Summary: the complainant says the Council failed to properly manage her homeless application resulting in delay in offering her suitable accommodation and the Council placing her out of the district. The Council accepts it made mistakes and offered a remedy. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council failed to manage her homeless and housing application properly. This resulted in Miss X facing an eviction action in court, moving out of the Borough, returning, and losing her housing priority.
2. Miss X says this has caused significant distress for her and her children, affected her credit rating and impacted on her children’s learning.
3. Miss X wants the Council to rehouse her in permanent housing with its Borough and recognise the impact the faults had on her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If 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. In considering this complaint I have:
• Contacted Miss X and read the information presented in her complaint;
• Examined the information including case notes and records presented by the Council in support of its actions;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance, and policy;
• Shared with Miss X and the Council my draft decision and considered any comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law, guidance, and policy

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code is statutory guidance and councils must consider it.
8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• They are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• Their landlord has served them with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
9. A person is homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 175)
10. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible, it must take reasonable steps to help ensure the person continues to have accommodation available to them. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195, as substituted by s.4(2) Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)
11. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in ‘priority need’, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation. A pregnant woman has a priority need for accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188, Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 8.3(a))
12. Any accommodation provided, obtained, or secured by a council must be suitable for the applicant. This applies whether this is under a duty or a discretionary power and applies to interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206, Homelessness Code of Guidance 2018, section 17.2)
13. Councils have a legal duty to place applicants in their own area so far as reasonably practicable. (Housing Act 1996, section 208, Homelessness Code of Guidance, sections 17.47-17.54)
14. Councils should record how they decided to place an applicant out of area. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 2018, section 17.62,)
15. Councils must set out their decisions in writing, explaining the reasoning if decisions are not in the person’s favour and explaining their review rights. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
16. The Code suggests expecting an applicant to remain in the property beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice is not reasonable. (Paragraph 6.35)
17. The Code also says councils should ensure homeless families owed a housing duty do not face eviction through enforcement of a court order because of the council’s failure to find suitable accommodation. (Paragraph 6.38)
18. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy sets out the priority given to applicants with Priority Band A being the highest priority band.
19. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority

What happened

20. In March 2018 Miss X sought help from the Council to find housing to relieve her family’s overcrowding. In September 2108, following the Council’s assessment of the family’s housing needs it awarded Miss X priority under Priority Band B of its Housing Allocations policy.
21. In January 2019 Miss X told the Council her landlord had told her he intended selling the house. The landlord had not issued a valid notice to quit and so the Council says it did not accept a housing duty. In an interview with Miss X the Council explained what help she may receive. The Council’s officer explained with Miss X’s priority and the demand for social housing the Council did not expect her to be successful in gaining social housing. On giving this advice the Council closed the homeless application. Miss X continued to bid for social housing.
22. Miss X’s landlord served her with a valid section 21 notice in May 2019 ending her tenancy in July 2019. The Council told Miss X she needed to make a new homeless application because it had closed her previous application. The Council explained the eviction procedure and said the date on the eviction notice is not the date Miss X must leave the property. Miss X says the Council told her to wait until she received an eviction order. Miss X says the Council said once the landlord had done that the Council would offer her temporary accommodation before finding her more permanent accommodation
23. On 11 June 2019, the Council accepted a duty to prevent homelessness. It recognised Miss X was likely to become homeless within 56 days because the landlord had served her with a section 21 expiring in July. The Council issued a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) on 11 June 2019 that said it would:
• Help Miss X find accommodation in the Council’s area
• Provide social housing by 6 August 2019
• and issue a deposit guarantee by 21 August 2019.
24. Miss X agreed under the PHP to look for private rented accommodation in any area with help for the deposit from the Council. In July 2019 Miss X updated the Council on her unsuccessful search for a property and asked it the Council had any advice. The Council said it would continue looking for alternative accommodation. The Council said in a email “….remember we still have some time while the possession order is applied for and then the eviction notice if alternative accommodation cannot be found during this time.”
25. In October 2019 Miss X gave the Council a copy of the possession proceedings received from the court. At the court hearing in November 2019 the court deferred a decision to January 2020. The Council said it would wait for the court order.
26. On 21 January 2020 Miss X told the Council the court had granted the eviction order and she must leave within two weeks. The Council accepted Miss X as homeless and that it had a duty to help her resolve her homelessness. The Council says it did not have any temporary accommodation available in its district. Therefore, the Council placed Miss X in accommodation fifty miles away on 6 February 2020. The accommodation comprised a studio flat with one room with two single beds for the family of three. Miss X said this had significant impact on her family due to the limited accommodation, distance from her work, child’s school, and support network.
27. The Council asked Miss X to update her circumstances on her housing application. The Council’s officer told Miss X now she had temporary accommodation her application would move into Priority Band D.
28. In March 2020, the Council placed Miss X in long term temporary accommodation in its district. This property comprised a one bedroom flat with a double bed for Miss X and her teenage son and infant daughter to share.
29. On 7 April 2020, the Council accepted it owed Miss X the ‘main housing duty’. This led the Council to reassess Miss X’s needs.
30. The Council told Miss X she no longer lived in overcrowded conditions because it mistakenly believed it had placed Miss X in a two-bedroom property. This led the Council to award her application Priority Band D of its Allocations Policy.
31. Miss X says she did not know about this error, or her right to a review because the Council did not share its decision in writing.
32. In response to my enquiries the Council says it intended to move Miss X on from the interim accommodation given in March 2020 to more suitable accommodation as soon as it could. However, the COVID-19 controls prevented the Council moving Miss X as intended. On 11 June 2020, the Council moved Miss X to further temporary accommodation. In October 2020, the Council offered Miss X through a direct let a two-bedroom property meeting the family’s needs. Miss X accepted the offer and has moved.
33. Miss X complained to the Council about how it had handled her circumstances. Miss X said the Council had made her go through the eviction procedure. In the response sent at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure the Council said it had followed the correct procedure. Until Miss X’s landlord had completed the eviction procedure, the Council explained, it could not consider Miss X as homeless.
34. Council officers made offers over the telephone but did not always send out the offer letters setting out the terms and conditions of the offer or the applicant’s rights. The Council has no records to show how it assessed the studio flat or the one-bedroom property as suitable for the family.

Analysis – has there been fault leading to injustice

35. My role is to consider whether the Council has acted with fault, and if it has what impact that has had on Miss X. If I find fault, I must then consider what the Council should do to put that right.
36. The Council accepted it had a duty to help Miss X relieve her homelessness in June 2019 and issued a PHP. In August 2019, the Council said Miss X did not have to move immediately the section 21 notice expired. The Code suggests in most circumstances it is not reasonable to expect an applicant to remain in the property. Therefore, I find the Council at fault and that in June 2019 it should have organised a move in line with paragraph 6.35 of the Code.
37. In October 2019 when Miss X told the Council she now had a court date the Council told Miss X she still had time because the landlord needed a possession order and an eviction order. This presented the Council with a further opportunity to help Miss X by arranging accommodation, but it did not. The Code says it is rarely reasonable to expect applicants to wait for eviction. I find the Council at fault in not acting then to arrange a move for Miss X contrary to paragraph 6.38 of the Code.
38. When the court issued an eviction order and Miss X had two weeks to leave her home the Council correctly offered her accommodation. However, the Council placed her family in a studio flat fifty miles from her former home. The Council cannot show that it properly considered the likely impact of that move contrary to Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 and paragraphs 17.47 to 17.54 of the Code. I find the Council at fault for this non-compliance.
39. The Council’s error and failure to check the number of rooms in the placement it offered Miss X in March 2020 resulted in Miss X having her priority banding reduced. This affected her ability to bid successfully for housing. I find the Council at fault for that.
40. The Council cannot show that it provided Miss X with written decisions outlining her right to a review of the decision and a review of the suitability of the property offered to her. I find the Council at fault for the lack of information which prevented Miss X exercising her rights for reviews and the opportunities that would present the Council for putting right the errors made earlier.
41. These failings had a significant impact on Miss X. Had the Council followed the Housing Act and Code it would have sought temporary accommodation for her earlier. It may have avoided placing her out of the district. The Council recognises it acted with fault and it acted quickly to move Miss X into its area. However, this added to the number of moves between temporary property this family had to endure.
42. Therefore, I am recommending a payment which recognises the Council’s failure to act more quickly between June 2019 and January 2020, including the missed opportunity to move Miss X in October 2019. I also recommend a payment for placing Miss X in unsuitable accommodation in February 2020, and again between March and June 2011 without giving Miss X information on how to ask for a review. Our Guidance on Remedies suggests a payment of between £150 and £350 per month for living in unsuitable accommodation depending on the severity of the circumstances. The Council has agreed and made changes to its procedures and advised staff on placing applicants out of the area.

Recommended and agreed action

43. To address the impact of the faults found in this investigation I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise in writing to Miss X for the impact on her;
• Pay Miss X £800 in recognition of the avoidable time spent in unsuitable accommodation without knowing of the right to a review and in living for a short time out of the Council’s district and;
• Pay Miss X £300 for the distress caused by failing to offer accommodation in August and October 2019 leading Miss X to face eviction proceedings before receiving the offer of accommodation and downgrading her priority.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find the Council acted with fault leading to injustice which it acknowledges and agrees to my recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman