Summary: Miss X complains about the advice and assistance the Council provided when she presented as homeless. Miss X complains the Council failed to explain the accommodation it offered her was permanent, rather than temporary accommodation. It also failed to explain the impact this would have on her eligibility for the housing register and blocked her from bidding. There were errors in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s homeless application which amount to fault. This fault has caused miss X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complains about the advice and assistance the Council provided when she presented as homeless. Miss X complains the Council failed to explain the accommodation it offered her was permanent, rather than temporary accommodation. It also failed to explain the impact this would have on her eligibility for the housing register.
2. In addition, Miss X complains the Council wrongly blocked her from bidding on properties when she moved to this property in October 2018 and failed to tell her when this restriction was removed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent a statement setting out my draft decision to Miss X and the Council and invited their comments. I have considered Miss X’s response.

Back to top

What I found

The law on homelessness

6. 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.
7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking from assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4))
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household and follow on from the findings of the assessment. They must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. 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. This is called the Prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

11. The Council’s housing allocation scheme places applicants into four bands. Band B is for applicants with high priority, including applicants having an “additional preference” under Section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996. This includes homelessness prevention. The allocation scheme defines this as:
• Households threatened with homelessness who would if they became homeless be likely to be owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but who are working with the Council to prevent themselves from becoming homeless.
• Households whose homelessness is relieved who would otherwise have been likely to have been owed the full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but who have voluntarily agreed to this duty being brought to an end by the provision of private rented accommodation.
• Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 who, with the advance agreement of the Council, have voluntarily left temporary accommodation to make alternative housing arrangements including staying with friends or relatives.
12. Homeless applicants are placed in Band C.
13. The housing allocation scheme also requires applicants to have a local connection. One way to satisfy this requirement is to have been continuously resident in the borough for at least two years. The policy states that those awarded Band B homelessness prevention priority as a result of securing private rented accommodation outside the borough will continue to have a local connection for a period of two years from the start of the tenancy.

What happened here

14. Miss X contacted the Council in early October 2018 as she had received an eviction notice from her landlord. Miss X was due to be evicted on 22 October 2018. The Council advised Miss X to continue bidding for properties under the allocation scheme and to look for privately rented properties. The Council’s records state it advised Miss X it could assist her in securing accommodation by offering a financial incentive to the landlord. But the Council did not pay rent deposits or rent in advance. Miss X disputes she was told about incentives for landlords and states she was told to apply for a discretionary housing payment for her rent.
15. The following week Miss X met with an officer who carried out a prevention assessment and provided a personalised housing plan (PHP).
16. In the week leading up to 22 October 2018, Miss X states she was contacted by two Council officers. Officer 1 asked her to visit a property in a neighbouring borough. Miss X did not consider this property was suitable as it was too far from her work and her children’s schools. Officer 1 then suggested another property, Property Z which was also outside the borough. Miss X states she also received a call from Officer 2 who said she had found her a place at a hostel. Miss X did not consider a hostel suitable for her family, so accepted Property Z and signed a 12-month lease.
17. Miss X states she understood Property Z was temporary accommodation and she would still be able to bid for properties via the allocation scheme. Miss X did not want to move out of Lambeth permanently as this is where she works, and her children go to school.
18. The Council placed Miss X in Band B of its allocation scheme, with ‘homelessness prevention’ priority. But when she tried to bid for properties in November 2018, she found the Council had suspended her application. She states she went to the Council offices to ask why and was told it was because the Council had provided her with permanent accommodation.
19. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council on 8 November 2018. She stated she understood Property Z was temporary accommodation but having moved in Officer 1 told her the Council had not explained the position properly. Miss X also complained about not being able to bid for properties under the housing allocation scheme. She stated she had been told that if she stayed in the current borough for two years, she would be able to bid on that council’s housing scheme. Miss X felt she had been tricked into moving out of Lambeth.
20. The Council’s response confirmed that Property Z was private rented accommodation, not temporary accommodation. It stated Miss X was given detailed advice that Property Z was not temporary accommodation. The Council explained:

“In accordance with Lambeth Allocation policy and prevention of homelessness, applicants who are threatened with homelessness could opt for temporary to settled option where applicants are placed in a temporary accommodation for a short period before they are provided with a private rented property. As an incentive to applicants who choose this option, they are awarded a higher band B on their housing register applications.

On the other hand, applicants can choose the option of pursuing a homeless application where successful homeless applicants who are in temporary accommodation as successful homeless applicants are only awarded band C and have little prospect obtaining accommodation via social housing sector”

21. The Council noted it had given Miss X Band B priority to bid for permanent housing. It also confirmed that those who move outside of the borough under the temporary-to settled scheme or the homelessness relief can continue to bid for two years on our housing register, after which their housing register application will close.
22. Miss X disputed the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be considered further. She asserted she had agreed to move to temporary accommodation and understood this could be anywhere in London. But she had not been told that Property Z was permanent accommodation. If Miss X had known this she would not have agreed to move. Miss X suggested the Council listen to her telephone conversations with Officer 1 as this would show she was not told Property Z was permanent accommodation.
23. As the Council did not respond to Miss X’s letter she wrote again in late March 2019. The Council responded in May 2019. The Council considered its initial response set out and explained the Council’s position and explained Miss X’s current tenancy.
24. The Council also stated it had checked the system and could find no reason why Miss X could not bid on properties. It noted Miss X had bid on properties regularly between April 2017 and October 2018 and urged her to start bidding again.
25. Miss X remains unhappy with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. In response to my enquiries the Council states Miss X applied for homelessness assistance, and the Council made an offer of private rented accommodation. The Council never provided Mis X with temporary accommodation. Miss X’s homelessness was relieved by the provision of private rented accommodation.
26. The Council acknowledges its initial response to Miss X’s complaint contains inaccurate information and apologises for this. It states the process described applied prior to the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) which came into force in April 2018. Under the HRA there is no element of choice, and the term ‘temporary to settled’ is no longer used. The Council considers the PHP makes it clear Miss X was being asked to work with the Council to prevent her homelessness as required in the legislation.
27. In addition, the Council accepts it could have made it clearer that the offer of Property Z was an offer of private rented accommodation to resolve her homelessness, not an offer of temporary accommodation. It also accepts that there is no evidence it explained the two-year limit on bidding for properties if Miss X moved out of the borough. The Council apologises for any confusion and as a remedy is willing to extend the time Miss X can bid with Band B priority for a further two years.
28. The Council states Miss X’s application was inadvertently suspended from bidding on 6 November 2018. This was a result of human error due to the change in her address not being completed correctly on the Council’s system. The Council rectified this error on 7 December 2018 but acknowledges there is no record it told Miss X the suspension was lifted. The Council apologises for this failure and any upset it caused. It has confirmed that Miss X has not lost out on any priority as a result of this error.
29. According to the Council’s records it let 76 three-bedroom homes between 6 November 2018 and 31 May 2019. None of these homes were let to applicants with the same or lower priority than Miss X. Miss X has not therefore missed out on any offers as a result of the suspension of her bidding.

Analysis

30. It is clear, and the Council accepts, that there were errors in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s homeless application. These errors amount to fault.
31. The PHP sets out the steps Miss X and the Council should take to try and prevent Miss X becoming homeless. It confirms it will provide information on renting in the private sector and will make a referral to the private rental sector team. But there is no evidence the Council told Miss X the offer of Property Z was permanent accommodation. At the time of this offer, two officers from different teams were contacting Miss X regarding possible accommodation. The Council’s records states Officer 1 was a lettings officer and Officer 2 was a temporary accommodation placement officer. It is unclear whether Miss X was aware of their different roles, or the differing nature of the accommodation they were offering. The failure to ensure Miss X understood the nature of the accommodation being offered and how this would affect her homeless application amounts to fault.
32. Nor is there any evidence the Council explained the impact moving out of the borough would have on Miss X’s ability to bid for properties. The failure to advise Miss X she would only be able to bid on properties for two years from the start of this tenancy amounts to fault. It was also fault to suspend Miss X’s bidding and then not to tell her when the suspension had been lifted.
33. In addition, there was fault in the way the Council responded to Miss X’s complaints. Notwithstanding the errors in the information provided in the initial response, there was also a delay in responding. The Council’s complaint process states it will respond at the first stage within 20 working days and at the final stage within 25 working days. The Council responded to Miss X’s initial complaint after 22 days but did not respond to the final complaint for over four months. Miss X sent her complaint by recorded delivery and the Council signed to acknowledge receipt on 3 January 2019. It also signed to acknowledge receipt of Miss X’s letter chasing a response on 26 March 2019 but did not respond until 9 May 2019. This delay amounts to fault.
34. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this has caused Miss X a significant injustice. Had the Council properly explained the accommodation options available Miss X could have made an informed choice. Miss X states she would not have accepted Property Z had she known it was permanent accommodation. But is also clear she did not want to accept temporary accommodation in a hostel. There is no way to know what would have happened but for this fault, but it likely, given the shortage of accommodation that Miss X would have had limited options, and the outcome may have been similar.
35. Miss X was distressed to learn she could only bid for properties in Lambeth for two years after signing the tenancy. Miss X is keen to return to Lambeth as she has family connections, and this is where she works, and her children go to school. The Council’s offer to allow Miss X to continue to bid on properties for a further two years, that is until October 2022 to remedy this is welcomed.
36. Miss X also experienced annoyance and frustration at being unable to bid for properties but there is no evidence she has missed out on any offers of accommodation.
37. In addition, Miss X has been put to unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing this matter.

Agreed action

38. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for the errors in the way it dealt with her homeless application and pay her £200 for the distress, confusion and frustration this has caused and the time and trouble she has been put to.
39. The Council has also agreed to extend the time Miss X can bid with Band B priority for a further two years, until 19 October 2022. The Council should provide Miss X with written confirmation of this extension.
40. The Council should carry out these actions within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

41. There were errors in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s homeless application which amount to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman