Summary: The Council is at fault as it offered an unsuitable private sector property to Mr X. But the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice to Mr X. The Council has also taken appropriate action to assist Mr X in securing accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council inappropriately placed him in private rented accommodation in London without support, and this led to him suffering a mental health crisis and financial loss. Mr X also complains that he has been placed in a motel for too long and the Council is not doing enough to help him find suitable housing.

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 have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council’s private sector lettings (PSL) scheme provides financial assistance for people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness to secure private rented accommodation. The Council will pay a grant to cover the deposit and rent in advance to a landlord who participates in the scheme. The applicant will then repay the Council at a later date.
6. In July 2018 the Council arranged for Mr X to view a property in London as part of the PSL scheme. The property did not have central heating and had an energy performance certificate graded F. Mr X viewed and accepted the property. Mr X has mental health problems and his care was transferred to a London hospital trust.
7. Some months later Mr X contacted officer A, liaison officer, to complain about the condition of the property including the lack of heating. Officer A contacted the landlord and tried to arrange for a contactor to carry out repairs. Mr X complained to the Council that officer A had not taken sufficient action to deal with his concerns about the condition of the property. The Council advised Mr X that it was not officer A’s role to manage the property on behalf of the landlord. Mr Y, Mr X’s mental health practitioner also raised concerns about the property.
8. The Council facilitated Mr X’s move from the property by taking a homelessness application, offering interim accommodation to him and accepting a duty to relieve his homelessness. Mr Y confirmed to the Council that the interim accommodation would be suitable for Mr X. The Council arranged with Mr X’s landlord to terminate his tenancy in London and it wrote off the rent in advance payment of £600 which Mr X was due to repay the Council. The Council also paid for a taxi to move Mr X and his belongings to the interim accommodation.
9. The Council also referred Mr X to its HERO advice service who assisted Mr X with applying for the housing register and with sourcing medical information to enable Mr X to be placed in band A on the housing register. The Council activated Mr X’s housing register account without waiting for Mr X’s identity documents. The Council identified supported accommodation for Mr X but he did not accept this as he considered it to be unsuitable.
10. Mr X’s case was then handed over to officer B, housing officer to assist him as part of the Council’s housing and homelessness duties. Applicants on the housing register are required to bid on properties they are eligible for. Mr X had not placed any bids so the Council set up auto bidding so bids would be automatically placed for Mr X. The Council has said it activated auto bidding for Mr X as it is required to take reasonable steps to assist a person in securing accommodation.
11. However, the Council’s auto bidding system placed bids on accommodation for over 55 year olds which Mr X is not eligible for. This happened on nine occasions. The Council has said this happened as its system could not filter out accommodation by age. It has now arranged for such a filter to be applied.
12. The Council’s records show Mr X has bid on one property since end of January 2019. The Council has placed bids on two other properties Mr X is eligible for. At the time of the Council’s response to my enquires, the bids were awaiting shortlisting. The Council has said Mr X could have placed bids on at least 11 other properties since joining the housing register.
13. In response to my enquiries the Council has acknowledged it did not carry out some of its PSL processes before offering Mr X the property in London. This included a property inspection to ensure it was of a suitable standard and had an energy performance certificate of E or above. The Council has also acknowledged its case records for the period the property was let to Mr X are incomplete due to changes in its IT system. The Council has reviewed its PSL processes and carried out staff training to ensure the errors do not recur.

My assessment

London property

14. The Council has acknowledged it should not have offered the London property to Mr X as it had not carried out a property inspection and the property’s energy performance certificate was not E and above. As a result Mr X was unsuitably houses between November 2018 and January 2019 due to insufficient heating. It is also possible Mr X may have been offered more suitable PSL accommodation. So the question for me is whether the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy this injustice. In coming to a decision, I have to take account of the fact Mr X accepted the property in the full knowledge it did not have central heating and its location. Mr X also had support from a London NHS Trust while he lived at the property.
15. On balance, I consider the Council has taken appropriate and sufficient action to put matters right. It moved Mr X from the property and negotiated the ending of his tenancy with the landlord. It has also written off Mr X’s rent in advance payment of £600 which he was due to repay. This payment is in excess of what we would generally recommend the Council to pay to acknowledge Mr X was unsuitably housed for three months and in view of the fact Mr X accepted the property. So, I do not have grounds to recommend an increased remedy.
16. I welcome the Council’s actions in to improve its service by reviewing its PSL procedures and training staff to ensure the same errors do not recur.

Housing bids

17. The Council has taken reasonable steps to help Mr X to secure accommodation. It arranged for Mr X to be placed on the housing register before he had provided his identity documents. The Council placed Mr X on autobidding to assist him in securing accommodation. It is unfortunate that autobidding placed bids on properties Mr X was not eligible for. But the Council has also placed bids on eligible properties. It was also open to Mr X to have placed bids on properties himself over the last six months. So overall the Council has taken adequate and appropriate action to help Mr X secure accommodation and the fact the Council placed bids on ineligible properties has not caused significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Council is at fault as it offered an unsuitable private sector property to Mr X. But the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice to Mr X. The Council has also taken appropriate action to assist Mr X in securing accommodation. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman