Summary: Miss B complains about the benefit advice the Council gave her when it was dealing with her homeless situation. And about its poor communications about this. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss B, complains about the advice the Council gave her about the amount of welfare benefits she would receive, to cover rent on accommodation it helped her move to. She complains:

• The Council’s officer advised her she would qualify for housing benefit at the accommodation.
• The officer assured her the £75 shortfall in what the benefit would cover, would be met by other benefits – she did not specify what.
• She contacted the officer, after she had a decision on a universal credit claim. The officer ignored her emails and missed appointments.
• The officer did not respond to contact about the possibility of claiming a discretionary housing payment.
• She did not receive contacts from a Tenancy Sustainment Officer or Senior Lettings Negotiator, as the Council said would happen in its stage two complaint response.
• She did meet officers in August. She was advised at the meeting she would receive written confirmation of what happened at that meeting. But she never received anything.
• She moved home. But her old landlord advised her the Council did not contact it about the move and is chasing her for rent arrears.

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 the documents provided by Miss B;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Miss B;
• sent my draft decision to Miss B and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness

5. 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 and person will take to try to prevent or relieve the person’s homelessness. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A, as inserted by s.3(1), Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)
6. A council may end its relief duty in a defined set of circumstances, including when the applicant has suitable accommodation, that has a reasonable prospect of being available, for at least six months.
7. If an applicant is still homeless at the end of the relief period, the housing authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home.

Interim accommodation

8. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in ‘priority need’, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation. Priority need groups include households with children, or somebody who is pregnant. (Housing Act 1996, section 188, Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 8.3(a))
9. Any accommodation that is provided, obtained or secured by a council must be suitable for the applicant. This applies whether this is under a duty or a discretionary power, and also applies to interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206, Homelessness Code of Guidance 2018, section 17.2)

Housing benefit and universal credit

10. Housing benefit helps people on low incomes to pay their rent. It is a means tested benefit, taking into account both capital and income. Private rented tenancies are assessed under the local housing allowance (LHA) rules. The LHA outlines the size of dwelling appropriate, according to family size and then sets the maximum amount of benefit payable for that size of dwelling. This means housing benefit may not always cover the full cost of rent.
11. Universal credit has been rolled out across the country for most new claims for benefits. Claims for universal credit are administered by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), not councils. It includes a housing costs element, which mirrors the LHA rates.
12. Some types of new claim are still met by housing benefit. One of these is for claimants in temporary accommodation, provided as part of a council’s homelessness duties.

Discretionary housing payments (DHP)

13. DHPs are not payments of housing benefit and not part of the benefits system. But the same councils that pay housing benefit also administer DHPs. And only claimants receiving housing benefit are eligible for DHPs. DHPs are discretionary, as is the amount and period of payment.

What happened

14. Miss B first contacted the Council in February 2018, advising she was due to have a child in October. And that her mother had asked her to leave her home. In March, the Council gave Miss B some advice about her options. Shortly after, Miss B advised the Council her mother had changed her mind and allowed her to stay until she had her baby.
15. On 11 October Miss B went back to the Council to advise she had nowhere to live and was staying temporarily with a relative. She had a three-day old baby.
16. On 12 October the Council’s housing officer (Officer 1) met Miss B. Her record of that interview says:
• she advised Miss B that if the Council placed her in emergency accommodation, that would likely be a hostel or bed and breakfast.
• Miss B was not happy with that. So she decided she would like to try to find her own accommodation and seek help from the Council in funding a deposit.
• She gave Miss B the housing benefit rates. But Miss B would “…need to keep a close watch on the rent/shortfall”.
• Miss B left the interview and then returned 15 minutes later. So she did not have time to complete a personal housing plan. Officer 1 noted she would post it to Miss B.
17. Officer 1 made a further note later that day; that she had accidently destroyed a form she had completed earlier. But she would use the Council’s records of its contacts with Miss B in February, as there had been no changes since then, except that Miss B now had a baby.
18. On 15 October Miss B telephoned the Council to advise she had not been able to find affordable rented properties. And friends she had been staying with had asked her to leave. So she would be visiting the Council the following day.
19. The Council says it opened a relief case on 16 October, and placed Miss B in a bed and breakfast for a short time. There is a brief note in the Council’s record.
20. The Council has sent me an unsigned personal housing plan dated 18 October. This:
• Has some general information, explaining the problems with finding affordable accommodation in the Borough.
• Has a list of accommodation websites.
• Advises two bedroomed accommodation was unaffordable.
• Says: “Keep in mind Housing Benefit rates (provided to you on 12-10-18)”.
21. Miss B moved into a private rented sector property on 24 October, in a neighbouring Borough. The Council says its Contract Management Team had found Miss B the property under its duty to try to prevent Miss B’s homelessness. The rent was £925 per month. The Council has no contemporaneous record about this move. Neither has it any records from its tenancy deposit bond scheme, which assisted Miss B.
22. On 2 November the Council wrote to Miss B, advising it was closing its involvement, as it had found her private rented accommodation. The letter advised Miss B of her right to request a review.
23. The Council’s next record is from 30 November. It notes Miss B had telephoned its duty line to advise the property she had been given was unaffordable. This was after the DWP had given her a decision on her claim for universal credit, which was less than Officer 1 had advised her. The notes say Miss B said she had tried to call Officer 1 three times. Miss B has sent me an email she sent Officer 1. She says she later spoke to Officer 1, who said she would look into the issue. There is no record of this conversation in the Council’s file.
24. On 12 December 2018 the Council’s files record that Miss B telephoned again, advising she was not happy that Officer 1 had not got back to her. Miss B says on 21 December Officer 1 missed an agreed appointment. There are further records of telephone calls from Miss B, asking to speak to Officer 1, on 2 and 3 January and 11 February 2019.
25. Miss B has sent us an email she sent to Officer 1 on 3 January. The email says Officer 1 had advised her that:
• She was applying for a discretionary housing payment.
• The DWP had wrongly calculated her benefit.
• The letting agency said they would lower the rent (Miss B says the agents told her the Council had not contacted them).
• Miss B would only have to pay £75 a month towards her rent.

There is no record of this email in the Council’s files.

26. Miss B has also told me:
• The shortfall between the amount of universal credit and her rent was £144 a month.
• In the interim accommodation all her rent was met by housing benefit. Miss B assumed the same would happen in the property she moved to. She was not aware she needed to claim universal credit.
• If she had known the full extent of the shortfall, she would have had to stay longer in the hostel.
• Officer 1 gave her a telephone number to call to claim a discretionary housing payment. This was a London Borough of Redbridge telephone number.
27. Miss B has sent me copies of text messages she sent to Officer 1, starting on 4 February, advising she had spoken to housing benefit. Miss B says it had advised her she could try to apply for a short term DHP, but that this was not a long-term solution. Officer 1 acknowledged the first text, but did not respond to later texts over the coming days, chasing a response.
28. On 6 February Miss B complained. The Council’s responses advised:
• Officer 1 had directly apologised for the unresolved benefit issues. She had committed to helping Miss B to find a solution to the unaffordable rent payments.
• Officer 1 also apologised for the times she had not responded. And she accepted missing an appointment was unacceptable.
• The Council’s view was Officer 1’s advice about benefit levels was an “honest misinterpretation of your full benefits and other allowances [that] meant that some of the early financial advice was likely to be different to the actual awards.”
29. On 19 March, the Council’s Review Officer (Officer 2) emailed Miss B. This email is titled “suitability review”. It notes:
• It was now too late to request a review of the Council’s 2 November 2018 decision to end its homeless duty.
• The maximum amount of Local Housing Allowance for a two bedroom property was £859.73 per month. That was due to increase to £887.95 at the beginning of April.
• Using a benefit calculator, Officer 2’s view was the DWP was underpaying Miss B universal credit.
• Miss B should contact the DWP to ask it to check if it was paying her the correct bedroom allowance in the housing part of her universal credit.
30. Miss B sought help from a Councillor, who contacted the Council. Its June response advised it:
• was in contact with the DWP about its calculation, which was considerably less than it had calculated.
• Accepted problems with Officer 1’s communications.
• Noted Miss B told it Officer 1 told her the Council would find her somewhere cheaper. Officer 1 denied this. But it was almost impossible to find Miss B a suitably sized property for less than her current rent.
• Had considered whether to accept a full homelessness duty towards Miss B. But that would likely mean moving Miss B to interim accommodation – a bed and breakfast or hostel. And then temporary accommodation. She would be unlikely to be permanently rehoused for around 10 years.
• Now ensured officers advised tenants advice about housing benefit were estimates.
31. On 25 June, the Council responded at stage two of its complaints procedure. This advised:
• It was still liaising with the DWP.
• A Tenancy Sustainment Officer would contact Miss B by the end of the week.
• A Senior Lettings Negotiator would contact Miss B within two weeks to update her on cheaper accommodation.
32. At the beginning of July, the Council records show its Welfare Reform Officer (Officer 3) established the reason why Officers 1 and 2 had misadvised Miss B was because of confusion about the different ways housing benefit and universal credit were paid (four weekly for housing benefit, but calendar monthly for universal credit). So the officers had wrongly entered Miss B’s maternity income into the benefit calculators – the mistake amounted to showing Miss B being entitled to around £50 a month more than she received in universal credit. The DWP’s calculation was correct. The impact of the mistake lessened after April 2019, when the standard LHA increased by around an extra £30 a month – thereby lessening the deficit to around £20 a month. Officer 3 met Miss B around a week later.
33. On 19 August Miss B attended a meeting with Council officers. Here the Council offered her a choice of alternative accommodation. Miss B says the Council said it would contact her with a record of what was discussed at this meeting, which she did not get. The Council has no contemporaneous record of this meeting in its records.
34. The Council did write to Miss B on 30 August, advising it had accepted it had a duty towards her as a homeless person. That duty included to ensure she had suitable accommodation to occupy. It asked Miss B to advise whether she accepted an offer of accommodation it had made.
35. Miss B says she moved from a furnished to unfurnished property. She says the only help she received was Officer 3 helping her apply for an appliance. She says the Council did not contact her old landlord as it agreed to do. And the landlord was now chasing her for around £2000 rent arrears.
36. In response to our enquiries the Council advised:
• In October 2018, it did not get to the stage of assessing whether a full homelessness duty was owed, as Miss B’s homelessness was relieved shortly after she first approached it.
• The shortfall in rent was £68 a month before April 2019 and £38 a month after that.
• Miss B “…was aware that the top up would have to be from her other benefits/maternity allowance.”
• Officer 1 advised Miss B she could apply for a discretionary housing payment. But that would be to the neighbouring Borough Miss B moved to.
• A Tenancy Sustainment Officer did contact Miss B in June. But she advised she did not want assistance, as Council services were not good enough.
• The Council did contact Miss B’s old landlord and made attempts to persuade them to accept a new tenant.
• It did not have a record of the 19 August meeting. But its view was there was no dispute about what they discussed.
• The Senior Lettings Negotiator had compiled information for the Councillor. That is why she did not confirm separately to Miss B that no cheaper accommodation had become available.
37. Miss B says:
• She did not say she did not want help from the Tenancy Sustainment Officer.
• In the August meeting the Council accepted fault. Officers advised her they were taking minutes of the meeting which they would send to her.
• Officers advised her at that meeting that Officer 1 was carrying out a role that was not in her job description.
• She went away from the meeting with the impression the Council was going to sort out her rent arrears with the landlord.

Was there fault by the Council?

38. The Council gave Miss B wrong advice about her benefit entitlement. This seems to be because officers (both initially and at a later review) did not have the knowledge of the benefits system to use the software correctly. The wrong advice seems to be about how much benefit Miss B would receive in total, rather than specifically about the housing costs part of it – the LHA allowance at the time was broadly in line with the advice Miss B says Officer 1 gave her. This error meant the Council advised Miss B she would have around £50 a month more to live on than was the case.
39. The Council’s record keeping was poor. I would have expected to see a record of all key actions and advice the Council gave Miss B, including (but not only):
• The benefit calculation the Council did for Miss B when she visited it in October.
• The DHP advice. The Council says Officer 1 told Miss B to contact the council in the area she moved to. Miss B disputes this. A record could have resolved these conflicting accounts of the advice given.
• A record of the August 2019 meeting noting the key issues discussed and action agreed.
• A record of the accommodation the Council helped Miss B to find in October. I would have expected to see a record that the Council discussed with Miss B whether she could afford to pay the shortfall – even on the correct figure, this would have been around £68 a month less than the LHA she was entitled to. The Council says it did so, but the lack of a record causes doubt about exactly how this was explained.
• A record from the deposit bond scheme. To award a deposit bond, the Council should normally be checking the accommodation was affordable.
• In August the Council moved Miss B. It seems that this was because it accepted a full homeless duty and moved her to temporary accommodation. The records are unclear.
• A record of the discussions with Miss B’s old landlord. Miss B’s understanding of what the Council said it would do differs from what the Council says it advised. The lack of records is fault and creates uncertainty.
40. The Council should normally have taken a full homeless application at, or soon after, Miss B’s first October 2018 visit, although it could delay making a decision, while it tried to relieve Miss B’s homelessness. I am aware Miss B said she wanted to first try to find accommodation herself. If there was a record the Council had discussed with Miss B her options, it may have been suitable to hold taking an application. But without a record, my view is to not take an application was fault.
41. The personal housing plan should have contained information about what the Council intended to do to relieve Miss B’s homelessness. It did not do so. That was fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

42. Miss B was entitled to take on trust the information the Council gave her and make decisions based on that advice. My view is the injustice to Miss B is she moved to the address with the understanding she would be about £50 a month better off than was the case. That reduced to around £20 a month after April 2019.
43. Miss B’s claimed injustice are her rent arrears. But I cannot agree this was all directly linked to the faults I have identified. The reality is that benefit payments would always struggle to meet private sector rent levels in her area, as in most of London and the south east.
44. The lack of a record in the Council’s file about DHPs means there is a doubt about the accuracy of the advice the Council gave Miss B about these. However, I note that Miss B does not seem to have tried to claim a DHP until several months after she moved in. Against that, Officer 1 did not return Miss B’s communications then about this matter.
45. There is a list of poor communications with Miss B – from Officer 1, but also after the August 2019 meeting, where there should have been records.
46. The faults will have caused Miss B some stress and anxiety. There is also some uncertainty about whether her options might have been different, but for the fault. The lack of communications, in particular, will have also caused Miss B some unnecessary time and trouble.

Agreed action

47. I recommended that, within a month of my decision, the Council pay Miss B:
• £50 for each month between November 2018 and March 2019 and £20 for each month between April and August 2019 for the consequences of the bad advice the Council gave Miss B.
• £150 for the avoidable distress the faults caused Miss B.
• £100 for the avoidable time and trouble Miss B was put to.
• So I recommend the Council make a total payment to Miss B of £600.
48. I also recommended the Council write to Miss B again apologising for the identified faults and the injustice they led to.
49. I also asked the Council to:
• Within a month of my final decision to share it with all its officers giving housing advice and remind them of the importance of accurate records of key decisions.
• Consider ways to minimise the possibility for inaccurate benefit advice its housing officers give and report back to the Ombudsman.
50. In response to my draft decision, the Council agreed to my recommendations. It advised that, as part of a planned training and induction programme for new and existing employees, effective record keeping training was scheduled. Training on welfare benefits was also part of the programme.
51. The training had been postponed. But it would communicate the importance of record keeping with staff. It also recognised generic housing officers needed to sometimes make referrals for specialist benefit advice.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman