Summary: Mr B complains that there was fault and delay in the way the Council responded to his request for housing assistance. The Ombudsman considers that the Council was at fault because it should have taken a homelessness application and provided emergency accommodation sooner. Had it done so, Mr B would not have incurred large rent arrears. The Council has agreed the Ombudsman’s recommendation that it apologise to Mr B, pay him £3,588.67 to cover the shortfall in rent, court fees and interest and a further £500 in recognition of the distress caused to him.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that Barnet Homes, on behalf of the Council:
• delayed in issuing a decision on his homeless application despite having all the information needed;
• delayed in issuing a Personal Housing Plan;
• failed to provide him with temporary housing in May 2018 despite having reason to believe he was homeless and in priority need;
• did not provide suitable long-term housing for him when discharging its homelessness duty towards him;
• failed to assist him in court proceedings despite advising it would do so and failed to advise he had a possible defence;
• failed to deal with his complaint in line with its complaints procedure;
• treated him differently because it wrongly regarded him as an EU national rather than a UK national;
• did not give him the correct Housing Benefit; and
• delayed in giving him a copy of his file.
2. Mr B says the Council’s fault caused him a financial loss of arrears of £2,800 and legal costs of £900. He says appropriate advice would have avoided him having a money judgment made against him by the court.
3. He would like the Council to reimburse his losses and costs and provide him with long-term social housing.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I am investigating the complaints in the first seven bullet points of paragraph 1 above. For the reasons set out below in paragraphs 87 to 91, I am not investigating the complaints in the last two bullet points of paragraph 1.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 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. 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), 26A(1) and 34(3), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)
9. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
10. If we are satisfied with a body’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

11. I have considered Mr B’s written complaint and supporting correspondence and discussed his complaint with him. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and supporting papers. I have had regard to relevant legislation and guidance. I have also sent Mr B and the Council a draft decision and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Threatened with homelessness

12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• 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)])

Homelessness applications

13. If a council has “reason to believe” someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Homelessness prevention

14. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However, councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for “gatekeeping” practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)

The prevention duty

15. 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. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

16. 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)

The relief duty

17. 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)

The main homelessness duty

18. 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. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193, and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

How does the main housing duty end?

19. The main housing duty under section 193 only ends when the applicant either:
• is no longer eligible for assistance; or
• accepts an offer of a tenancy made under Part 6 (an offer under the allocations scheme); or
• accepts an offer of an assured tenancy from a private landlord; or
• refuses a final offer of suitable Part 6 accommodation (having been informed of the possible consequences of refusal and the right to a review about suitability); or
• refuses an offer of suitable Part 7 temporary accommodation (having been informed of the possible consequences of refusal and review rights); or
• becomes intentionally homeless from the accommodation secured by the authority; or
• voluntarily ceases to occupy the section 193 accommodation secured by the authority; or
• accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer.

What is a private rented sector offer?

20. An authority may end the main housing duty by offering the applicant a suitable assured shorthold tenancy (AST) with a private landlord.
21. Certain conditions and protections apply:
• The AST must be a fixed term tenancy for at least 12 months;
• It must be suitable for needs of the applicants and household members;
• The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (Order) England 2012 prescribes matters the authority must take into account when it decides if the property is suitable. These include location, state of repair, safety of utilities, and landlord conduct;
• The authority must inform the applicant, in writing, of the possible consequences of refusing or accepting the offer and the right to request a review of its suitability.

Decision letters

22. 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)

Review and appeal rights

23. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. These include:
• their eligibility for assistance, and what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage, and giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage, and giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
24. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

25. Mr B is a self-employed tradesman. In April 2013, he took out a 12-month lease on a four-bedroom flat with three co-tenants. The rent was £1,200 per calendar month. The tenants paid one month’s rent in advance and one month’s rent as a secured deposit. Mr B and his fellow tenants renewed their tenancy annually, with the most recent 12-month lease from 1 April 2017 by which time the rent was £1,400 per month.
26. On 17 February 2018, Mr B’s co-tenants notified the landlord that they would not be renewing the lease and would move out on 2 April. They asked the landlord to refund the deposit to Mr B. However, under the terms of the lease, two months’ notice of ending the tenancy was required. On 2 March, all four co-tenants, including Mr B, sent a further notice to the landlord that they would vacate the premises on 2 May.
27. On 26 April, the landlord’s agents wrote to the co-tenants. They accepted the Notice to Vacate from Mr B’s co-tenants. However, as Mr B had said he would not be vacating the property, they issued a Notice to Quit to all four co-tenants under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 requiring them to leave by 2 July. They stated that, having given proper notice, those of Mr B’s co-tenants who quit the property would not be liable for rent or costs from 2 May.
28. Mr B contacted Barnet Homes on 1 May to ask for help with his housing situation - Barnet Homes carries out the Council’s housing functions on its behalf (I refer to Barnet Homes hereafter as the Council). An appointment was arranged with a tenancy sustainment officer on 9 May at which Mr B explained his circumstances and provided supporting documentation.
29. The officer recorded that Mr B was a self-employed painter who had earned around £100 a week until a month earlier. However, he was now unemployed and in receipt of Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). He had savings of around £1,000. He suffered with depression, was diabetic and took insulin by injection, and provided supporting evidence of his medical conditions. He said he had felt pressured by the landlord’s agents into signing the Notice to Quit but had not left the flat as he had nowhere else to go. His co-tenants had left at the end of March.
30. The Council had awarded Mr B Housing Benefit (HB) from 19 to 31 March at £80.77 (based on rent of £350 a month - being a quarter of the total £1,400 rent). From 1 April, it had awarded him £197.12 HB per week (this being the maximum payable under the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) and based on him being liable for the full £1,400 rent). His brother had lent him the money to pay the balance of the rent for April. He said he had paid the £770 HB towards the rent for May (leaving a shortfall of £630) but could not afford more.
31. The tenancy sustainment officer advised Mr B that he might have a defence against the Notice to Quit if he had not received the correct documentation from the landlord or his full deposit had been protected. That said, she said it was unreasonable for him to remain in the flat because he could not afford the £1,400 rent. She suggested that he apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) to bridge the gap between his HB and rent to give him time to find affordable accommodation – though it was unlikely he would find this in the more expensive part of the borough.
32. She also advised him that, once the Medical Team had assessed his application, the Council could help him find private rented accommodation if he were found to be in priority need. She also advised him to look for housing where the rent was no more than £50 per week higher than the LHA.
33. Mr B applied for DHP but was refused.
34. The officer passed Mr B’s medical information on to the medical officer to assess whether he was in priority need. On 4 June, Mr B also provided a letter from his consultant dated 29 November 2017 which stated:

“This gentleman has uncontrolled diabetes and is requiring extensive medication and dietary changes to help with his control and prevent the complications of diabetes. His current housing situation appears to be detrimental to his diabetes control and his health. Mr [B] requires being in a safe environment, where he can be able to concentrate on his medical condition and be able to prepare meals in line with his treatment. Please could you kindly consider this for giving him access to a better housing arrangement.”

35. On 11 June, the medical officer considered the evidence provided (though not the consultant’s letter) and decided that Mr B was not in priority need. The Council did not tell Mr B at the time.
36. On 13 June, Mr B provided a copy of a prescription showing he was receiving insulin injections for his diabetes. A housing charity assisting Mr B emailed the Council later in June and again in August but received no response.
37. On 7 September, Mr B called the tenancy sustainment officer and explained that the Council had turned down his DHP application. He again requested help because, despite looking, he had been unable to find alternative accommodation while in receipt of benefits.
38. The officer apologised for not having dealt with his case since advising him to make a DHP application on 9 May. She said the Medical Team had decided he was not in priority need so, even if he made a homelessness application, it was highly unlikely the Council would provide assistance with housing. However, given the delay contacting him, she said she would help with finding accommodation using the Council’s Incentive Scheme to help with his first month’s rent / deposit.
39. Mr B explained that he had recently worked for two weeks but had not been paid and so had made a fresh claim for Universal Credit (UC). He also said he had tried to find housing but all the letting agents had turned him down because they would not accept applicants receiving HB or UC. He agreed to view a studio flat around 10 miles away (though this was then found to be unavailable as the landlord did not want a tenant who was in receipt of UC).
40. Mr B asked why he could not get accommodation through the Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme but was advised that he would not be eligible., Mr B also said he wanted a one-bedroom property but was told that this was unaffordable in respect of the LHA.
41. The officer contacted the lettings agent who wanted to evict Mr B due to arrears of £2,800. The agent said the deposit was protected and appropriate notices had been served. The officer also contacted the HB team about reinstating his benefits as he had not been working.
42. On 18 September, the Council nominated Mr B for a studio flat around 4 miles away. However, Mr B turned this down as being too small for him to store his work tools. He then brought in documentation regarding the possession proceedings and said he had not seen the “How to Rent” leaflet before.
43. The officer looked at the medical evidence again and noted on Mr B’s case file:

“given that he’s diabetic and injects insulin, is depressed and takes [an antidepressant] daily and is doubly incontinent, can’t see how the Med Team did not find him to be in [Priority Need] or why they made no med recs. Spoke to [medical officer] about this – she may have confused this case for another – she asked me to forward her a new med referral and she will assess it very quickly.”

44. On 21 September, the Council offered Mr B a viewing of a large studio/one-bedroom flat 11 miles away. However, he did not attend as the landlord/agent told him there would be no room to store his work tools.
45. The medical officer reviewed additional medical evidence from Mr B. This comprised the consultant’s letter which Mr B had already sent the Council on 4 June, and a new prescription. She noted that the consultant had stated that Mr B’s diabetes required extensive medication and dietary changes to help with his control and prevent the complications of diabetes. The prescription showed that Mr B was having insulin injections and that his anti-depressant medication had been increased. She concluded that, on the current information, Mr B was in priority need because he would be significantly more vulnerable than the ordinary person when homeless.
46. On 9 October, the Council offered Mr B an affordable one-bedroom flat 24 miles away. However, he said he would not view this as he was starting an IT course locally and it was too far to travel.
47. On 22 October, Mr B emailed the officer to remind her that he had given the Council a copy of the claim for possession in August and that he was due in court on 5 November. He said she had told him the last time they spoke that he would be put in emergency accommodation but felt that she was trying to avoid moving him from his present unaffordable property.
48. On 24 October, the officer wrote to Mr B, explaining that the Council was ending the prevention duty, accepting the relief duty, and setting out a personal housing plan (PHP). She explained that the Council had accepted that he was homeless and in priority need and would now provide emergency accommodation while taking steps to secure longer-term accommodation for him. She advised that if he were to refuse any private-rented accommodation that was deemed suitable for him and then be evicted, he might be found to be intentionally homeless, in which case the Council would ends its homelessness duty towards him.
49. The next day, the Council provided emergency accommodation which Mr B accepted on the advice of a solicitor. The officer advised him to inform the lettings agent that he had surrendered the property. She also advised him that there was little point in him defending the possession proceedings as he had vacated the property but that the judge might make a money judgement against him for the rent arrears and that he may wish to speak with a solicitor.
50. On 26 October, the Council offered Mr B a one-bedroom flat eight miles away. Mr B did not attend. However, the Council did not explain that that refusal might end the Council’s homelessness duty towards him.
51. On 28 November, the Council arranged an offer of a 12-month assured shorthold tenancy of a private rented studio flat around four miles away. Mr B had found several alternative properties and asked the Council to contact the respective agents, but none of the properties proved to be available for tenants in receipt of UC. Mr B then accepted the studio flat.
52. He then complained about the way the Council had handled matters.
53. The Council responded to him through the first two stages of its complaints procedures. At the second stage it concluded that:
• It had delayed unnecessarily in processing his application and, had he been referred to the Single Homeless Team, he might have secured a property earlier. However, as he refused properties that the Council deemed suitable, this might not have resulted in him being rehoused earlier.
• It had failed either to notify him of the prevention duty at the outset or to prepare a PHP at the prevention stage. This undue delay might have caused him some loss financially, due to the shortfall in rent, for which the Council offered him £200 compensation.
• It should have provided temporary accommodation when the medical information showed him to be in priority need on 21 September 2018.
• It accepted that the delay in processing his application and the lack of referral may have caused him to incur substantial rent arrears. However, as he was a joint tenant with three others, he was only liable for a quarter of the rent, even after they had vacated, as long as he remained at the property.
• It considered that it had advised him appropriately on the eviction procedure and had provided advice on the defence against the eviction.
54. Mr B then sought to make a subject access request for the information held on file about him. The Council asked for proof of identity which he supplied by email, but this was then caught by the Council’s “spam” filter. Mr B then complained about the lack of response and sought to escalate his complaint to the third stage of the Council’s complaints procedures. However, due to an oversight the Council did not respond for two months. It then apologised to him, responded to the subject access request but declined to escalate his complaint further.

My assessment

Homelessness application

55. The Council has accepted that it was at fault in failing to notify Mr B at the outset of the prevention duty, or to prepare a PHP. It has also accepted that it should have provided emergency accommodation when Mr B was found to be in priority need.
56. It says the errors in its handling of Mr B’s case were in part due to being in the early stages of implementation of the Homeless Reduction Act and some officers’ understanding of how to manage cases. It has explained that it is now more experienced in dealing with the requirements of the Act and would hope that there would not be a repeat of the same issues.
57. I have therefore considered what would likely have happened had the Council considered Mr B’s application properly.
58. The assessment of a homelessness application should go hand in hand with the assessment, PHP and prevention or relief of homelessness. The Council should also consider as part of the process whether there is a need to provide interim accommodation.
59. Had the Council issued a PHP at the outset, as it should have, then Mr B would have been notified of his right of review/appeal about the actions to be taken in respect of his housing situation.
60. Furthermore, I note that the tenancy sustainment officer had determined at the outset that it was unreasonable for Mr B to have to remain in the flat because it was unaffordable. Since the Council had identified that Mr B was homeless, it should at that point have taken a homelessness application and made enquiries.
61. I note that Mr B met the tenancy sustainment officer and provided medical evidence on 9 May, and a copy of the consultant letter on 4 June. The medical officer then considered whether he was in priority need on 11 June.
62. There are no statutory time limits for making decisions in homelessness cases, except for reviews of decisions. But we would expect authorities to conduct assessments, take necessary actions and make decisions in a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the duty in question and the applicant’s circumstances. Although Mr B was in accommodation that was unaffordable and had provided evidence of his medical situation, he was not at imminent risk of being evicted, so I do not consider the time taken to consider the medical evidence to be unreasonable.
63. The Code says that councils should not reach a decision on a homelessness application during the relief stage if they determine that an applicant is in priority need and owed the full duty, in case this distracts them from relieving homelessness. But there is nothing to prevent them issuing a homelessness decision that an applicant is not in priority need, and not owed a full duty, during the relief stage. As Mr B was not informed of the medical officer’s decision until several months later, he was not given the chance to either review or appeal a decision.
64. I note that the medical officer initially concluded that Mr B was not in priority need. But there was fault in the way that decision was reached. The tenancy sustainment officer knew that Mr B was treating his diabetes with injections, but this information was not passed on to the medical officer. The Council also had a copy of the consultant’s letter raising concerns over his housing situation, but this was not passed on to the medical officer. Both of these were significant factors in the medical officer’s decision in September 2018 that Mr B was in priority need.
65. On balance, I consider that, if the medical officer been given all the information available to the Council when considering his situation on 11 June 2018, Mr B would then have been found to be in priority need, and the Council would have had a duty to provide emergency accommodation immediately and then to provide suitable accommodation in accordance with the main homelessness duty.

Remedy for delay

66. I have therefore considered what remedy might be appropriate for the delay in providing accommodation for Mr B.
67. The Council has accepted that the delay in processing his application and other failings may have caused Mr B to incur substantial rent arrears. However, in mitigation, it has suggested that the other tenants remained jointly and severally liable for the rent (and subsequent court fees) until such time as Mr B vacated the property. It also says that Mr B turned down properties that the Council determined suitable. It therefore offered Mr B £200 compensation.
68. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide who was liable for the rent once Mr B’s co-tenants had moved out. However, I note that:
• the landlord had accepted that co-tenants had properly served notice of vacation of the property and accepted that they had no further liability;
• the Council itself had awarded HB on the basis that Mr B was solely liable for the rent; and
• the court had issued a money judgment solely against Mr B.
69. As to the suggestion that Mr B had turned down accommodation, I note that it was three months before the Council made any accommodation offers. Moreover, it was not until the offer of emergency accommodation that the Council advised Mr B that refusing a reasonable offer would discharge its duty towards him.
70. I consider that the Council should have offered Mr B emergency accommodation when the medical officer considered his medical evidence on 11 June and should then have advised Mr B of the consequences of not accepting such an offer. Had it done so, I consider that it is probable that he would have moved into emergency accommodation and would then not have incurred rent arrears after that point. I also consider it probable that he would not have incurred the subsequent court costs because there would then have been no need for possession proceedings and the rent arrears incurred at that stage would have been covered by the one month’s rent paid in advance and/or the one month’s rent deposit.
71. I consider that the Council should therefore reimburse Mr B the monthly shortfall in rent from 11 June 2018 to 25 October 2018 plus interest, together with the cost of court proceedings. The Council should also pay Mr B £500 for the significant distress he experienced over this six-month period as a vulnerable individual with mental and physical health problems who was incurring substantial rent arrears while unable to find alternative accommodation.
72. I am conscious that these events occurred soon after the introduction of The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (which became effective from 3 April 2018). However, the Council should also review its procedures as set out in the recommendations below.

Accommodation offer

73. Mr B considers that the Council should have provided him with long-term social housing. He says that private rented accommodation does not provide him with the long-term security that he needs.
74. I appreciate that Mr B would prefer the security of long-term social housing, but there is a great shortage of social housing and the law allows Local Housing Authorities to discharge the main homelessness duty with an offer of suitable private rented accommodation. That is not fault.

Advice on court proceedings

75. Mr B considers that the Council failed to assist him in court proceedings despite advising it would do so and failed to advise him that he had a possible defence against eviction.
76. I do not consider that there was fault in the way the Council advised Mr B in respect of the possession proceedings. The Council provided advice on possible defences in order to help him sustain his tenancy, which is part of its role in seeking to prevent homelessness.
77. As to the Council’s later advice that he may not wish to contest the possession proceedings, this came after the Council had accepted a main housing duty towards him. I see no grounds to criticise the Council for that advice, given that he now had alternative accommodation available. He was also advised to seek his own legal advice in respect of a possible money judgment. I see no fault here.

Complaint handling

78. Mr B has complained that the Council failed to deal with his complaint in line with its complaints procedure.
79. I note that there was delay and that by the time the Council responded to Mr B it had stopped providing a third stage to its complaints procedures and instead suggested he refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
80. It is arguable that the Council could have undertaken a further investigation, as this was the policy in place at the time of the complaint. But the Council can decline to do so if it considers that there is no useful purpose in it doing so. As Mr B was in any event able to complain to the Ombudsman, I do not see that this caused him any injustice. As regards the delay, I consider the apology already provided to be sufficient remedy.

Nationality

81. Mr B is a UK national and was previously an EU national. He considers that the Council treated him differently and delayed in dealing with his case because it wrongly regarded him as an EU national rather than a UK national, although he had provided a copy of his UK passport.
82. It is the case that the tenancy sustainment officer incorrectly referred to Mr B as an EU national in the case notes (and in a subsequent email of 18 September 2018). However, whether Mr B was a UK or EU national would not affect his eligibility for assistance.
83. It is clear that there was fault and delay in the handling of Mr B’s case. However, I conclude that this was due to the Council failing to deal with Mr B’s application properly rather than him incorrectly being regarded as an EU citizen.

Agreed action

84. The Council has agreed the Ombudsman’s recommendation that, within one month, it pay Mr B:
• £500 in recognition of the significant distress caused to him by the failure to process his application properly and to provide appropriate assistance with his housing.
• £3,588.67 in respect of the shortfall in rent from 11 June 2018 to 25 October 2018, court fees, and interest based on the increase in the Retail Price Index.

(Rent due from 11 June to 25 October (based on periods running from 3rd to 2nd of month = £6,265.38)

(HB paid for the period 19 weeks 3 days x £197.12 = £3,773.44)

(£6,265.38 rent – £3,773.44 HB = £2,491.94 rent shortfall)

(£2,491.94 rent shortfall + £900 court fees = £3,391.94)

(Increase in RPI from November 2018 to April 2021: 284.6 to 301.1 = 5.8%)

(Rent shortfall and court fees of £3,391.94 + interest of 5.8% = £3,588.67)

85. I am aware that these events took place shortly after the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act and that officers will now be more familiar with its implications. However, the Council should also, within three months, remind officers: that the assessment of a homelessness application should go hand in hand with the assessment, PHP and prevention or relief of homelessness; of the need to make timely decisions in respect of the prevention duty and issuing of PHPs; to take homelessness applications where appropriate; to consider whether there is a duty to provide interim accommodation; to put in place measures to ensure that medical evidence is properly recorded and passed on; and to review its practices and procedures in light of the Ombudsman’s findings.

Back to top

Final decision

86. I have closed my investigation on the basis that the agreed steps above are a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mr B.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate.

Housing Benefit

87. Mr B considers that did not give him the correct Housing Benefit. He considers that he should have been entitled to HB to cover the full rent for 13 weeks under the 13-week protection rule, whereby an applicant previously able to afford the full rent may be entitled to HB.
88. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether or not Mr B was entitled to a higher HB payment, because this is a matter which he could have appealed.
89. However, as clarification, the Council has explained that the 13-week protection rule would not have applied because Mr B had previously received housing benefit (when first unemployed) and had not been responsible for paying the full rent for the house prior to the change in his circumstances.

Request for copy of his file.

90. Mr B has complained that the Council delayed in responding to his subject access request.
91. I have not considered this matter further because complaints about subject access requests and any associated delays are normally matters which can be pursued with the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman