Summary: Mr E complained about the Council’s lack of action about housing disrepair issues he reported. He also complained the Council refused him discretionary housing payments and delayed dealing with his complaints. We find fault with the Council’s complaints handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr E complained about the Council’s lack of action about housing disrepair issues he reported. He also complained the Council refused him discretionary housing payments. Finally, Mr E says the Council delayed dealing with his complaints. He says the Council’s actions have caused him serious stress and anxiety.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered the information Mr E submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided in response.
7. Mr E 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

Homelessness

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities sets out councils’ duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. This is known as the relief duty.
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible and homeless, or threatened with homelessness, it must assess their needs and draw up a ‘personalised housing plan’. The plan should include steps the council will try to take to prevent or relieve the person’s homeless. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A, as inserted by s.3(1), Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)
10. A council may end its relief duty in a defined set of circumstances, including when the applicant has suitable accommodation.

Discretionary Housing Payments

11. Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) are payments councils can give to people who they decide need extra help to meet housing costs. Only claimants receiving housing benefit, universal credit or local housing allowance are eligible for DHPs. Awarding a DHP is discretionary, as is the amount and period of payment.

Housing disrepair

12. Private tenants can complain to a council about the failure of a landlord to keep their property in good repair. The Housing Act 2004 gives councils powers to inspect and assess the conditions of tenanted properties.

What happened

13. Mr E lives in privately rented housing. In January 2018, he contacted the Council and said there was a flea infestation problem in the property he was living in. The Council said it would contact Mr E’s letting agent to decide what actions it should take.
14. The Council contacted Mr E’s letting agent and asked for further information on what it was doing about the flea infestation. The letting agent replied and it had already carried out two treatments at the property.
15. The Council contacted Mr E and said he should allow flea traps to be placed in his property to see if fleas were present or not.
16. In March 2018, Mr E phoned the Council and complained about fleas and other issues in his property. The Council contacted Mr E’s letting agent for an update. The letting agent told the Council that Mr E that the pest control contractor had install flea traps in his property.
17. Mr E contacted the Council and asked for advice on what was caught in the flea traps. The Council inspected the flea traps and did not find any evidence of a flea infestation.
18. In April 2018, Mr E sent the Council an email chain between him and the letting agent. The letting agent emailed Mr E and said it had investigated the issue of fleas and it could not find any evidence of fleas on the last visit. It said it could not continue to instruct the contractor further unless Mr E could supply it with evidence of bites. The letting agent also said that it had not been able to get access to his property since November 2017 and asked for access so it could inspect his ongoing issues.
19. In June 2018, Mr E contacted the Council as he had been issued with a section 21 notice. This is the notice a landlord must give to their tenant to begin the process of eviction. Mr E also complained he was still getting bitten.
20. The Council contacted Mr E’s letting agent and asked for further information on any infestation in Mr E’s property.
21. The letting agent responded to the Council. It said it paid for the Council’s pest control department to attend the property and treat any infestation. However, there was no evidence of an infestation. It said it had previously paid more than £200 for a private contractor to attend who could also find no evidence of an infestation. Finally, it said it would consider withdrawing the section 21 notice if Mr E agreed to allow access to the property for inspections and if he paid rent in advance.
22. The Council told Mr E the letting agent had made reasonable steps to deal with any infestation in his property and so it would not intervene. It said it was attempting to prevent his homelessness and so asked to visit Mr E at his property. Mr E agreed to the visit.
23. After the visit, the Council emailed the letting agent and said Mr E would not agree to allow property inspections and it would continue to work with him to prevent his homelessness.
24. Mr E raised a formal complaint to the Council on 25 July 2018. He said it had failed to do anything about his complaints about the infestation problem in his property. Mr E chased the Council for a response to his complaint on 14 August 2018.
25. As the issues between Mr E and the letting agent could not be resolved, the Council issued him with a personalised housing plan in August 2018. Mr E found a suitable property in September 2018 and so the Council ended its relief duty.
26. The Council issued its stage one response to Mr E’s complaint on 5 October 2018. It said when dealing with complaints about living conditions, it had to allow reasonable time for owners or managing agents to resolve any problems. It also said it could not act if a tenant did not meet their legal duties as set out in tenancy agreements.
27. Mr E responded to the Council and provided further details on his complaint. The Council responded to Mr E on 8 October 2018 and asked if he wanted his email to be treated as a continuation of his stage one complaint or if he wanted to escalate it to stage two of its complaints procedure. Mr E emailed back and said he did not understand the stage one and two complaints process. He said he had been asking for help from the Council since January 2018 and would be happy to meet with an officer to provide more information. The Council did not respond further.
28. In February 2019, Mr E emailed the Council and said it had not dealt with his complaint. He also said he wanted to start a new complaint because his estate agent had left him with a blocked toilet over Christmas and New Year.
29. The Council responded to Mr E and apologised if he had not received a response to his complaint. It confirmed it had referred the matter to a manager to respond to Mr E.
30. The manager apologised for not responding to Mr E’s complaint and arranged an appointment at his house to discuss his concerns.
31. The Council discussed problems Mr E had with the property during the meeting. Mr E said his Employment and Support Allowance and housing benefit had stopped at Christmas and he was struggling to pay the rent. The Council agreed to contact the estate agents to explain Mr E’s financial difficulties and ask if he could stay in the property until he found suitable housing. It also said it would apply to its finance department to see if it could make up the shortfall of £155 to cover his rent. The Council also agreed to sort out a personalised housing plan for Mr E.
32. The Council’s housing department emailed its finance department in March 2019 and asked it to make up the shortfall of £155. The housing department asked whether Mr E had to apply for a DHP on the standard form. The finance department responded and said Mr E had already received extensive support and so could not agree to any further payments.
33. In May 2019, the Council emailed Mr E and gave him a copy of his personalised housing plan. Mr E responded and asked for an update on the shortfall of £155 as he was still struggling to pay the rent.
34. The Council’s housing department emailed the benefits department and explained Mr E was still suffering financial hardship. The benefits department said Mr E had received £6,173.67 of support. This was more than the rent he owed which was £6,075. Therefore, it could not justify any further help.
35. The Council met with Mr E at the end of May 2019. It asked Mr E what housing he would be happy with as although he had managed to pay the last two months rent, his funds were low. Mr E said he would be unwilling to live in shared housing. The Council told him it would continue to look for other housing but that it would not be a quick solution. It also told Mr E it could not to get an agreement from its finance department for the shortfall of £155 because of the support he had already received.
36. The Council continued to look for suitable properties for Mr E. On 31 July 2019, Mr E emailed the Council and said it had been over seven months since he had complained, and he still had not received a response. The Council did not respond to this email.
37. Mr E applied for a DHP in August 2019 and was successful.
38. In September 2019, Mr E emailed the Council and asked why the DHP was refused when he asked for helped in February 2019. He said he was £800 out of pocket and that it had been over a year since he first raised his complaint. The Council responded and said he had received significant support and so it could not justify a further payment.
39. Mr E accepted an offer on a property in October 2019. The Council wrote to Mr E in November 2019 and said it had ended its relief duty as he had found suitable housing.
40. Mr E emailed the Council on 13 December 2019 and said it had not investigated his complaints from the past two years.
41. The Council issued its stage two response to Mr E on 14 February 2020. It apologised for not responding to Mr E’s email of 31 July 2019. It also said it had successfully prevented Mr E from becoming homeless. It referred Mr E to the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
42. Mr E was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

43. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. A late complaint is when someone takes more than 12 months to complaint to us about something a council has done. Mr E first complained to the Council in July 2018. He came to the Ombudsman in July 2019, but he had not exhausted the Council’s complaints procedure. Mr E returned to the Ombudsman in February 2020 when he received the Council’s stage two response to this complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mr E’s complaint and consider the Council’s actions from January 2018. This is because of the significant delays he experienced in getting the Council to respond fully to his complaints.

The Council’s lack of action about housing disrepair issues Mr E reported

44. The evidence shows the Council took suitable steps to liaise with Mr E’s letting agent after he complained about the flea infestation. It also encouraged Mr E to allow flea traps to be installed in the property. Both the Council’s pest control department and the letting agent’s private contractor found no evidence of flea infestation. When Mr E complained about being bitten, the letting agent paid for the Council’s pest control department to inspect his property. However, there was no evidence of any infestation.
45. There were also issues with Mr E giving the letting agent access to his property to complete property inspections. The Council explained to Mr E in response to his complaint that it could not reasonably intervene if he would not allow the letting agent access to his property. There is no evidence of fault. I agree with the Council that it had to allow the letting agent an opportunity to resolve Mr E’s complaints before it got involved.
46. Mr E also complained to the Council in February 2019 that he had a blocked toilet over the Christmas and New Year period. The Council explained to Mr E that as the estate agent had fixed the drainage issues, it had no grounds to pursue the matter. The Council is not obliged to act if the estate agent has taken steps to resolve the problem. However, as Mr E was in financial difficulties, it agreed to work with him to find alternative housing. The Council did this. There is no evidence of fault.

The Council refused Mr E DHPs

47. The Council’s housing department told Mr E in a meeting in February 2019 that it would contact its finance department to see if it could make up the shortfall of £155 to cover his rent. The finance department refused to make up the shortfall because Mr E had already received extensive support. The Council explained this to Mr E in a meeting in May 2019.
48. I appreciate Mr E is unhappy with the Council’s decision not to award him extra support in February 2019. However, the Ombudsman can only question a decision if it was carried out with fault. The Council’s policy on DHPs says each request is considered on its own merits. The Council’s finance department noted Mr E had received sufficient support which was more than his rent payments. The Council does not have to award DHPs if it decides someone has received enough support. There is no evidence of fault in the way the decision was reached and so I do not uphold this part of Mr E’s complaint.
49. Mr E applied for a DHP in August 2019 and was successful. His situation had changed as he was no longer in credit with his rent.

The Council delayed dealing with Mr E’s complaints

50. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will try to reply fully in writing within 10 working days for a stage one complaint, and within 15 working days for a stage two complaint. It also says if its unable to meet those timescales, it will contact the customer to explain the delay.
51. Mr E made his first complaint on 25 July 2018. He chased for a response on 14 August 2018. The Council did not respond until 5 October 2018. It took 52 working days to respond. It did not contact Mr E to explain the reasons for its delay.
52. Mr E raised further points for the Council to consider when he received its stage one response. The Council responded and asked if Mr E wanted to progress his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. Mr E emailed back and said he did not understand the stage one and two of the complaints process. The Council did not respond. This is fault. It should have emailed Mr E back, explained its complaints procedure and asked him how he wanted to proceed.
53. The Council met with Mr E in February 2019 and agreed to help with his housing situation. However, it did not issue a written response to his complaint as per its complaints procedure. The Council also failed to respond to Mr E’s email of 31 July 2019 when he chased for a response to his complaint.
54. Mr E raised another complaint on 13 December 2019 and said he had not received a response to his previous complaints. The Council took 42 working days to issue its stage two response on 14 February 2020. It apologised that it failed to respond to Mr E’s email of 31 July 2019.
55. It is clear the Council consistently delayed dealing with Mr E’s complaints from 2018 to 2020. The Council failed to follow the timescales from its complaints procedure. It also did not update Mr E when it knew it could not meet the timescales for a response. This has caused Mr E significant frustration and uncertainty over an extended period. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Agreed action

56. To remedy the injustice caused by fault, by 26 February 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr E for the frustration and uncertainty caused by its complaints handling.
• Pay Mr E £200.
• Remind officers who deal with complaints of the importance of adhering to the timescales set out in its complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have found fault by the Council, causing an injustice to Mr E. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman