (which he would have done as the decision at that point would have been that he was not in priority need), the Council should have dealt with that within eight weeks. If the decision was unfavourable Mr B could then have appealed to the court on a point of law. It is highly unlikely that such an appeal would have been dealt with by the end of August when Mr B secured sheltered accommodation. However, the delay by the Council meant that he was denied his right to request a review at the relevant time and given his dissatisfaction with the interim accommodation that was significant.
35. In respect of the Council’s complaint handling, this was poor. Firstly, the Council gave an incorrect response regarding the homelessness decision notification issue, just prior to issuing the complaint response correcting that. Then it failed to respond to the issue about the condition of the interim accommodation, then wrongly referred Mr B to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Following on from this, the response to my enquiries was also poor, with little provided in the way of relevant supporting evidence and an indication that record keeping has been very remiss.

Agreed action

36. Taking account of all the above, and in recognition of the stress, frustration and time and trouble caused to Mr B by the Council’s failings, I recommended that within four weeks of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council:

• Issues him with a formal written apology; and
• Pays him a further £500 (in addition to the £250 already offered).

37. Mr B’s view is that the recommendation for financial remedy is inadequate. He considers the time spent in the interim accommodation caused him suffering and deteriorating health. However, even if the Council had responded to reports about the condition of the property as it should have done, on balance it is unlikely this would have led to him being immediately rehoused. The Council would likely have taken some action to liaise with the landlord about the accommodation, which would have needed inspection and then action to address any vermin infestation or damp, and that process would have taken time. It is also the case that if Mr B wished to pursue a claim against the Council for damage to his health, that would be a matter for the courts. The sum recommended above takes account of these factors and is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
38. I also recommended that within three months of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council reviews its complaint handling and lessons learned from this complaint, prepares and implements a plan to seek to avoid similar faults recurring in future, and provides evidence that it has done so. This should include ensuring complaints officers are aware of the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to deal with complaints about homelessness applications and interim or temporary accommodation associated with that.
39. In making the above recommendations I have taken into account that the Council has confirmed it is already undertaking a review of provider contracts and the checking of accommodation (referred to in paragraph 29 above).
40. The Council has agreed to the recommendations set out at paragraphs 36 and 38 above.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation on the basis set out above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman