Summary: Ms B complains that the Council removed her from the housing register because of rent arrears and asked unrealistic things of her to reinstate her on the register. She also complains that the Council placed her on the corporate warning system (CWS) because of her complaints and behaviour. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council except that it failed to review information it held about Ms B after 12 months despite agreeing to do so. The Council has now reviewed this information and removed Ms B from the CWS.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that the Council:
• removed her from the housing register because of rent arrears despite the fact she was homeless and living in temporary accommodation;
• asked unrealistic things of her to reinstate her on the housing register;
• failed to properly respond to her complaint; and
• placed her on the ‘corporate warning system’ because of her complaints and her behaviour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
4. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

5. In 2017 the Council accepted a homelessness duty to Ms B and placed her in emergency accommodation. Her application for permanent housing was placed on the Council’s housing register. Ms B moved to temporary accommodation managed by a housing association in late 2017.
6. The Council suspended Ms B’s application from the housing register in April 2018 because she had more than four weeks’ rent arrears. Ms B borrowed money to pay some of the arrears and Children’s Services paid off the remainder so Ms B’s application was made active again in August 2018. She moved to alternative temporary accommodation around the same time.
7. By September 2018 she had accrued rent arrears. In addition, arrears from emergency and temporary accommodation managed by the Council where Ms B lived between July and October 2017 were brought forward to her new temporary accommodation. A rent check confirmed arrears of over £5000. As a result, Ms B’s housing register account was suspended again in October 2018. The Council wrote to her asking her to arrange a repayment plan. Ms B complained about the affordability of the temporary accommodation.
8. In October and November 2018 Ms B raised concerns about the condition of the temporary accommodation.
9. On 7 November 2018 an officer telephoned Ms B about the arrears explaining she had not paid any contributions while she was staying in nightly paid accommodation. Ms B said she was under the impression the Council was making the payments but the officer explained she was liable to pay the service charge. The officer said Ms B had signed documents confirming she understood she had to pay the service charge and she needed to start making payments otherwise her application would remain suspended from the housing register.
10. In November 2018 Ms B requested a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation.
11. On 13 December 2018 Ms B met with officers to discuss the arrears. She maintained the property was unaffordable but says officers did not acknowledge her financial situation and demanded repayment of the service charge arrears. Officers advised Ms B to apply for discretionary housing payments (DHPs) to help her pay the rent.
12. The Council completed a suitability review of Ms B’s temporary accommodation. It decided the accommodation was suitable both in terms of its physical condition and in terms of affordability. It stated Ms B’s application would remain suspended but would be reviewed if she maintained full rent payments for a reasonable period and reduced the arrears, thereby demonstrating tenant like behaviour.
13. On 15 January 2019 the Council wrote to Ms B asking her when she would be making the first payment towards the arrears. It explained that, if she made consistent payments, it would review her bidding suspension.
14. On 23 January 2019 the Council again wrote to Ms B asking her to confirm when she would be making a payment towards the arrears. Ms B telephoned the Council and said she would make a payment on 29 January. She asked when she would be reinstated on the housing register. The officer explained she would not be placed back on the bidding list until she had made the required number of payments.
15. On 15 March 2019 the property management team manager, Officer X, visited Ms B’s property with the landlord to complete an inspection and decide what repairs were needed. They abandoned the inspection saying Ms B became confrontational and abusive and was filming them. The Council decided Ms B should be placed on the Corporate Warning System and was not to be seen alone. Ms B disputed the allegations. The Council agreed to place her statement of events on the system.
16. On 23 March 2019 Ms B wrote to the Council asking for details of a monthly repayment plan.
17. On 1 May 2019 Ms B made the first payment towards the arrears. The Council acknowledged receipt and confirmed that, once she had made six consecutive payments, her housing register account would be reactivated.
18. On 6 June 2019 Ms B made a formal complaint about her housing situation. She said she had been suspended from the housing register because of arrears which had arisen because the temporary accommodation she was living in had been unaffordable from the outset.
19. On 18 June 2019 Ms B’s social worker wrote to her about the arrears. She reminded her of her meeting with the welfare reform officer who had advised that, to demonstrate her commitment to being a reliable tenant as the months progressed, Ms B would need to make payments to her arrears so they would ultimately be paid off in full. The social worker explained she had tried to get Ms B reinstated on the housing register but the housing team required Ms B to make payments over a six-month period which was standard practice.
20. On 24 June 2019 the Council responded to Ms B’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It did not uphold the complaint.
21. On 28 June 2019 Officer X wrote to Ms B explaining the Council had considered her situation including the fact that she had been living in nightly paid temporary accommodation since August 2018, the rent was high and Ms B was relying on DHP’s which the welfare reform team had advised would not continue indefinitely. So, the temporary accommodation team had decided it was not viable for Ms B to continue living there. It had identified Council owned temporary accommodation with a significantly lower rent and offered Ms B this property.
22. Ms B accepted the offer of new temporary accommodation in July 2019. A few days later her rent account was credited with a backdated housing benefit payment which cleared the arrears. Ms B’s application was reinstated onto the housing register in August 2019.

Analysis

Removal from the housing register

23. I find the Council was entitled to suspend Ms B’s application from the housing register. This was in accordance with its allocations policy which states that any person whom the Council has decided has demonstrated ‘un-tenant like behaviour’ will not qualify for inclusion on the housing register. The policy provides examples of un-tenant like behaviour which includes rent arrears.
24. Ms B had rent arrears at the temporary accommodation she had been living in since August 2018 and arrears had also been brought forward from July-October 2017.
25. Ms B says she fell into arrears in September 2018 because the Council placed her in temporary accommodation which was unaffordable from the outset and she had to apply for DHP’s to cover the shortfall in rent.
26. The Council reviewed the suitability of the temporary accommodation in January 2019 and specifically considered the question of affordability. It assessed Ms B’s income and outgoings and decided the accommodation was affordable. It was satisfied Ms B could afford to pay the rent in addition to an amount towards the arrears. The Council explained the reasons for its decision in detail. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question the Council’s decision on affordability or suitability of the temporary accommodation.
27. Ms B says she should not have been forced to pay the arrears which accrued between July and October 2017 because Children’s Services had agreed to pay off all her arrears in August 2018.
28. The Council says Children’s Services only agreed to pay off the arrears relating to the housing association property Ms B was living in at the time. The housing association would have been unaware of the arrears relating to the accommodation Ms B lived in between July and October 2017 because this was managed by the Council. It maintains Ms B was responsible for those arrears because, at the time, she was given documents setting out the rent and service charges due and she signed confirming she would pay the service charge but failed to do so.
29. The Council’s view was that, although previous arrears had been cleared by Children’s Services, this did not demonstrate any willingness by Ms B to take responsibility for the arrears. So, it required her to show tenant like behaviour by paying a monthly amount towards the current arrears and those accrued between July and October 2017.
30. Ms B says it was unreasonable of the Council to require her to make six consecutive monthly payments towards the arrears before accepting her application back onto the housing register.
31. I find no grounds to criticise this. The Council was entitled to require Ms B to make regular payments towards clearing the arrears to demonstrate tenant like behaviour in accordance with the allocations policy. In any event, Ms B only made three payments before her application was reinstated. The Council attempted to make repayment arrangements with her from November 2018 but she did not make any payments towards the arrears until May 2019. She then made two further payments before her rent account was credited with a backdated housing benefit payment which cleared the arrears and the Council reinstated her application on the housing register.

Ms B’s complaint

32. Ms B complained on 6 June 2019 that the Council had removed her application from the housing register because she had fallen into arrears and about other aspects of her housing situation. The Council responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 24 June 2019 but did not uphold the complaint.
33. On 9 June 2019 Ms B wrote to the Council asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure because she was not happy with the outcome. The Council considered it had responded to all the points raised in the complaint but said that, if Ms B felt there were specific points that had not had a response, she should provide details together with the outcomes she was seeking.
34. Ms B responded stating she did not agree with the outcome and wanted all the issues to be looked at by a senior officer.
35. In response, the Council invited Ms B to a meeting with the complaint officer and the customer care manager. A date was agreed but Ms B contacted the Council on the day of the meeting saying she was unable to attend because she did not have childcare. Officers arranged another meeting. Ms B confirmed she would attend but did not do so. On the day of the meeting, an officer sent Ms B an email stating that officers had waited 20 minutes for her and asked her to advise whether she was on her way. No response was received so the meeting did not go ahead and the complaint was not progressed to stage 2.
36. I am satisfied the Council properly responded to Ms B’s complaint. It provided a detailed response at stage 1 in accordance with its complaints procedure. Officers then offered to meet with Ms B to discuss the issues before proceeding to stage 2 but she did not attend the meeting.

Corporate warning system

37. The corporate warning system (CWS) is an online system available to all Council staff who should refer to it when required to make a home visit to a member of the public.
38. The Council placed Ms B on the CWS at the request of the service manager because of an incident in March 2019 during a planned visit to her property. The Council recorded that Ms B displayed abusive and threatening behaviour towards the officer and the landlord and filmed them without their consent. It wrote to Ms B explaining it would record this information as part of its duty of care to its staff and it would be considered by officers who were required to visit or have contact with her. The letter confirmed the information would be regularly reviewed and considered for removal. It also said that, if Ms B disagreed with the information, she could write to the Council.
39. Ms B responded denying the accusation and asking for the information to be erased.
40. The service manager responded on 3 June 2019 explaining that, if Ms B did not agree with what was set out in the letter, she could submit her own account of the incident and this would be added to the file. Staff would be able to make their own risk assessments based on all the information, including Ms B’s account of the incident. The letter also stated, “when the file is reviewed, your conduct and interaction with staff throughout the year will be recorded and a decision will be made whether the file will be removed or not. If there are no further incidents and relationships have improved, your file will be removed 12 months from the last incident”.
41. Ms B responded setting out her version of events and again asked for the allegations to be removed from the Council’s system. She said, if this was not possible, she would like information on the appeals process.
42. The service manager responded on 10 June 2019 confirming there was no formal appeal process for adding a record of an incident onto the Council’s system. But Ms B could raise the matter as a complaint by contacting the complaints team. She confirmed Ms B’s comments had been added to the record and that, if there were no further incidents in the next 12 months, the record would be removed.
43. At the time of the incident, the Council had guidance for staff entitled ‘Managing Unreasonable Customer Conduct Guidance’. It defines unreasonable customer conduct as “any behaviour by a customer, because of its nature or frequency which raises substantial health, safety, resource or equity issues for the council”. The guidance provides examples including “extreme anger, aggression, threats or other threatening or violent conduct”.
44. The guidance states that the decision to apply the process and take appropriate action will be made by the relevant strategic director. The decision will be put in writing and will be recorded on a central database. The customer must be informed in writing about the decision and what they can do to have it reviewed.
45. I am satisfied the Council followed this guidance when recording the information about Ms B. Accordingly, there are no grounds to criticise it for doing so.
46. In response to my enquiries, the Council says Ms B is still on the CWS. It says the warning expires on 21 March 2021 and will be reviewed on 21 December 2020. It says this review date is in line with its policy that all such records are reviewed after two years.
47. The CWS policy states that the health and safety team will review information held on individuals every two years, or earlier if more information is received. A manager will determine whether an individual should remain on the database. Individuals considered to no longer represent a risk to staff safety will be removed. However, this policy did not come into force until February 2020. Previously the Council followed its ‘Managing Unreasonable Customer Conduct Guidance’ which did not set out a time limit for reviewing the information.
48. In its email of 3 June 2019 the Council said, “If there are no further incidents and relationships have improved, your file will be removed after 12 months from the last incident”. In its email of 10 June 2019 the Council told Ms B that, if there were no further incidents in the next 12 months, the record would be removed. So, Ms B expected the information to be reviewed after 12 months. The Council’s failure to review the information within this timescale, having agreed to do so, was fault and causes Ms B a significant injustice.

Agreed action

49. The Council has now reviewed the information held about Ms B on its Corporate Warning System and removed it. It has agreed to write to Ms B confirming this within one month.

Back to top

Final decision

50. The Council was at fault in failing to review the information held about Ms B on its Corporate Warning System within 12 months, having agreed to do so.
51. I do not uphold the remainder of Ms B’s complaints.
52. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman