Summary: Ms X complains the Council was at fault in the way it dealt with her housing situation in 2018 as she accepted an offer of private rented accommodation outside of the borough away from her support network. The Council has accepted it was at fault as it failed to fully explain the consequences of accepting an offer of private rented accommodation. It has apologised and offered Ms X a suitable remedy for the situation she found herself in. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out its housing duty and renewed Ms X’s tenancy in January 2020.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her request for help with her housing. In particular Ms X says:
• The Council unreasonably pressured her into accepting unsuitable private rented accommodation in a different London borough after she applied as threatened with homelessness in November 2018.
• The Council failed to take account of her medical needs as the property was a first floor flat with no lift to access it and only a shower room. Ms X says she needs a two bedroomed property on a ground floor.
• The Council did not make it clear the offer was not temporary accommodation or explain that accepting the property would end its homelessness duty in her case.
• The Council failed to explain she would lose her eligibility for the housing register after two years as the local connection rules would end then.
• It was unreasonable for the Council to negotiate a renewal of her tenancy with her landlord in January 2020 as the property is unsuitable for her medical needs and she has difficulty paying the rent.
2. Ms X wants the Council to rehouse urgently in a suitable property in the borough, so she is closer to her support network.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. The Council runs a Private Renting Scheme (PRS) to encourage landlords to rent to people who may otherwise become homeless. The Council signs an agreement with the landlord to ensure the property is in good condition and has the necessary gas safety certificates. The landlord needs to sign a tenancy agreement with the person of at least 12 months. The agreement needs to be seen by a Council officer and agreed before it is signed by the prospective tenant. The Council arranges for the tenant’s housing benefit to be paid directly to the landlord. The Council will agree a rent up to the maximum local housing allowance (LHA) of the area. This is to ensure the tenant will be able to pay the landlord the rent.
8. According to the Council’s Allocations Policy in place at the time those people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness and accept private rented accommodation are awarded Band B priority on the Council’s Housing Register.

A Council’s Homelessness duty

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Assessments and Personal Housing plans

10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness.
11. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Key events leading to the complaint

13. In November 2018 Ms X and her young child were staying with her mother. The accommodation was overcrowded, and her mother unwilling to let her stay longer. Ms X approached the Council for housing advice and applied to join the Housing register. The Council says it gave Ms X advice about private renting as an option.
14. The Council awarded Ms X Band B to bid for social housing while she stayed with her mother. The Council accepted Ms X onto its PRS scheme and referred her to a lettings team to help her find private rented accommodation.
15. Ms X completed a medical form when she joined the housing register confirming a medical condition. The medical assessment officer awarded her band C (less urgent medical need) priority on medical grounds and assessed Ms X needed ground floor housing . The Council confirms this gives Ms X a higher priority for ground floor flats, but she can still bid for other properties.
16. Ms X signed a private sector tenancy in November 2018 in a different London borough. This was for a first floor one bedroomed flat with a shower room. The flat had no lift to access the property. The Council secured the accommodation by paying the landlord an incentive payment to rent the property to her.
17. Ms X says she found out in August 2019 she was in private rented accommodation and it was not temporary accommodation.
18. Ms X approached the Council as she was threatened with homelessness in December 2019 as her landlord served an eviction notice due to her rent arrears of over £4000. Ms X completed an online homeless form.
19. The Council accepted a prevention duty towards Ms X and carried out an assessment of her housing situation. The landlord withdrew the notice after negotiating with the Council’s tenancy sustainability team about her arrears. The landlord agreed to a further 24-month tenancy with Ms X starting in January 2020 with Ms X making a monthly payment towards her arrears.
20. Ms X complained to the Council in March 2020 the flat was unsuitable for her medical needs. Ms X said it was unsuitable for her child and out of the borough away from her support network as her mother acted as her carer. Ms X said she needed a property with a bath to help her with pain relief. Ms X considered the Council discriminated against because of her medical needs.

The Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint

The offer of accommodation in November 2018 and loss of local connection

21. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It advised the offer of accommodation to Ms X in November 2018 was a voluntary one of private rented accommodation on the first floor and Ms X was not obliged to accept it. The Council confirmed it would not have found Ms X intentionally homeless if she refused the offer. The Council apologised and accepted it did not make the terms of the offer clear in 2018 and it should have issued a letter explain the difference between temporary accommodation and private renting. The Council confirms that unfortunately it did not do this.
22. It confirmed that as Ms X accepted the offer of private rented accommodation which ended the Council’s homeless duty it awarded her Band B priority to bid for permanent housing. This was a higher banding than it would have awarded her if the Council accepted a main housing duty to her.
23. The Council has since amended its personalised housing plans to explain the difference between private renting and temporary accommodation offers. It also explains that applicants are not obliged to accept offers unless the terms are confirmed in writing.
24. The Council confirmed Ms X’s local connection to the Council’s area would end after two years even though it helped her to find the private rented accommodation. It said that normally if someone moved to private rented accommodation out of the area, they lose the local connection immediately. But where the Council helps someone to move it extends the time, they can bid for Council properties for two years. This meant Ms X’s application would close in November 2020 being two years after the start date of her tenancy.
25. The Council accepted it may not have made the two-year time limit clear to her as it did not confirm this in writing. The Council apologised for any distress or confusion caused. It agreed to extend the period she could bid for a further two years to February 2022 to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X for this and the failure to explain the offer of private rented accommodation.
26. In June 2020, the Council changed its housing allocations policy because of a legal challenge. This means there is no longer a time limit on bidding if an applicant has been moved to accommodation outside of the borough. So, Ms X can continue to bid with Band B priority without a time limit for as long as she continues to live at the private rented accommodation.

My assessment

27. The Council has accepted it did not fully explain the terms of accepting the offer of private rented accommodation to Ms X, that it ended the Council’s homeless duty towards Ms X, and she would lose the local connection after two years. I consider this was fault by the Council as it should have made sure Ms X was fully aware of the implications of accepting the offer of private rented accommodation. However, the Council has taken action to remedy the situation for Ms X by apologising and increasing the time her local connection remains while she bids for permanent housing. I consider this is suitable action for the Council to take and is in line with any remedy we would request to remedy any injustice caused to Ms X.
28. The Council has now changed its policy so Ms X can remain on the housing register indefinitely whilst she remains at the private rented accommodation . Ms X has also been awarded a higher priory banding through accepting the offer in 2018. So, I do not consider any further remedy is necessary as I cannot achieve anything further for Ms X.

The Council’s assessment of Ms X’s medical needs

29. The Council says it has no evidence Ms X was pressurised into accepting unsuitable accommodation. It considers Ms X’s complaint in February 2020 was the first time she raised dissatisfaction about the suitability of the accommodation offered.
30. In commenting on the draft decision Ms X says she told the Council in text messages in January 2020 when discussing the renewal of her tenancy she did not consider the accommodation was suitable for her medical needs. The Council responded to the messages and told Ms X she had not provided enough medical evidence to show the property was unsuitable.
31. The Council confirms Ms X completed a medical form in 2018 advising of her medical condition. This was assessed by the Council’s medical assessment officer who awarded her Band C (less urgent medical need) priority on medical grounds and assessed she needed ground floor housing. This gave Ms X higher priority for ground floor flats as well as being able to bid for other properties.
32. However, the Council has advised Ms X there is an extreme shortage of social housing relative to demand. The average waiting time for a 2 bedroomed property with Band B was about 6 years, so she has a limited chance of success until she has been on the housing list a bit longer. The Council advised Ms X she could bid for one-bedroomed properties as there is a shorter waiting time.

My assessment

33. The documents show the Council considered Ms X’s medical information in 2018 when it considered her application for the housing register. Ms X was awarded band C (less urgent) medical priority as she had a need for ground floor housing. But it did not mean she could not live in other properties. Therefore, I find no evidence of fault by the Council as it as considered Ms X’s medical condition and housing needs.

The renewal of Ms X’s tenancy in January 2020

34. The Council says it has a duty to try and prevent homelessness and so it was reasonable for the Council to seek to renew the tenancy if possible. The Council does not consider the property was or is unsuitable for Ms X under housing legislation. This is in terms of her being considered statutorily homeless either on medical grounds or affordability.
35. The Council considers the rent for the property was affordable. This was due to being at the local housing allowance rate for a one bedroomed flat in the area and so affordable to someone receiving benefits as Ms X was. Ms X was due to evicted in December 2019 because of rent arrears as Ms X had not used her benefits to pay rent.
36. The Council discussed the rent arrears with Ms X and the landlord. It says Ms X agreed to the actions being taken on her behalf to prevent her losing the accommodation. The Council decided to renew the tenancy to mitigate the risk of Ms X becoming homeless and give her time to repay the outstanding rent arrears. As Ms X had rent arrears the Council could not recommend her to another private sector landlord. The Council said the decision to renew her tenancy was not to discriminate against her medical needs but to prevent further escalation with her landlord and to minimise the homelessness threat.
37. The Council agreed to pay the landlord a further incentive payment in return for cancelling the possession proceedings, agreeing a repayment plan, and granting a new two-year fixed term tenancy. The Council says it has no record of Ms X raising any dissatisfaction about the suitability of the accommodation while it was renewing the tenancy.
38. The Council issued Ms X an ‘end of housing duty’ letter in August 2020. This was because the Council was satisfied following the assessment in December 2019 and renewal of her tenancy in January 2020 her accommodation was suitable. This allows Ms X the right of review if she was unhappy with the decision.

My assessment

39. The document provided by the Council show it accepted Ms X’s homeless application in December 2019 and acted as required to prevent her from becoming homeless. This can include acting to sustain the tenancy which it did in this case after discussing the situation with Ms X and her landlord. The Council did not consider the property unsuitable for Ms X on medical or affordability grounds. Although Ms X says she told the Council it was unsuitable, she did not provide sufficient information to show it was unsuitable on medical grounds and did agree to the Council renewing the tenancy. Because of this I do not consider there has been fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Ms X’s application in 2019, its prevention duty and actions to renew Ms X’s tenancy to prevent her from becoming homeless.
40. Ms X had the right to request a review of the Council’s decision to end its housing duty in August 2020. This was a suitable route for Ms X to take if she disagreed with the Council’s decision to end its housing duty.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I am completing my investigation. The Council was at fault in 2018 when it dealt with Ms X’s housing situation as it failed to fully explain the consequences of her accepting an offer of private rented accommodation. The Council accepted it was at fault and offered Ms X a suitable remedy for the situation she found herself in. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out its housing duty and renewed Ms X’s tenancy in January 2020.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman