Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not provide enough help after June 2017 when she reported disrepair in a private tenancy and after January 2018 when she became homeless. We uphold the complaint finding fault in the service Mrs B received from the Council’s private housing team and in interim accommodation the Council later provided to her. These faults caused Mrs B injustice as avoidable distress. At the end of this statement we set out how the Council has agreed to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mrs B’. Her complaint covers the period June 2017 to February 2019. Mrs B complains the Council failed to:

• help her during 2017 when she reported disrepair while living in a privately rented property;
• pay housing benefit in good time on the privately rented property which led to her eviction in January 2018;
• provide suitable accommodation for her and her family during 2018 when they became homeless following the eviction.

2. Mrs B says that as a result she experienced distress from:

• damage to her possessions from the Council’s failure to require the private landlord to carry out repairs;
• eviction from her home and loss of possessions which payment of housing benefit would have avoided;
• living in unsuitable temporary housing (a shared hotel room) for 13 months.

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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mrs B’s written complaint to this office and any evidence she provided in support of her complaint;
• letters from the Council to Mrs B where it gave its reply to her complaint, sent before we began our investigation;
• information provided by the Council in reply to my written enquiries;
• any relevant law, government guidance, local policy or procedure referred to in the text below.
• comments made by Mrs B and the Council on a draft decision setting out my thinking about the complaint; where appropriate I amended the wording of this final decision statement after considering those comments.

Back to top

What I found

The key facts – general background

6. Mrs B’s household comprises four adults as she lives with three adult children (two male and one female). At the beginning of events covered by this complaint she lived in a privately rented house in the Council’s area. She was the lead tenant. The tenancy allowed her children to live in the property as ‘permitted occupiers’. Mrs B worked as self-employed and her children studied as students.

The complaint about disrepair in the private tenancy

7. I found Mrs B first referred to disrepair in her private tenancy in an email she sent to the Council benefit service in June 2017. She referred to a recent leak to the roof in the property which had damaged possessions. I noted Mrs B’s email did not request any help from the Council in resolving any disrepair issues. Its focus was on asking the Council to put housing benefit into payment.
8. In both August and mid-September 2017 Mrs B contacted the Council benefit service and alerted it to a dispute with her landlord. Initially the Council wrote to Mrs B saying it could not become involved in a tenant-landlord dispute. Mrs B then wrote saying she understood she “ought to be able to report the landlord’s negligence and serious state of disrepair of the property”. Around two weeks later the benefit service sent this email to the Council private housing team. Mrs B then sent a further, more detailed email to that service, explaining the disrepair. She said the landlord had failed to carry out repairs to the roof.
9. The Council has some powers to force landlords to undertake repairs where a disrepair represents a hazard to the health and safety of the tenant. The Council wrote to Mrs B the next day setting out how it considers such cases. The letter explained Council procedure was to consider service requests about disrepair in private tenancies in three steps as follows:

• step one – the tenant should try to resolve the complaint with the landlord and use any complaint procedure the landlord has;
• step two – if there is no resolution to the problem in 14 days the tenant should contact the Council with as much information as they can provide about the dispute; the Council will contact the landlord and give 21 days for a reply to the tenant;
• step three – if the landlord does not respond or resolve the complaint the Council will inspect and decide if it should use enforcement powers.

10. The Council told Mrs B she was at ‘step one’ of the procedure. Mrs B replied the next day enclosing further information. This showed she had:

• reported a leak in June 2017 which had caused damage to a mattress and bedding;
• allowed an inspection from the landlord’s agent later that month but complained about its conduct (having earlier refused access to a contractor who attended to inspect);
• reported also a problem in June 2017 with a toilet constantly running which contributed to a high water usage bill; in September 2017 Mrs B says she paid to fix this herself as the landlord took no action;
• exchanged correspondence with the landlord’s agent in September and October 2017 about using her own contractor to fix the roof on the property; the agent made clear they considered Mrs B’s quote for repairs excessive and would not pay for that wanting to use their own contractor;
• received a further landlord’s inspection in September 2017; this time the agent said the inspection found no leak from the roof.

11. The Council says that after considering this information it decided there was no disrepair that needed fixing. However, there is no record that it wrote to Mrs B to advise of its view.
12. Mrs B wrote again to the Council in October 2017 asking that it consider her service request at ‘step two’ of its procedure. There is no record of the Council replying to this email.
13. At the end of December 2017 Mrs B sent a further email to the Council, chasing a reply to her email of October. There is no record of the Council replying to this email.
14. In response to Mrs B’s complaints about its responses, the Council arranged in January 2019 to inspect her former tenancy. This found no evidence of any leak in the property with the current tenant reporting they had no concerns about disrepair. The Council has provided photographs of its inspection.
15. Mrs B has provided me with photographs which appear consistent with an escape of water causing damage to possessions. I have seen no record she shared these with the Council when she was in contact with it during 2017.

The complaint about housing benefit

16. Mrs B began claiming housing benefit on her private tenancy in April 2017. The Council put her claim into payment in June 2017 further to the email I referred to at paragraph 7. However, it did so on the qualification Mrs B provide more information about her income from self-employment. Mrs B said she would provide a full year set of trading figures by October 2017. I noted that in her email of June 2017 Mrs B had also said her landlord had begun threatening repossession for rent arrears. Mrs B says she was not in arrears at that time although she did begin to withhold rent and put this aside because of the disrepair.
17. In August 2017 the Council suspended Mrs B’s housing benefit claim. It received contact from her landlord who asked it to pay them Mrs B’s housing benefit directly as they said Mrs B was more than eight weeks in arrears. They understood the Council had a legal duty to pay them direct in these circumstances.
18. The Council suspended housing benefit to invite Mrs B’s comments on the landlord’s request. In reply Mrs B said she had withheld rent because of her dispute with the landlord over disrepair. She did not consent to the Council paying her landlord direct.
19. The Council went on to tell both parties that it would not resume paying housing benefit until both agreed who should receive it. It kept to this approach despite more representations from the landlord asking for payment of housing benefit direct.
20. In December 2017 Mrs B provided updated accounts showing she traded her business at a loss. The Council updated its assessment of her housing benefit accordingly but did not release any payment. Towards the end of the month Mrs B again asked the Council pay housing benefit to her. The Council did not reply to that email.
21. By now Mrs B was facing imminent eviction and this happened at the beginning of January 2018 with the landlord owed over £9000. Later that month the Council released the suspended housing benefit payments to Mrs B’s landlord. These totalled around £6600.

The complaint about temporary accommodation

22. Following her eviction, in January 2018, Mrs B approached the Council for help as she was homeless. She attended an interview with the Council. It recorded her household as including her three adult children. It recorded that two of those children have chronic long-term health conditions. The interview notes recorded Mrs B having been in dispute with both her landlord and querying housing benefit received. The notes imply the housing officer asked that Mrs B provide more information about this.
23. The Council considered whether it owed a duty to help re-house Mrs B under the Housing Act 1996. The Council owes such a duty where satisfied someone is:

• homeless;
• in a priority need group; and
• made homeless unintentionally.

24. The Council made initial enquiries in March 2018. Its records show it made further enquiries in April 2018. It asked Mrs B for various information such as identification and bank statement details. It also gathered information from the Council services Mrs B had contacted over the previous twelve months; that is the private housing team and housing benefit service.
25. While it made enquiries, the Council provided emergency or interim accommodation to Mrs B. This is accommodation that carries no right of appeal about its’ suitability. The accommodation was a hotel located outside London, around 12 miles from the family’s previous address. The Council has said in correspondence to Mrs B that it accepts this accommodation was “far from ideal”. It consisted of a single hotel room, although the Council says this was big enough for Mrs B and her adult children. Mrs B told us the room had only one double bed for several months (after which the hotel provided an extra single bed). She also said the window in the room had only restricted opening, it was stuffy and had mould on the walls. During this investigation, the Council has checked with the hotel operator who disputes Mrs B’s account of the room’s condition, saying it was in good condition.
26. In April 2018 Mrs B wrote a letter to the Council complaining about the accommodation. The letter said she shared her room with her three adult children and that her sons slept on the floor. Her letter referred to the restricted opening of the window, the room being stuffy and suffering with mould. The letter also referenced that Mrs B had left belongings behind at her previous address. It said she wanted a bigger property so she could move them.
27. The Council says that in response it passed the letter to its Inspection Team who exchanged emails with Mrs B (which it has not provided). The outcome was the Council decided Mrs B’s housing situation “was not so severe that it warranted a discretionary review and a move to alternative accommodation”.
28. I take a note placed on Mrs B’s case later in April 2018 as cross-referring to Mrs B’s letter as it refers to her “complaining she is overcrowded”. The note says, “according to household applicant is single […] I have advised her to attend the centre with proof of her household”.
29. In July 2018 the Council enquired into Mrs B’s circumstances before and around the time she rented accommodation in the private sector in 2017. The Council says it received no reply to these enquiries. In August 2018, it decided that it did not owe Mrs B a duty of re-housing as it considered she was ‘intentionally homeless’. In brief, the Council considered Mrs B had not answered its enquiries to its satisfaction. In particular, to explain what happened to money she had received from an earlier house sale. The Council found Mrs B had not shown the rent charged on the private tenancy had been unaffordable.
30. In September 2018 Mrs B asked for a review of that decision via a solicitor. The solicitor attached earlier emails asking also for a review, for which they said they had received no reply. The solicitor had sent these to a generic email address used by the Council for homeless enquiries.
31. The Council considered the review request out of time, saying it had not received the solicitor’s earlier emails. However, the Council failed to communicate any decision. So, the Council failed to either reject Mrs B’s review or make a review decision.
32. But the Council still continued to provide the interim accommodation. In addition, in December 2018 it put Mrs B in touch with a private landlord renting a three bed property. Its notes say that Mrs B declined to provide the landlord with identification and other evidence necessary to grant a tenancy. Consequently, the landlord said they could not continue with the letting. Mrs B does not agree the account saying she did not pursue the property as it was unaffordable. She has provided me email exchanges with the landlord’s agent where affordability was discussed.
33. Mrs B managed to secure her own private tenancy in February 2019 and moved out of the hotel.
34. The Council recognises it did not deal properly with Mrs B’s review request. But it asks to note that it also failed to end Mrs B’s interim accommodation. It considers it should have done this and from August 2018 the accommodation was ‘fortuitous’. So, while it apologises for not replying to Mrs B’s review request it also says Mrs B benefited from its error as she stayed in interim accommodation longer than she should.

My findings

The complaint about disrepair

35. I find no evidence that before September 2017 Mrs B asked for any service from the Council’s private housing standards team. While the emails she sent to the benefit service before this date might have led it to contact the private housing service sooner, I cannot say it was at fault for not doing this. As while I am satisfied Mrs B made it aware she was in dispute with her landlord, I cannot see she made it aware that she also wanted a service from the Council to help with the disrepair. It was not until September 2017 she made this request. I find the Council benefit service passed that request on to the private housing service in a reasonable time.
36. In her early communications with the private housing service, I find Mrs B supplied evidence she had completed ‘step one’ of the Council’s procedure. Mrs B’s emails showed she had raised concerns with her landlord’s agent, whose communications in turn showed they considered there were no outstanding disrepair issues. Mrs B’s communications with the landlord’s agent had therefore reached an impasse.
37. I consider the Council had three choices open to it. It could have asked Mrs B to provide more evidence to support her statement there was ongoing disrepair, such as photographs. It could then have considered if it had enough evidence to engage steps two or three of its procedure. Or, it could have asked the landlord’s agent for more evidence to show how they had responded to the reports of disrepair; such as property inspection records. Or, it could have visited to check the evidence for itself, effectively moving to step three of the procedure.
38. But without taking any of these actions I do not see how the Council could record Mrs B’s service request as unfounded. There is nothing conclusive in the records Mrs B provided to show the nature or extent of the leak reported. Some of the emails also do not reflect well on her engagement with the landlord’s agent. But also, there is nothing to show when or how the landlord carried out any repairs. Nor that the landlord responded at all to the report of the running toilet.
39. I cannot see justification therefore for the Council’s decision to take no action in October 2017 on the evidence in front of it. That was a fault.
40. Further, even if the Council could soundly decide that it did not need to take further action in response to Mrs B’s service request it needed to explain that to her. The Council failed to do this and failed to respond to her later contacts of October 2017 and December 2017. That too was fault.
41. I have gone on to consider the consequences of these faults. I have considered first the evidence about the extent of disrepair in Mrs B’s home. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities there was a leak at the property. I am also satisfied Mrs B experienced the problem with the running toilet. But the emails Mrs B provided do not show the landlord’s agent being dismissive of her concerns. While I can place little weight on a property inspection over 12 months after Mrs B asked for a service, it also suggests the property is one in a generally good state of repair. Mrs B’s photos offer some contrary evidence of disrepair but not generally significant. I also note the emails suggest Mrs B was sometimes uncooperative with the landlord’s agent which may have led to delay in getting repairs fixed.
42. Taking account of all the matters listed in paragraph 41, I consider the Council may have liaised with the landlord’s agent to ensure any repairs completed. But I find it unlikely the Council would have taken formal enforcement action. So, I do not consider fault by the Council added to any distress caused to Mrs B from the disrepair. Nor did it contribute to her eviction which followed non-payment of rent.
43. But Mrs B did experience an injustice from the Council’s poor customer service. It put her to unnecessary time and trouble making repeated requests for a service having received no reply. Mrs B also experienced frustration, by not knowing the Council’s position on the disrepair she reported. The Council accepts this finding. Below, I set out action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice.

The complaint about housing benefit

44. I consider there is also some evidence of fault in how the Council responded to the information it received in August 2017 from Mrs B’s landlord. I accept the Council could suspend Mrs B’s housing benefit temporarily while it checked with her if she agreed the landlord’s statement about her rent arrears. But I cannot find any authority for the Council’s approach of keeping Mrs B’s housing benefit suspended unless she agreed who should receive the benefit. I consider if provided with the evidence that Mrs B owed more than eight weeks arrears the Council should have paid housing benefit to her landlord (Regulation 95 – Housing Benefit Regulations 2006). Had it done so this would have reduced Mrs B’s rent arrears around September 2017.
45. However, I am not persuaded this would have stopped Mrs B’s eviction. It is clear Mrs B had rent arrears by August 2017, when her landlord contacted the Council, which must have originated no later than June 2017. The threat of eviction therefore hung over Mrs B’s tenancy from soon after she moved into the property.
46. I am unclear the extent to which Mrs B’s rent arrears arose from her choice not to pay the landlord or because she could not afford the rent. I note Mrs B received more housing benefit following reassessment of her self-employed income in December 2017. She may have received that entitlement earlier. But I find no fault in the speed of the Council’s reassessment.
47. This is because Mrs B did not present her updated accounts until December 2017, less than four weeks before her eviction. I have also seen nothing to show Mrs B made the Council aware of how urgent her housing situation had become. Had the Council known of the threat to Mrs B’s home it would have prioritised a reassessment. But I have no evidence Mrs B made it so aware. I accept Mrs B did send it an email in late December for which she received no reply. That was fault. But I consider the contact came too late to prevent her eviction.
48. Clearly the recalculated benefit was also not enough to clear Mrs B’s arrears. And I note here that for Mrs B’s eviction to take place in January 2018 her landlord must have begun proceedings some weeks previously.
49. I must also take account of Mrs B’s own actions when deciding what injustice flows from any fault by the Council. I find she could have done more to reduce the threat of her eviction. Mrs B says she decided to withhold rent from her landlord because of the disrepair. That was her choice with risk attached. She could also have agreed the Council pay her landlord direct when asked in August 2017. I am satisfied on balance Mrs B’s choices will have influenced the landlord’s actions.
50. Consequently, I find no injustice to Mrs B resulted from any fault in the Council’s administration of her housing benefit.

The complaint about homelessness

51. The Council could reasonably make enquiries into Mrs B’s circumstances before deciding if it owed a duty to re-house her. I note it was under no statutory time limit to complete those enquiries. However, government guidance (contained in the Homelessness Code of Guidance) recommends completing enquiries within 33 working days.
52. The Council far exceeded this timescale, taking around eight months to issue a decision on Mrs B’s case. I can find no satisfactory explanation for the delay. There are several gaps in the records suggesting that for weeks at a time the Council took no action on Mrs B’s case. The Council was at fault for this delay in completing enquiries.
53. I also consider the Council at fault for how it dealt with Mrs B’s appeal against its decision that it did not owe a duty to rehouse her. I am unconvinced by the argument that Mrs B appealed out of time because it did not receive emails sent to a generic email address. Mrs B’s solicitor addressed those emails correctly. But even if there was merit to this argument the Council failed to communicate it.
54. I consider these faults caused Mrs B injustice. She experienced uncertainty, which we consider a form of distress, in the delay in not knowing the result of her request for help with re-housing and later appeal. I accept this arguably worked to Mrs B’s advantage. Mrs B arguably kept her interim accommodation for longer than would have been the case had the Council not delayed its decisions. Although I cannot say the Council’s decision on whether it owed the full duty of re-housing to Mrs B would have been upheld on review. This is because the Council never decided her review request (and nor did it refuse a review) before Mrs B secured her own accommodation. Consequently, when considering if any injustice arises from the interim accommodation provided to Mrs B, I find the Council’s failure to end the interim accommodation sooner does not provide mitigation.
55. Turning to the quality of the interim or emergency accommodation provided by the Council to Mrs B, I note the law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This applies to any temporary accommodation provided by the Council. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
56. Government guidance says councils can use bed and breakfast accommodation to accommodate homeless households. But it also says this type of accommodation “caters for very short-term stays only and affords residents only limited privacy, and may lack or require sharing of important amenities, such as cooking and laundry facilities”. It says therefore, “wherever possible, housing authorities should avoid using B&B accommodation as accommodation for homeless applicants”.
57. The guidance also says the government considers “where housing authorities are unable to avoid using B&B accommodation to accommodate applicants, they should ensure that such accommodation is of a good standard and is used for the shortest period possible”.
58. The guidance further defines bed and breakfast accommodation as follows: “B&B accommodation means accommodation (whether or not breakfast is included):
1. which is not separate and self-contained premises; and,
2. in which any of the following amenities is shared by more than one household:

• a toilet;
• personal washing facilities; or,
• cooking facilities.

59. I find Mrs B’s accommodation met this definition of bed and breakfast accommodation. I understand the hotel room had its own toilet and shower room but no cooking facilities.
60. I am not satisfied the Council properly considered the suitability of this accommodation for Mrs B and her children. It has no record of how it considered the suitability of this accommodation before arranging it for Mrs B.
61. I think it reasonable the Council can place homeless households in such accommodation without detailed checks as an immediate response to short-term needs. But the Council should have considered if it was appropriate for Mrs B to remain in such accommodation for more than three months. This is after taking account of the government guidance around the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. It did not do this and this was a fault.
62. I find it especially troubling the Council did not carry out a proper review of the suitability of Mrs B’s accommodation after receiving her letter in early April 2018. The Council has a record which suggests the room was big enough for four people. However, there is no record to show how the Council took account of what Mrs B told it about the room. Mrs B told the Council it lacked enough beds, it was unsuitable because of her children’s health, it had limited ventilation and mould spores. The Council should have considered all these matters. But it did not carry out any investigation into what facilities the hotel provided for Mrs B. It did not carry out any inspection of her room.
63. There is also evidence on file which suggests the officer who received Mrs B’s letter about her room misunderstood Mrs B’s circumstances. The Council had a clear record of Mrs B saying her household included three non-dependent children. Yet the officer who received the enquiry left a note which implies they thought Mrs B was the only member of her household. This may explain the inadequate response to Mrs B’s letter but does not excuse it.
64. The response to Mrs B’s complaint about the hotel room was therefore not properly dealt with. So, I must make a further finding of fault.
65. I have gone on to consider the consequence of these faults. I note again the presumption in government guidance against the Council placing homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation long-term. I also note again all Mrs B said about the condition of the shared room. Taking account of these matters I think it likely a proper review would have led the Council to find more suitable interim accommodation. I consider Mrs B and her children therefore spent longer living in unsuitable interim accommodation than should have been the case. I calculate that to be around nine months. This is after allowing the Council could use the hotel as short term interim accommodation. It also takes account that Mrs B may have secured a move away from the accommodation sooner. This is if she had co-operated more with the potential private rented tenancy identified in December 2017.
66. I note that as part of her complaint Mrs B has also raised what happened to her possessions after her eviction. I note the Council does have a duty (including to those in interim accommodation) to “take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of a person’s property, or to mitigate damage, when it has reason to believe:

• there is danger the applicant’s personal property will be lost or damaged;
• the danger arises because the applicant is unable to protect it or deal with it; and
• no other suitable arrangements have been made.”

67. The Council also has the power to enter someone’s former home to remove possessions for the purposes of storing them.
68. I found no evidence that Mrs B raised the issue of her possessions with the Council until her letter sent at the beginning of April 2018. I note Mrs B did not raise with the Council that she needed help to safeguard her belongings. She said they were in the former property and she needed bigger accommodation to move them out.
69. However, given the Council decided not to move Mrs B from the interim accommodation I do not consider it could ignore what she said about having belongings at her former property. The Council should have signposted Mrs B towards whatever policy it has for safeguarding the possessions of homeless households.
70. I cannot say that if the Council had done this Mrs B would have saved any possessions she lost from her former tenancy. I note three months had passed since her eviction. I assume Mrs B also had some contact with the landlord of the property (or their agent) in that time if she knew her belongings remained inside. If Mrs B later lost her possessions, then that was because the landlord disposed of them and not the Council. I do not find the Council responsible therefore for any loss of possessions suffered by Mrs B.
71. But the failure to signpost could result in Mrs B having lost an opportunity to safeguard her possessions. I consider this a form of distress and so I also take account of it in my recommendations below.

Agreed action

72. To remedy the injustice identified in paragraphs 43, 54, 65 and 71 the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. provide an apology to Mrs B accepting the findings of this investigation.
2. pay Mrs B £3500 to reflect the injustice identified; this award is broken down as follows:

• £150 to reflect her time and trouble in making service requests of its private housing standards service that went unanswered.
• £250 to reflect the uncertainty caused by the delays in making decisions about whether the Council owed her a duty of re-housing.
• £3000 for the time spent in unsuitable interim accommodation.
• £100 to reflect the loss of opportunity to safeguard belongings arising from the failure to respond properly to her letter of April 2018.

73. The Council has also agreed to reflect on the faults in this case and consider how it might avoid a repeat. It has told us that it has previously recognised there have been backlogs in processing homeless cases and it has a plan of action in place which has resulted in more staffing to reduce this. It also advises that it has recently introduced a new procedure to support homeless households who need to store goods and it aims to discuss this at the “earliest stage” with them. It has further agreed that as a result of this complaint it will introduce a short procedure to advise staff on how to review the suitability of interim or temporary accommodation that it is providing, while it is in the process of deciding if it owes the full duty to re-house a homeless household. The Council will send us details of that procedure within three months of this decision.

Back to top

Final decision

74. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs B. The Council has agreed actions that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can now complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman