Summary: Mr Y complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application and allocated him emergency accommodation. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters.

The complaint

1. Ms X, an advice worker, complains for Mr Y about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application. In particular Ms X complains the Council;
• Unreasonably delayed reviewing its decision to regard Mr Y as intentionally homeless and as a result unnecessarily prolonged his stay in unsuitable accommodation for six months.
• Placed Mr Y and family in unsuitable accommodation causing Mr Y to lose his job because of its distance from his place of work causing the family hardship. It also resulted in Mr Y needing to change his child’s school because of travelling difficulties. Ms X says the child missed some schooling as Mr Y could not find a place due to schools being closed for the summer holiday.
• Changed its decision on Mr Y’s homeless application after a review and told her colleague Ms Z by email but did not send her a written letter of the decision. Ms X says the Council unacceptably took a month to formally tell Mr Y of its decision.
• Failed to respond to Ms Z’s request for a copy of Mr Y’s housing file.
• Failed to consider Ms Z’s complaints about these matters under its complaint’s procedure.
2. Ms X says Mr Y wants the Council to apologise and compensate him and his family for their losses and distress and help them move to a permanent property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Ms X’s complaints about the suitability of the emergency accommodation provided by the Council, the way the Council notified them of its decision and the Council’s response to Ms Z’s complaints. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating Ms X’s concerns about the time taken by the Council to review its decision to consider Mr Y intentionally homeless. I have also not investigated Ms X’s complaints the Council failed to provide a copy of Mr Y’s housing file to her colleague Ms Z.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Ms X and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance in place at the time of Mr Y’s application

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.
10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
12. Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. It should only be used as a last resort in an emergency and then for the shortest time possible. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.24 and from 3 April 2018 17.30)
13. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
15. 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)
16. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 188(3)

Background to complaint

17. Mr Y, his partner and two young children lived in private rented property. Mr Y made a housing application to the Council in November 2017. In January 2018 Mr Y told the Council his landlord issued a possession order for the property; he had rent arrears plus other debts and nowhere for the family to go to. The Council requested financial information and advised it was likely to consider him intentionally homeless. Mr Y provided a financial statement and the Council considered his application on 17 January 2018.
18. The Council wrote to Mr Y advising it was ‘minded to’ consider him intentionally homeless and so had no duty to provide him with assistance. The letter explained the reasons for the decision mainly due to rent arrears. The Council gave Mr Y seven days to reply with more information. Mr Y disagreed he had made himself intentionally homeless and said he withheld rent due to disrepair at the property. Mr Y referred to medical issues within the family and asked the Council to reconsider its decision.
19. The Council asked for information about the condition of the property and whether Mr Y involved the Council’s Private Sector Housing (PSH) services who dealt with disrepair. Mr Y had not done so and said he had unsuccessfully tried to resolve matters with his landlord.
20. The Council arranged an urgent PSH visit to the property in February 2018 to consider the findings when deciding Mr Y’s application. The PSH found a category one hazard (to be remedied immediately) due to the property being excessively cold. The officer found four category two hazards (to be remedied within two months) for mould and damp, fire, structural collapse and an issue with the bath. The officer considered the family could not stay at the property.
21. Mr Y and family were evicted on 22 February 2018 and the Council provided emergency accommodation for them.
22. The Council considered Mr Y’s application on 5 March 2018 and decided he was intentionally homeless. The Council sent a decision letter explaining its reasons. These were mainly due to Mr Y’s rent arrears and although disrepair at the property it considered it reasonable for Mr Y and family to continue to occupy it. The Council told Mr Y he could request a review of the decision and it would continue to house him at the emergency accommodation until 2 April 2018.
23. Ms Z, acting for Mr Y submitted a review request on 12 March 2018. Ms Z considered the Council’s decision unreasonable and said it wrongly assessed how Mr Y lost his accommodation.
24. Ms Z sent the review request to an enquiries email address where the response time was 14 days. So, a review officer did not receive it until 20 March 2018. The officer considered Ms Z’s letter and asked for more information about Mr Y withholding rent due to disrepair. The officer said Mr Y did not mention this until told of the Council’s ‘minded to’ decision. Ms Z responded on 21 March 2018.
25. On 22 March 2018 Council confirmed it was reviewing the decision. On 9 May 2018 the Council told Mr Y it was ending the emergency accommodation but would continue to accommodate him while reviewing the decision. The Council asked Mr Y for more information to continue with his housing application.
26. Ms Z chased the Council for a response to the review on 15 May 2018. Ms Z complained the Council missed the eight-week deadline for a review decision and Mr Y had appeal rights to the county court. On 17 May 2018 the Council told Mr Y it placed his housing application in band C, and he could bid for three bedroomed properties.
27. Ms Z complained to the Council on 26 July 2018 about the delay in carrying out the review and lack of contact. The Council emailed Ms Z on 14 August 2018 advising it reversed the decision and did not consider Mr Y intentionally homeless.
28. The Council moved Mr Y and family to different accommodation on 20 August 2018 and formally notified Mr Y of its decision on 25 September 2018. Ms Z considered the delay of a month after receiving the email was unacceptable. Ms Z complained to the Council in August 2018 about the way it dealt with Mr Y’s application and review request. Ms X says Ms Z received no response from the complaints service and asked for a comprehensive response by a senior officer in September 2018.
29. Mr X moved to a different property in July 2019. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2019 about the Council’s lack of response to their complaint. Following our contact, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint on 16 July 2019. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated the complaint to stage two. The Council responded on 2 August 2019.

My assessment

Intentionality decision

30. Ms X disputes the Council’s decision to regard Mr Y as intentionally homeless. The legislation provides a review mechanism of the Council’s decision which the documents show the Council followed. It issued a ‘minded to’ letter which Mr Y challenged and submitted more information. The Council decided to consider Mr Y as intentionally homeless due to rent arrears. The law allows Mr Y the right to request a review of the decision and the Council provided accommodation to him while considering the review request.
31. The documents show the Council considered the concerns raised by Ms Z during the review request. The Council reviewed its decision and decided to consider Mr Y no longer intentionally homeless and so it had a housing duty towards him. As the law provides a review procedure for its decision in March 2018 which Mr X followed and successfully challenged, I do not consider further investigation could achieve anything more for Mr Y over the decision to consider him as intentionally homeless at first.
32. It is unfortunate the review took some time to be considered , but as the final part of my statement explains it was open and appropriate for Mr Y to exercise his right to take the matter to court once the review time reached over eight weeks.

Suitability of emergency accommodation

33. The Council provided Mr Y and family with lodging accommodation from February to August 2018. Mr Y disagrees they were allocated lodging accommodation and alleges it was B&B although they did not receive breakfast. The Council confirms while the accommodation may be limited it was self-contained with an en suite. The Council says it had cooking facilities in a shared kitchen and so not B&B accommodation.
34. The Council confirms it commonly uses this type of accommodation when providing both interim and temporary accommodation. The Council says as Mr Y was originally considered to be intentionally homeless it limited the accommodation it had a duty to provide. After the review and accepting him as homeless the Council moved the family to more suitable accommodation.
35. The Council understands accommodation is not ideal when outside the central or main city area. But it is temporary accommodation and it can only provide what is available to it. As such it is not always possible to be in main town. The Council says it used the accommodation given to Mr Y due to the facilities offered as the landlord understands the needs of homeless families. The Council says the accommodation was 35 minutes by car to the main town and well connected by train.
36. Mr Y alleges he lost his job due to the distance he needed to travel from the accommodation to his place of work. The Council says Mr Y advised he was self-employed when applying for housing and the documents provided showed no meaningful or gainful employment. However, the Council says Mr Y provided three payslips for a company he worked at. Although the company was based nearer to Mr Y’s previous home the nature of the work required staff to travel all over the country and there was no fixed place of work. The Council considered that even if a fixed place of work, the distance between the work and accommodation would not make a significant difference to Mr X’s journey using his own vehicle.
37. There is a disagreement between the Council and Mr Y over his work and it is unfortunate Mr Y lost employment during his time at the emergency accommodation. However, the Council’s documents show that it did consider the issue of distance from where Mr Y used to live. It did not consider it would make a significant difference to Mr Y’s travelling to work.
38. I consider the Council’s decision to regard the accommodation suitable is therefore one it is entitled to make. There are no grounds for me to question the merits of the Council’s decision as the documents show it took the issue of distance into account. In addition, I have seen no evidence to show Mr Y raised distance as a concern when the Council allocated the accommodation. And so, therefore there is no evidence of administrative fault in the way the Council allocated the accommodation.
39. The Council says allocating a school place does not depend on schools being open as it was carried out by the Council’s Allocations team who remain open all year. Mr X says he contacted the Council’s Allocations team as soon as he moved but they had to wait for the school to reopen to liaise and confirm a place. So, his child missed two weeks schooling due to this.
40. The documents show the Council considered the accommodation was a reasonable distance from where Mr Y used to live with good access by car and train. It is unfortunate Mr Y had difficulties getting his child to school, but it was Mr Y’s decision to move his child to a different school when they were placed in emergency accommodation. There was no guarantee how long they would be in the emergency accommodation or where they may be moved to next.

Notification of review decision

41. The Council uses a modern computer system to manage housing applications where information is gathered and dealt with online. The Council explains it is digital by default when a person makes an application. So, it will make contact by email unless applicants state they want it by post.
42. The Council says in this case it electronically produced a letter showing Mr Y’s new status on the housing register and increased banding now accepted as homeless. The Council also issued a letter confirming the decision on his review request. The Council originally advised it hand delivered both letters to Mr Y in a library. Mr Y disputed this, and the Council responded it does not have a system in place to confirm a letter was handed to Mr Y. The Council says it is clear Mr Y was aware of the decision as he placed a bid for a property in the new banding shortly after receiving the letter.
43. The Council considers it reasonable to the deliver written notification to the applicant and send an email to their representative.
44. Mr Y considered it unacceptable to send them an email notification due to the limited Wi-Fi in their accommodation. The Council accepted Mr Y’s comments and agreed to consider this issue with temporary accommodation. The Council checked with the landlord of Mr Y’s accommodation and Wi-Fi is available in the public area. However, the landlord agreed to test and review the Wi-Fi throughout all accommodation provided as temporary accommodation.
45. The documents provided by the Council show it told Mr Y and Ms Z of its decision on his review request in August 2018. So, it is clear they were aware of the Council’s decision. The Council sent the formal notification out a few weeks later. While the delay in sending the formal decision is unfortunate, I do not consider it has caused a significant injustice to Mr Y to warrant me pursuing the matter further. This is because it is clear Mr Y was aware of the outcome, able to act on the information and submit a bid for properties in the new banding allocated by the Council. The Council also moved Mr Y from the emergency accommodation in August 2018 to temporary accommodation.
46. It is usual practice for Councils to email copies of letters and decision to representatives. So, while Ms Z may have wished for a written decision from the Council as well as email notification, I do not consider this is a significant issue for me to pursue further.
47. The Council responded to Mr Y’s comments about the standard of Wi-Fi at the accommodation and agreed to consider this issue for temporary accommodation. I do not consider I can achieve anything more for Mr Y on the matter.

The Council’s response to Ms Z’s complaint

48. The Council has not explained why it did not respond to Ms Z’s complaints in September 2018. However, it responded in full when the complaint was brought to its attention in July 2019. It is unfortunate the Council did not respond in September 2018. However, some issues raised were dealt with by the review decision. Mr Y’s situation has also changed as the Council moved him when accepting a housing duty and he is now in more permanent accommodation. In addition, Mr Y was being accommodated by the Council during the time of the review and issuing a changed decision. So, while I recognise the frustration caused, I do not consider the delay in responding caused such a significant injustice to Mr Y and Ms X to warrant me pursuing the matter further now.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I am completing my investigation. I have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr Y’s homelessness application and allocated him emergency accommodation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaints about the time taken by the Council to consider Mr Y’s review request of its decision to consider him intentionally homeless. This is because Mr Y had the right of appeal to the County Court if the appeal took longer than eight weeks. As paragraph six explains we will normally not investigate a complaint if someone has the right of appeal to a court unless we consider it is not reasonable to expect that person to go to court. In this case I consider it was reasonable to expect Mr Y to use that right. This is because Mr Y was being advised and supported by Ms Z who was aware of the appeal rights available to him. And the law allows the courts to decide whether the Council’s delay was reasonable or not.
51. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to provide a copy of Mr Y’s housing file to her colleague Ms Z. This is because Ms Z could pursue a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s office about the Council’s failure to respond to a request to provide information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman