Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its handling of her homeless application. We also find fault with the Council for failing to consider the suitability of interim accommodation offered to Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her housing application. Ms X complains the Council did not do enough to help her with her housing situation. She complains the Council:

• should have put her in a higher band;
• put her in hostel accommodation which was unsuitable;
• misinformed her about the rent she would have to pay for the hostel accommodation; and
• did not communicate with her.

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. I spoke with Ms X and considered the information she provided.
5. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
6. I sent a draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

7. 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. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 was amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 with effect from 3 April 2018. This changed the law on homelessness and introduced new duties on councils.
8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))

9. A person is considered 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. 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, 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)
11. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called as the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1966, section 195)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B).
13. 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)
14. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation. However. the applicant does not have a right to ask for a review of the suitability of accommodation secured under an interim duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the Council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.31 – 17.35)
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is known as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
17. Some applicants will cease contact with the authority rather than explicitly withdraw their application. It is recommended that local authorities have procedures in place to attempt to maintain or regain contact with applicants who have ceased contact prior to deciding to end the prevention or relief duty. These efforts should consider the circumstances and needs of the applicant and use varied communication. It is reasonable to consider an application closed where the applicant has not responded to any form of contact for 56 days or longer. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 14.33 and 18.14)
18. It is recommended that where the housing authority considers that the applicant has withdrawn their application because they have failed to maintain contact, the duty is ended for this reason rather than because 56 days has passed. This will help to ensure accurate data relating to the reasons why duties end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 14.34)

The Council’s housing allocations policy

19. This policy sets out the Council’s housing needs bands. Band A is the highest housing needs band, and Band D the lowest. Within each of these bands, there are several criteria which each applicant will be assessed against.
20. Band B:
21. Applicants that lack two bedrooms in their current home unless evidence exists that shows the overcrowding is deliberate.
22. Where an applicant is threatened with homelessness within a period of more than 28 days, the Council will work with the applicant to try and prevent their homelessness. Those applicants, who following an interview with a Housing Options officer have been assessed as being eligible, having a priority need and who would be unintentionally homeless in the event of a homelessness application, will, subject to section 5.1.6, be placed in band B whilst the prevention measures are being pursued.
23. Where homelessness prevention has not been possible and an applicant remains threatened with homelessness within the next 28 days, they may choose to make a homeless application which will be assessed by the Council, under part VII (7) of the Housing Act 1996 as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002.
24. Band C:
25. Applicants who have been accepted as homeless by Southend under s193(2) Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

26. In February 2017, Ms X approached the Council for assistance with finding alternative accommodation. At the time, Ms X was a joint tenant in private rented accommodation with her son and mother. The owner of the property had been declared bankrupt and the Receiver’s intentions for the property were unclear.
27. The Council completed enquiries and accepted Ms X on the housing register in June 2017. Ms X was allocated Band C because Ms X was overcrowded by one bedroom. The Council said it reviewed the allocated banding in October 2017, but the banding remained unchanged.
28. In November 2017, Ms X moved into the property of her son’s father. They were not in a relationship. Ms X said she did this as she thought it would be best for her son. The joint tenancy she held with her mother was still in place.
29. In March 2018, Ms X moved out of the property she shared with her son’s father due to abuse. The Council did not consider changing Ms X’s housing application band because Ms X returned to live with her mother and was still overcrowded by one room.
30. In April 2018, Ms X received a Section 21 notice from the Receivers. This notice required them to leave the property by July 2018. Ms X notified the Council of this.
31. In May 2018, the Council completed a personal housing plan (PHP). In this plan, the Council outlined the things it would do to help prevent Ms X’s homelessness. This included contacting Ms X’s landlord or agent to discuss the issue and referring Ms X to the benefits team to see if they can assist with a discretionary housing payment if there are rent arrears. The plan also noted Ms X could consider looking for accommodation outside the borough. The PHP did highlight the Council’s prevention and relief duties.
32. The PHP also listed actions for Ms X to complete, which included looking for properties within the private rented sector. The Council told Ms X she had access to the Council’s rent and deposit scheme to assist with securing a property in the private sector.
33. The Council offered Ms X hotel accommodation as interim accommodation, but Ms X declined this.
34. In July 2018, the Council told Ms X it has accepted she was threatened with homelessness and eligible for help. The Council explained it owed her the prevention duty. The Council explained there was a delay in making this decision because there was a lack of clarity as to Ms X’s status as a tenant at the property she shared with her mother and as to the status of her relationship with the father of her son. The Council said these issues were resolved in July 2018.
35. Ms X remained on the housing register with band C priority. The Council said this was in line with its policy because it had, at this point, accepted a duty to Ms X under the Housing Act 1996.
36. Between June and July 2018, Ms X kept the Council updated on her search for a private rental property. The Council advised Ms X to look for a two-bedroom property to be suitably housed. While Ms X found suitable properties, she was unable to secure them as she did not have a guarantor. There was evidence the Council responded to some of Ms X’s emails.
37. Ms X moved back with her son’s father and did not contact the Council from the end of July 2018 until January 2019. Ms X said she felt she had no choice but to move in with her son’s father. There is no evidence the Council tried to contact Ms X during this period. The Council said it considered Ms X’s application closed but did not write to Ms X to confirm this.
38. In January 2019, Ms X told the Council she had moved out of her son’s father’s property because of domestic abuse. Ms X told the Council she was alternating staying with her mother and with a friend.
39. Ms X remained on the Council’s housing register with band C priority. The Council said this was in accordance with its policy because Ms X was homeless/ threatened with homelessness. At this point, the Council had not decided whether it owed Ms X the main housing duty.
40. Ms X continued to look for a private rented property in February and March 2019 without success. Near the end of March 2019, Ms X agreed to the Council’s offer of hostel accommodation. The hostel Ms X lived in was run by the Council.
41. There is no evidence the Council considered whether the hostel accommodation it offered to Ms X was suitable for her, or her son’s, needs and circumstances. The Council said the accommodation provided to Ms X was specifically provided as temporary accommodation, which is suitable for short term occupation. The Council said by its nature it was suitable for the intended purpose and there was no need to conduct a review of this.
42. In April 2019, Ms X raised concerns about the cost of her rent at the hostel. Ms X said she had been told she only needed to pay £10 a week. Ms X said the Council charged more than this and if she had known how much the rent would be, she would not have moved into the hostel. Ms X did not pay more than £10 a week and, as a result, fell into arrears.
43. Ms X said she contacted the Council and complained about the suitability of the hostel in April and May 2019.
44. At the end of May 2019, the Council wrote to Ms X to advise her it had accepted it owed her the main housing duty. In the letter, the Council told Ms X it had a duty to make sure she had suitable temporary accommodation. It also noted that as the Council had provided interim accommodation, it would use the same accommodation to meet its main housing duty. The Council said it would have checked it remained suitable for Ms X’s needs. The letter also provided Ms X with her right to seek a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
45. In June 2019, Ms X left the hostel accommodation. This was around three months after she first moved in. Ms X said she left because it was not a suitable environment for her son. In July 2019, the Council ended its main housing duty to Ms X because she had made herself intentionally homeless.
46. Ms X remained on the Council’s housing register in Band C. Ms X was successful with a bid on a council property in September 2019.

Complaint history

47. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in January 2019. We considered her complaint premature as it had not yet completed the Council’s complaints procedure. We sent the complaint back to the Council in February 2019.
48. In April 2019, Ms X returned to the Ombudsman as she had not received a complaint response from the Council. The Council explained there had been a mistake, but it would send Ms X a stage two response. The Council accepted it was at fault for not providing its complaint response within a suitable timescale. However, the Council did not acknowledge this within its stage two response
49. In May 2019, Ms X asked the Council to investigate her complaint at stage three. The Council completed a stage three complaint report. The Council said it had assessed Ms X’s banding correctly and in line with its policy.
50. The Council accepted Ms X was likely to have been incorrectly informed about the amount she would have to pay towards her rent at the hostel. The Council recommended Ms X’s arrears were cleared. The Council apologised for this but did not tell Ms X whether it had cleared her rent arrears. The Council also apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint at stage two.

Analysis

Council’s handling of Ms X’s homelessness application

51. Between February 2017 and March 2018, the Council did not consider Ms X to be threatened with homelessness or homeless. This was because she held a tenancy with her mother at a private rental property which meant Ms X was entitled to occupy the property.
52. In April 2018, Ms X told the Council she had received a Section 21 notice to leave the property. At this point, the Council accepted Ms X was threatened with homelessness and completed a personal housing plan. This action was appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the Council’s duty to prevent her homelessness.
53. Further, the evidence suggests the Council offered Ms X hostel accommodation as interim accommodation. Again, this action was in line with the Council’s statutory duties.
54. Ms X moved back in with her son’s father because she was unsuccessful in securing accommodation within the private rented sector. The evidence suggests she did not tell the Council and did not contact with the Council for around five months. There is no evidence to suggest the Council tried to contact Ms X during this time. The evidence also suggests the Council did not decide whether it its prevention duty had ended, or whether it owed Ms X the main housing duty.
55. The guidance is clear that the Council should have had a procedure in place to maintain or regain contact with applicants who have ceased contact prior to a decision to end the prevention or relief duty. The Council did not do this, and this is fault.
56. Further, it is not clear what the status of Ms X’s application was between July 2018 and January 2019. The Council said it considered Ms X’s application closed but there is no evidence the Council wrote to Ms X to confirm it had closed her application and the reason why. This is fault.
57. I find the faults caused Ms X an injustice because there is uncertainty as to what could have happened had the Council maintained contact with Ms X and decided on her application during this period.

Suitability of hostel accommodation

58. Ms X accepted the offer of hostel accommodation in March 2019. The hostel was run by the Council and therefore does not meet the statutory definition of a B&B.
59. However, the Council has a statutory duty to ensure all accommodation, including interim accommodation, is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. There is no evidence the Council considered Ms X’s needs and the needs of her son before it accommodated her within the hostel.
60. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said the hostel accommodation was suitable because it was specifically provided as temporary accommodation and therefore suitable for short term occupation. The Council therefore said there was no need to conduct a review of this. This further suggests the Council did not consider Ms X and her son’s specific needs before it offered the hostel accommodation. At this stage, this is fault.
61. I find the fault identified caused Ms X an injustice. This is because there is uncertainty as to whether the accommodation was suitable for Ms X and her son.

Housing needs banding

62. Ms X was accepted onto the Council’s housing register in June 2017. The Council awarded her band C because she was overcrowded by one room. This was in accordance with the Council’s policy as there is no evidence Ms X met the criteria for either band A or B at this stage.
63. Ms X approached the Council in May 2018 as she was threatened with homelessness after receiving a section 21 notice. At this point, Ms X was threatened with homelessness within a period of more than 28 days.
64. The Council’s housing allocation policy states that band B is applicable where an applicant is threatened with homelessness within a period of more than 28 days, and where the Council is satisfied the application would be eligible, have a priority need, and who would be unintentionally homeless in the event of a homelessness application. Band B will apply while the Council pursues prevention measures.
65. The policy then says that if homelessness prevention has not been possible and the application remains threatened with homelessness within the next 28 days, then the application may choose to make a homeless application. If the Council accepts the homeless application, band C then applies.
66. The Council’s policy was written before the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. Before this legislation, the Council could only decide if an applicant was threatened with homelessness if it was within 28 days. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 extended this to 56 days.
67. Therefore, it is clear the Council’s policy was meant to encourage those at risk of homelessness to contact the Council at an early stage so that homelessness could be prevented. Band B therefore would apply within the period where the applicant could not make a homeless application.
68. Ms X could, and did make, a homeless application as she was threatened with homelessness within 56 days. Therefore, there is no fault with the Council for keeping Ms X in band C because the policy would not have been applicable as the Council had decided she was eligible and threatened with homelessness.
69. The Council has acknowledged this aspect of their housing allocations policy is unclear following the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 1996. It said the policy is being revised and this aspect will be improved. This action is appropriate in the circumstances.

Being misinformed about rent at hostel accommodation

70. The Council has acknowledged Ms X was likely to have been incorrectly informed about the hostel rent. The Council has made appropriate recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.
71. However, it is not clear whether the Council has cleared Ms X’s rent arrears from the hostel. Further, the Council did not tell Ms X it had made this recommendation within its stage three complaint response. While I do not consider this to be fault, it would be helpful if the Council could clarify whether it has cleared Ms X’s rent arrears.

Council’s communication

72. The evidence shows the Council did communicate with Ms X, both by email and face to face. Although it is clear the Council did not respond to every email Ms X sent, this does not amount to fault.

Agreed action

73. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following:

• Apologise and pay Ms X £300 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the faults identified.

Back to top

Final decision

74. I find fault with the Council’s handling of Ms X’s homeless application. I also find fault with the Council for failing to consider whether the interim accommodation it offered to Ms X was suitable for her needs. The Council has accepted my recommendation. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman