Summary: The complaint concerns Mrs B’s homelessness and housing register applications. The Council was at fault for not telling Mrs B about the priority it had given her housing register application. This caused Mrs B some lost opportunity. The Council has agreed our recommendations that it should apologise and review what happened.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs B, complained the Council: unreasonably decided Mrs B is intentionally homeless; ignored Mrs B’s request at the start of her tenancy to pay her housing benefit direct to her landlord; failed to pay housing benefit for July and August 2018 without good reason; and delayed unreasonably in telling Mrs B that it had placed her in Band D on the housing register and that this was because of her rent arrears.
2. Mrs B states as a result her family is having to live with relatives and they have experienced stress and uncertainty.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I investigated the points about housing benefit and Mrs B’s priority on the housing register. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered the information Mrs B provided and discussed the complaint with her. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I also considered the relevant law and Council policy on housing allocations. I gave the Council and Mrs B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
8. We normally expect complaints to go through the Council’s complaints procedure before we consider them but we have discretion to deal with a complaint even if the Council has not yet had a reasonably opportunity to consider it. This complaint did not go through the Council’s complaints procedure. However, due to the apparent urgency, as Mrs B’s family was becoming homeless, and the vulnerability of some family members, we used our discretion to investigate the complaint.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mrs B had a private tenancy. She claimed housing benefit, which the Council paid direct to her. It appears Mrs B did not use all that money to pay her rent. She states this is connected to her mental health problems. Mrs B therefore accrued rent arrears and the landlord evicted her and her children.
10. Mrs B presented to the Council as homeless. The Council provided interim accommodation while it worked with Mrs B to try to resolve her homelessness (this is called the ‘relief duty’). The Council later decided it had no further housing duty to Mrs B because she was intentionally homeless. It reviewed that decision at Mrs B’s request but did not change its decision.
11. I shall deal with each part of the complaint in turn. I shall also deal with an added point about which I asked the Council, about the notice period the Council gave Mrs B when it stopped providing interim accommodation for her.

Not paying housing benefit to Mrs B’s landlord

12. The presumption is that councils should normally pay housing benefit to the claimant, who is then responsible for paying the rent. However, councils can pay benefit direct to the landlord in some circumstances, including:
• If the Council believes the claimant is likely to have difficulty managing their finances or it is improbable the claimant will pay the rent. This would usually depend on the claimant giving the Council relevant information.
• If there are over eight weeks’ rent arrears and the Council agrees paying the landlord directly would not be against the claimant’s interests. This would normally depend on the landlord or claimant requesting direct payments to the landlord on the grounds of arrears.
13. Mrs B states she asked the Council at the outset to pay housing benefit direct to her landlord because Mrs B was concerned her mental health problems might lead her not to spend the housing benefit on rent.
14. I have seen Mrs B’s claim for housing benefit after starting her tenancy.
• The form asked, ‘Are you behind with your rent?’ Mrs B answered, ‘No.’
• The form gave payment alternatives of paying the claimant direct or the claimant giving reasons they could not manage their rent payments and wanted the Council to pay the landlord. Mrs B selected the option agreeing to be paid direct into her bank account. She provided her account details.
• The form also asked, ‘May we discuss the progress of the application with your landlord?’ Mrs B replied, ‘No.’
15. I consider Mrs B’s housing benefit claim gave the Council no reason to believe it should not pay benefit direct to Mrs B in the usual way. So I do not find fault here.

Housing benefit payments in July and August 2018

16. Mrs B states the Council did not make two housing benefit payments in July and August 2018. The Council’s response to my enquiries indicates it paid benefit monthly, on the third Wednesday of each month, including in July and August 2018. So I do not find fault here.

Not telling Mrs B that her housing register application was in Band D

17. Mrs B applied to the Council’s housing register in late October 2018. The Council’s housing allocations policy was that applicants in her situation should normally have Band C priority on the housing register. However, if the applicant has rent arrears, the priority is reduced to Band D.
18. The Council therefore placed Mrs B’s application in Band D. That was in line with the policy so I do not fault that initial step. However, the Council did not tell Mrs B this or tell her the law entitled her to ask it to review its decision. Mrs B did not know her application was in Band D due to rent arrears until around April 2019.
19. The Ombudsman usually expects councils to write to a housing applicant explaining: their priority on the housing register; the reason(s) for that priority; and their right to seek a review. The Council had done that with Mrs B’s previous housing register application in May 2018. The Council was at fault for not telling Mrs B about its October 2018 decision.
20. I have considered how this fault affected Mrs B. It meant Mrs B could not use her review right if she had wanted to. I note, however, that Mrs B has not suggested she would have used the review right. It also seems unlikely a review request in itself would have changed the decision as Mrs B does not dispute that she has arrears and the banding decision was in line with the Council’s policy. These points mitigate the lost opportunity although they do not remove it entirely.
21. Mrs B says if she had known her application was in a lower band because of her rent arrears, she might have done more to clear the arrears sooner. I recognise that argument. However, I also consider it is somewhat speculative as we cannot be confident, on balance, what Mrs B would have done had she known about the Council’s decision at the time.
22. Additionally, it is reasonable to expect anyone with rent arrears would try to deal with them anyway, regardless of how it might affect their housing register application. This is especially the case here as, for some of the time between October 2018 and April 2019, Mrs B was in interim accommodation arranged by the Council, seemingly unable to find a new private sector tenancy because of her arrears. So the Council cannot be wholly blamed for Mrs B not addressing her arrears sooner.
23. I recognise the possibility that, but for the Council’s fault, Mrs B might have acted differently. However, on balance, I do not find that Mrs B would actually have cleared or significantly reduced her arrears quickly and would have been in Band C sooner. Nor do I find the Council’s fault prevented Mrs B getting social housing sooner, since even if Mrs B had been in Band C significantly sooner, her housing prospects would have depended on which suitable properties became available, which of those Mrs B would have bid for and the priority of other people bidding for the same properties.
24. Overall, I consider the Council’s fault caused Mrs B some justified frustration and missed opportunities to make fully informed decisions. I consider the injustice was mitigated, though not wholly removed, by the factors in paragraphs 20 to 23.
25. Mrs B’s circumstances have changed since October 2018 because the Council has found her intentionally homeless. However, intentionally homeless people are also entitled to be in Band C on the housing register but are downgraded to Band D if they have rent arrears. So Mrs B’s substantive position in terms of her housing register application was the same. During my investigation, on 6 June 2019 the Council increased Mrs B’s priority to Band B, explained this in writing and explained her review right.
26. Therefore the appropriate remedy for the Council’s failure to tell Mrs B about its banding decision would be for the Council to issue a letter explaining Mrs B’s priority and giving her review rights. As the Council has now done this, I need not recommend this.

Giving Mrs B 11 days to leave interim accommodation

27. The Council gave Mrs B interim accommodation while it sought to relieve her homelessness and then while it considered her homelessness application. The Council had no duty to continue providing accommodation when Mrs B sought a review of its decision that she was intentionally homeless. However, it used its discretion to continue providing accommodation for around two months while it considered the review request. The evidence shows the Council satisfied itself Mrs B was not staying at the accommodation by the time it issued its review decision. The Council then told Mrs B it would stop providing that accommodation in 11 days.
28. The Council had continued providing accommodation for around two months after deciding Mrs B was intentionally homeless. The evidence showed Mrs B was no longer using the accommodation. In the circumstances, I do not fault the Council for giving Mrs B 11 days’ notice it would stop providing the accommodation.

Agreed action

29. At my recommendation, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs B for the injustice caused by the fault in paragraph 19.
2. Review what happened here and make any necessary changes to procedures or staff training to minimise the chances of the identified faults recurring.
30. In the circumstances, the Council should reasonably complete points a) within one month of today and point b) within three months of today.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation because the Council’s agreement to my recommendations will put right the injustice its fault caused, as far as possible.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

32. I did not investigate whether the Council was at fault for deciding Mrs B is intentionally homeless. Mrs B had the right to challenge that decision in the county court on a point of law. So the restriction in paragraph 5 above applies. Mrs B knew of her right to go to court and we advised her how she could seek help regarding court action.
33. The right to go to court exists to deal with such situations and the Ombudsman cannot overturn the Council’s decisions in the way the court can. I have not seen good reason why it would not have been reasonable to expect Mrs B to use her right to go to court.
34. Mrs B also alleged rudeness by the Council in its dealings with her. It can be difficult to reach a clear enough view on such matters. I also consider it proportionate to focus my investigation on points that could have affected Mrs B significantly. So I have not investigated this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman