Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homeless application, its decision to exclude him from its housing register and the interim accommodation it provided. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his homeless application and its decision to exclude him from its housing register. He says the interim accommodation it provided was not suitable.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. In this case the Council decided Mr X was intentionally homeless. Mr X asked it to review its decision. It did so and upheld the original decision. Mr X has a right of appeal to the county court if he is unhappy with the decision. It is reasonable for him to exercise that right. Therefore, I have not considered whether this decision was correct.
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 spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I considered the Council’s replies to my enquiries. I also made third party enquiries with another council, Council B, which had some involvement in the case, and considered the information Council B sent me.
8. Mr X, this Council and Council B had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Private rented housing

9. Councils can require landlords to take action about certain private sector housing issues, such as reports of mould and damp.
10. Where the complaint is about disrepair the council can consider taking formal action under the Housing Act 2004, for example, serving an Improvement Notice. The council can also consider carrying out an inspection under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Where the council identifies a category 1 hazard it can take formal action to require the landlord to put things right.

Homelessness

11. 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.
12. 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) 
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. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
15. 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)
16. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review.  Councils then have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household.  (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Housing register

17. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
18. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

19. If the applicant is unhappy with the outcome of the review they can ask for a judicial review, which is an application to the county court.

What happened

Private rented property

20. In January 2019 Mr X told the Council about problems with damp and mould in his privately rented property.
21. The Council contacted the landlord, who sent it a report prepared by a damp specialist. The report said that, although there were some improvements the landlord could make, the mould was caused by insufficient heating and ventilation in the property.
22. An environmental health officer carried out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspection and concluded there was a low level category 2 hazard. The officer reported their findings to Mr X and sent a Hazard Awareness Notice to the landlord.
23. Mr X argued the damp and mould was caused by water coming in from outside. He said he had followed the Council’s advice but this made no difference. He asked the Council to review its position. Another officer reviewed the case and told Mr X the Council had not changed its view. The Council suggested Mr X could ask a suitably qualified surveyor to carry out an independent assessment. It said it would reconsider its position if the independent expert disagreed with its view. It explained it only had a duty to act if there was a category 1 hazard.
24. Mr X remained convinced there was a problem with the property that the landlord should resolve. He decided not to pay the rent until it was addressed. The landlord served a section 21 notice, which started the process for evicting him from the property for non-payment of rent.

Homelessness application

25. Mr X approached the Council’s housing team in late February 2019. He explained his circumstances in a two hour meeting. There wasn’t time at that meeting to obtain all the information the Council needed or sign all the usual forms. The Council tried to do this by email. Mr X was unhappy with it sending him long emails that he said he could not properly address during the working day. He wanted another meeting but the Council refused. It said using emails was a more efficient use of staff time. Mr X repeatedly asked it for meetings so he could explain the context rather than just send it documents. The Council said further meetings were not needed at that stage.
26. In its complaint response the Council said it offers one face to face meeting and then uses telephone or email. In its replies to my enquiries it added that Mr X had been verbally aggressive to Council officers and to the organisation providing him with temporary accommodation. Therefore, it decided to limit face to face communication. However, it does offer a meeting if it is “minded to” make an adverse decision.
27. Mr X also said that following an early change of housing officer the Council asked him to provide information he had already provided. The Council said it had no record of this and I have seen nothing in the records to suggest it asked for information it already had. I have seen an email in June 2019 where Mr X says he had already provided information to three named officers. The new housing officer contacted those officers who all confirmed they did not have the documents she was requesting.
28. The Council accepted a relief duty in late March, at which point it sent Mr X a personalised housing plan (PHP). The actions the Council asked Mr X to take included providing information it needed so it could assess the application. The specific information and documents needed were listed in the PHP.
29. In addition to requesting personal and financial information from Mr X, the Council made enquiries with the landlord about the alleged rent arrears, and with the Citizens Advice Bureau and a solicitor about the legal advice they gave Mr X. It considered medical information Mr X provided but did not contact the GP as Mr X did not consent to this. It also consulted its Environmental Health team about the damp and mould at the property Mr X had moved from. The enquiries were drawn out because Mr X did not provide all the information and consents at the outset and the Council had to send repeated emails before he provided the information it needed.
30. The Council wrote to Mr X in June to say it was “minded to” decide he was intentionally homeless and explained its reasons for concluding this. It offered him a meeting to discuss its reasons. Mr X attended a meeting with the housing officer and her manager. His views and concerns were discussed at length. The Council agreed he could provide further evidence for consideration and it would make some further enquiries. Mr X provided further information, which the Council considered, and the Council made the further enquiries discussed. It issued a final decision letter in early August 2019 that he was intentionally homeless. It made a referral to children’s services at Council B because Mr X had his two daughters living with him.

Review of intentionally homeless decision

31. Mr X asked for a review of the decision he was intentionally homeless. A manager who had not been involved with the case previously reviewed the decision. The original decision was upheld.
32. The review process says the Council will “invite you to discuss our findings before we issue a decision” but the Council didn’t do so. The Council said there was no legal requirement to meet an applicant when carrying out a review unless there was a problem with the original decision. I have seen a copy of its letter to Mr X acknowledging his request for a review, which set out in detail the process to be followed and did not mention a meeting.
33. Mr X said when he spoke to children’s services at Council B, it told him the outcome of the review but this was two weeks before the review decision was due. I wrote to Council B asking for their records to show the information this Council shared with it about the housing case and the advice Council B gave Mr X.
34. Council B’s records show this Council reported to Council B that it had concluded Mr X was intentionally homeless. It asked Council B not to disclose this information as a formal decision was due to be issued that day. In fact, the review decision was sent the following day. Records for Council B show Mr X asked it for financial support but he did not agree to it completing an assessment. There is no record of any discussion with Mr X about the housing decision or the review.

Interim accommodation

35. Mr X was offered interim accommodation in late March 2019 whilst the Council made enquiries and assessed his homeless application. He moved into this accommodation in early April 2019. After deciding he was intentionally homeless, the Council gave him 28 days notice to leave the interim accommodation and Mr X left in early September.
36. Mr X said the accommodation was one room only and was not suitable for a single father with two daughters. He also says the children had to go outside to use the toilet.
37. The Council said the accommodation was in purpose built blocks provided by a housing association. It comprised 32 units over 7 blocks and was intended for use by families. Mr X was allocated a one bedroom unit with associated facilities that were shared (toilets, bathroom, showers and kitchen). The toilet was outside the room but within the block.
38. The Council considered the accommodation was a suitable size for temporary accommodation and was affordable for the household. Although the family slept in one room this was considered acceptable because it was expected to be for a short time. The Council said there were no health concerns to consider at that stage and the accommodation was very close to the house Mr X had been renting so there was no disruption to employment or schools.
39. Council records show that when it offered the accommodation to Mr X he said he wanted a double unit where he had been placed previously. The Council told him the double unit was not available and explained his right to ask for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. Mr X said he was concerned about the toilet being outside the main unit and was advised there was no requirement to provide en-suite facilities. I have seen no other record of Mr X telling the Council the accommodation was unsuitable until after he left it. However, Mr X says he did complain about it using the complaints process through the Council’s web-site but the Council did not respond.
40. Mr X says he asked the Council to extend the interim accommodation whilst it considered his request for a review of the intentionally homeless decision but it refused. The Council says it has no record of him asking it to extend the interim accommodation. I have seen emails Mr X sent to the Council expressing his concern that he had nowhere to stay when he left the interim accommodation but I have seen no evidence he specifically asked the Council to extend the interim accommodation until the review was concluded.

Housing register application

41. Mr X made a housing register application in mid March 2019. After making enquiries, the Council decided he did not qualify for the housing register because of the rent arrears at his previous property. It wrote to explain its decision in May 2019 and explained his review rights.
42. Mr X asked for a review of the decision. The decision was reviewed by a housing manager. The housing manager was the supervisor of the housing officer who was considering the homeless application. As part of the review, the housing manager considered information Mr X gave the housing officer about the rent arrears as part of his homeless application.
43. Mr X did not pay the rent from December 2018 and this was not in dispute. The housing allocations policy says applicants who have housing-related debts do not qualify for the housing register. The housing manager considered Mr X’s argument that it was reasonable for him not to pay the rent because he said he had a legitimate claim against the landlord relating to the damp conditions. However, she concluded his failure to pay rent was a breach of the tenancy agreement and did amount to a housing-related debt.
44. The housing manager upheld the original decision and wrote to Mr X to explain her reasons in mid July 2019.

Complaints handling

45. Mr X complained in March 2019 that the housing officer and her manager had refused a face to face meeting. He said he did not want lengthy emails that he could not deal with during working hours. The Council responded in early April, explaining it usually offered one face to face meeting and then used telephone or email whilst it completed its enquiries.
46. Mr X made a further complaint in April 2019. The Council did not send a final stage 2 response but the officers dealing with the homeless application and the housing register application responded to his questions and concerns.
47. Mr X complained he was being discriminated against on grounds of race in June 2019. The Council said this was not justified and explained its process for dealing with homelessness applications. Mr X made a further complaint and met with the Council to discuss his concerns in mid July. The Council responded at stage 3 of its complaints process in early August 2019. It acknowledged no final response was sent at stage 2 because some issues had been addressed outside the complaints process but said its complaints process allowed for that. It responded to the specific points Mr X made.

My findings

Private rented property

48. The Council responded quickly to Mr X’s report of damp and mould. It carried out an HHSRS inspection. It identified a category 2 hazard and issued a Hazard Awareness Notice to the landlord. When Mr X asked for a review of its decision, an officer who had not previously been involved reviewed the case and confirmed the advice already given. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this.

Homelessness application

49. The Council accepted a homelessness application. It made initial enquiries. It accepted a relief duty in late March 2019, issued a PHP and offered Mr X interim accommodation. It made further enquiries and issued a “minded to” decision letter in late June 2019. It met with Mr X in early July 2019 to discuss its reasons for concluding Mr X was intentionally homeless. It made further enquiries and issued a final decision in early August 2019. Although it took just over five months to reach a final decision, which is longer than I would expect to see, this was not due to fault by the Council. There was some delay in Mr X providing all the information it asked for and a need to make additional enquiries because of the complexities of the case.
50. I have seen no evidence the Council asked for information or documents that Mr X had already provided. Council records do show, however, the Council requested information more that once because Mr X either had not responded or had not provided all the information it asked for.
51. The Council is not required to hold meetings with applicants at their request. It is for the Council to decide whether a meeting would be helpful. The records show the Council sent emails that set out clearly the information it was asking for and did not require a reply during the working day. It requested appropriate information and made appropriate enquiries.

Review of intentionally homeless decision

52. Mr X requested a review of the decision, which was carried out by a manager who had not been involved with the case before.
53. The review process sent to Mr X says the Council will invite him to a meeting before making a final decision. The law does not require the Council to do so and its letter to Mr X explaining the review process did not say there would be a meeting. It is unfortunate the information given to Mr X was inconsistent and led to an expectation there would be a meeting. However, I do not consider this was sufficiently serious to warrant a formal finding of fault, particularly as the Council allowed time for Mr X to make any further comments or send in additional documents after he sent the review request. The Council has since amended its process to avoid this issue recurring.
54. There is no evidence the Council told Council B the outcome of the review before the review was completed. The records show the information was shared on completion of the review, at the point the decision letter was being prepared.
55. Mr X has a right of appeal if he is unhappy with the review decision and has indicated he intends to exercise that right. Therefore, I will not consider the review decision further.

Interim accommodation

56. The Council provided interim accommodation in a purpose built block consisting of a single unit. Housing may be suitable for temporary accommodation that is not suitable longer term. The Council explained why it considered the accommodation was suitable as temporary accommodation for the household and I have found no evidence of fault in the way it considered this.
57. Mr X says he did complain the interim accommodation was not suitable using the complaints process on the Council’s web-site but the Council has no record of this. The only record I have seen where he expressed concern was when he was first offered the accommodation and the Council responded to those concerns. The Council was not at fault.
58. The Council gave him 28 days notice to leave the interim accommodation after deciding Mr X was intentionally homeless. I have seen no evidence Mr X requested an extension whilst the Council carried out its review of its homelessness decision. The Council was not at fault.

Housing register application

59. The Council’s allocations policy says applicants do not qualify if they have housing-related debts. Mr X accepts he did not pay the rent from December 2018 onwards. The Council considered his argument that this was reasonable in light of his claim against the landlord. However, it decided it did amount to a housing-related debt and therefore he did not qualify. The Council said it would review the position if Mr X set up an affordable repayment plan for pay off the arrears. Mr X said he would not pay the rent unless directed to do so by a court.
60. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the housing register application.
61. Mr X says it was inappropriate for the housing manager to review this decision because she was not independent. The housing manager was not involved in the housing register application prior to the review. She was involved in the homeless application. The housing manager did need to consider the information Mr X gave the Council about the rent arrears as part of the homeless application in order to decide whether Mr X qualified for the housing register. Therefore, I do not consider it was inappropriate for her to carry out the review of the housing register application.

Complaints handling

62. I am satisfied the Council tried to respond to all the issues Mr X raised in relation to the homeless application, the housing register application and the involvement of its environmental health team. Mr X sent multiple emails raising concerns and the Council addressed them either through its complaints process or through the housing team. The Council said the complaint about discrimination was not justified and I have seen no evidence of discrimination. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

63. I have completed my investigation. I have not found evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman