Summary: the Council failed to assess the condition of interim accommodation it provided to Miss C when she raised concerns about the state of the property, failed to consider her income when advising her what to pay towards her rent and delayed amending the rent charge and housing benefit award to reflect Miss C’s partner leaving the household. That impacted on Miss C’s finances, caused her to have to live with repair issues for 11 months longer than she should have and led to her going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint. An apology, payment to Miss C and agreement to monitor the progress of the repairs is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss C, complained the Council:
• placed her in interim accommodation which was in unsuitable condition and failed to consider her evidence about the state of the property;
• unreasonably refused to refund the costs of making the property habitable;
• wrongly told her to pay only £50 per week towards her rent; and
• charged her too much for rent when she could not move into the accommodation until 4 November 2018 due to the previous tenant leaving furniture behind.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss C's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered Miss C’s comments on my draft decision; and
• considered the Council’s comments on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Chronology of the main events

5. The Council placed Miss C, her partner and two children in temporary accommodation on 26 October 2018. The rent for the property was £318.59 per week. Miss C and her partner both work full-time. The Council initially told Miss C to pay £50 per week towards her rent, until a housing benefit assessment.
6. I understand Miss C did not move into the property until 4 November due to the previous tenant leaving belongings behind. Miss C and her partner attended the property though to carry out cleaning, paint and lay new flooring. Miss C contacted the Council about problems with the property on 29 October and provided photographs. Miss C asked the Council to refund the £600 she had spent on cleaning the property, painting and laying new flooring. The Council refused because it was satisfied the inspection report before Miss C moved in did not identify significant issues with the property.
7. Due to the level of the household income Miss C did not receive housing benefit. This meant rent arrears accrued. Miss C queried those on 17 January 2019. The Council told Miss C she needed to make an arrangement to cover the arrears.
8. On 18 February 2019 Miss C told the Council her partner had moved out of the property. The Council took no action in response to that.
9. Miss C made a payment towards her rent arrears on 20 February.
10. The Council awarded housing benefit on 7 June and backdated it to 22 April 2019.
11. On 23 July Miss C agreed to start making a payment of £625 per month towards her rent. Miss C was in receipt of £132.35 housing benefit at the time.
12. On 13 September the Council re-inspected Miss C’s accommodation and identified a number of disrepair issues for the landlord to remedy.
13. On 18 September the Council carried out a suitability assessment over the phone with Miss C. The Council did not complete the assessment, pending Miss C providing proof of her income as she had only just started her job and had not been paid.
14. On 23 September the agent for the landlord told the Council Miss C had said she would not be available for an appointment the following day to carry out the requested repairs. The Council liaised with Miss C and another visit was arranged for 26 September.
15. On 1 October the agent told the Council the landlord had not been able to get access to the property. The Council contacted Miss C who said she would get back to the Council by 3 October with dates when somebody would be available at the property.
16. A representative for the agent visited the property on 3 October and took photographs. The agent then liaised with the Council about the outstanding works.
17. On 12 October Miss C viewed an alternative property the Council had identified but refused it as the second bedroom was too small.
18. I understand the landlord changed an appointment to carry out works to the property which prompted Miss C to contact the Council. Miss C told the Council she could not accommodate any more appointments as she had arranged for her mother to be at the property to give access on the original date.
19. On 28 October the agent told the Council the landlord had not achieved access to the property to carry out works.
20. On 29 October Miss C viewed an alternative property the Council had identified for her. Miss C refused the property she did not feel safe in the area. Miss C refused a second property which was on the second floor without a lift. Miss C told the Council she could not manage the stairs with two toddlers.
21. On 31 October the agent told the Council the landlady had carried out the works required. The Council subsequently spoke to Miss C who said the fire door to the kitchen had not been fitted and the leak to the water cylinder had not been fixed.
22. In November the agent raised concerns with the Council about Miss C not providing access to allow the repairs to take place.
23. On 11 November Miss C viewed an alternative property the Council had identified. Miss C refused the property as she was concerned about accepting more settled accommodation as that would impact on her priority on the housing register.
24. On 12 November 2019 the Council asked its housing benefit department to reassess Miss C’s housing benefit as a matter of urgency from 15 February 2019 when her partner moved out of the property. The Council issued a new licence to occupy to Miss C with a weekly charge of £277.08.
25. On 12 November the agent reported difficulty obtaining access to the property to carry out measurements for the fire door. The Council contacted Miss C who said she would contact the agent to make an arrangement for access.
26. The agent reported ongoing difficulties contacting Miss C on 13 November.
27. On 13 November Miss C asked the Council to source alternative nightly paid accommodation rather than more settled accommodation. I understand the Council is now doing that.
28. The Council is continuing to work with Miss C and the agent to ensure the remaining repair work is completed. The Council has agreed to inspect the property periodically during the work and will carry out a final post inspection once all outstanding repairs are completed.

Analysis

29. Miss C says the Council placed her in interim accommodation which was unsuitable and failed to consider the evidence she provided about the state of the property. The Council accepts it failed to investigate Miss C’s concerns and instead relied on an inspection which took place before she moved into the property which did not suggest conditions were unsuitable. The Council also accepts the original inspection identified some issues to be followed up with the landlord and that it failed to follow those up. Given Miss C continued to raise concerns with the Council and provided her own photographic evidence of issues with the property I am concerned the Council did not carry out a further inspection until September 2019. Failure to take note of the evidence Miss C provided or carry out another inspection until September 2019 is fault.
30. I now have to go on to consider what injustice this caused Miss C. The starting point is the September 2019 inspection and what has happened since then as it is likely the same position would have been reached around 11 months earlier had the Council taken action in response to Miss C’s concerns. While I note the September 2019 inspection identified issues for the landlord to rectify there is nothing in the inspection report to suggest the property was uninhabitable. So, I consider Miss C’s injustice is she has had to live in a property with repair works not completed for 11 months longer than she should have due to fault by the Council. Miss C has also had to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint and is understandably frustrated the Council did not take any action in response to the photographic evidence she provided.
31. I welcome the Council’s agreement to pay Miss C £600 to reflect the amount she had to pay to lay new flooring in the property, clean and decorate. However, I do not consider that remedies her injustice given she still had to live in a property with repair issues. I consider an appropriate remedy for this part of the complaint is for the Council to pay Miss C an additional £500. That is to reflect Miss C’s frustration at having to live with repair issues for 11 months longer than should have. I say 11 months based on the fact the Council has offered Miss C alternative properties and is now liaising with the landlord to ensure the repairs are carried out. At least part of the reason why those repairs have not yet completed is because Miss C has not been able to provide access to the contractor as she works full-time. I also recommended the Council pay an additional £150 to Miss C to reflect the time and trouble she had to go to pursuing her complaint. The Council has agreed to those recommendations.
32. For Miss C’s concern about the Council refusing to reimburse her for the costs of making the property habitable I am satisfied the Council has now done that. I therefore make no further recommendation.
33. Miss C says the Council wrongly told her to pay only £50 per week towards her rent. Miss C says because of the Council’s advice she ended up in more than £2,000 of rent arrears. That is because at the time Miss C approached the Council as homeless she and her partner were working full-time and it subsequently became clear their income meant they were not entitled to benefit. As Miss C was only paying £50 per week towards what was at that point a weekly rental charge of £318.59 this resulted in her accruing significant arrears. The Council says its policy at the time was to advise those who work more than 24 hours a week to pay £50 towards their rent until housing benefit is assessed. The Council points out the licence to occupy agreement signed by Miss C makes clear the weekly occupation charges £318.59 and this is the amount she is liable for if housing benefit is refused or it does not meet the full rent.
34. I appreciate at the point a property is identified for a homeless applicant the Council does not know the applicant’s likely entitlement to housing benefit. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council knew Miss C and her partner were working full-time and knew of their combined income when they presented as homeless in October 2018. I do not consider it would be necessary for an officer to have in-depth knowledge of the housing benefit regulations to know working full-time with that level of income would likely not result in a large amount of housing benefit being awarded, if any. I therefore do not consider it appropriate for the Council to have told Miss C to only pay £50 per week towards her weekly rent. The Council now recognises that and I welcome its decision to review the advice it gives to applicants when they sign up for a property. On balance I consider the Council at fault for advising Miss C to pay such a small amount towards her weekly rent when it knew of her household income. Had Miss C not paid the arrears off I would have recommended a payment plan to pay back the rent owed. However, that is not necessary as Miss C has made the payment. I do not consider it would be appropriate to recommend the Council cancel the arrears though, given they were due and the license agreement made clear Miss C was liable for the full amount should she not receive housing benefit.
35. It has also become clear during my investigation though the Council failed to amend the charge for the licence to occupy and failed to refer the information about Miss C’s partner moving out in February 2019 to its housing benefit team until November 2019. That is fault. Failure to act on the information Miss C provided meant the Council continued to charge a four person amount for the accommodation rather than a three-person amount. That made a difference of £41.51 per week. The calculation of Miss C’s housing benefit, which was put into payment in June 2019, also continued to take into account her partner’s income even though he had moved out of the property. In relation to the latter point I would have expected Miss C to query that with the Council given housing benefit letters would have set out how the Council had calculated her housing benefit. That should have put her on notice the Council was still taking into account her partner’s income. Nevertheless, Miss C experienced some financial hardship between the award of housing benefit in June 2019 and when the Council corrected her account in November 2019 as the Council continued to charge her the wrong rent amount. Taking that into account, plus the issue of the rent arrears I recommended the Council make a further payment of £100 to acknowledge the impact on Miss C of having to pay more than she should have towards her rent. That makes a total financial remedy of £750. The Council has agreed to that.
36. Miss C says the Council did not recognise she could not move into the property until 4 November as the previous tenant had left furniture behind. The Council has accepted that and has reimbursed the rent charge for that week. I welcome that.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss C; and
• pay her £750.
38. The Council has agreed to pay £600 for the costs Miss C incurred to make the property habitable and has cancelled the charge for the first week in the accommodation. The Council has also agreed to monitor progress of the repairs.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman