Summary: Mrs D complains about lack of assistance and a failure to follow procedures by the Council in respect of her housing. The Ombudsman has found some evidence of fault, regarding the joint tenancy and a Tenancy Deposit Scheme claim) which has already been either acknowledged by the Council in its complaint responses or remedied because of this investigation. The Ombudsman has completed the investigation and upheld the complaint because there is fault. However, there is no further action required by the Council because there is no unremedied injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council failed to follow procedures with her housing. In particular, the Council:
• Did not assist with the financial cost of moving to temporary accommodation in February 2018;
• Did not resolve an infestation and other repair issues at temporary accommodation in 2018;
• Failed to assist with debts accrued as a result of having to move out of her home and did not pursue a Rent Repayment Order against her former landlord;
• Refused permission for her to be a joint tenant with her then partner in 2018 and 2019.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at events from February 2018 onwards.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
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 have considered the information provided by Mrs D. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
7. I have written to Mrs D and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In February 2018 Mr and Mrs D were told by the Council the private rental flat they occupied was unfit to live in (there was no safe fire escape route and their room was prohibited from use as a bedroom) and they needed to move. The Council provided the couple with temporary accommodation and accepted a homelessness application from Mr D as the main applicant and Mrs D as part of the household.
9. Mrs D says she had to make 10 to 20 taxi trips to move her belongings to the temporary accommodation which she could not afford. There is no record of Mrs D asking the Council for assistance with her removals when she and Mr D met the Housing Officer about their application. Mrs D says the temporary accommodation was infested with silverfish. I have no records of this being reported to the Council at the time.
10. In April the Council accepted a main homelessness duty towards Mr and Mrs D because they were unintentionally homeless and in priority need.
11. In June the Council interviewed Mrs D’s former landlord as part of its investigation about the property conditions. The Council subsequently decided not to take formal action because the hazards were rectified.
12. In October the Council emailed Mrs D that she and Mr D were “both registered as applicants with [Mr D] as the lead applicant”. This was because he was older and it would allow bids on properties restricted to age 55 plus.
13. In January 2019 Mrs D asked the Council if it was pursuing a Rent Referral Order (RRO). The Council responded on 25 January that it was not possible to seek the RRO because the criteria were not met as the landlord had not received a banning order and there was no breach of a Prohibition Notice.
14. On 6 February Mr and Mrs D accepted an offer of housing with Mr D as the main applicant and Mrs D as part of the household. The couple subsequently separated and in July Mrs D asked the Council to provide housing solely for her. She was placed into temporary accommodation.
15. In July Mrs D also complained to the Council about its actions leaving her in debt and being forced to move home.
16. In August the Council accepted a relief duty towards Mrs D and issued a Personal Housing Plan for her. The Council also issued a complaint reply to Mrs D. It said an infestation at the original temporary accommodation had been treated correctly. Mrs D had not informed the Council about the need for removal cost assistance at the time or about debts. The Council would now arrange for a Debt Adviser to get in touch. It also explained the criteria to pursue a RRO were not met. It went onto explain the initial housing application was made by Mr D who was eligible for age restricted accommodation. Because Mrs D was under 55 she could not be considered for the same age restricted accommodation if she had been a joint tenant.
17. Mrs D pursued her complaint and the Council issued a further response (called a stage two reply) on 2 September. It found there had been a failure to consider assisting Mrs D about her lost deposit with her previous landlord under the Tenancy Deposit Scheme and this should not have put into abeyance whilst the Council looked at a Rent Referral Order. It said an Officer would meet Mrs D to review legal/financial redress options in her case.
18. On 3 September, the Council placed Mrs D in Band D. On 28 September it wrote to Mrs D about changes to the housing policy from 1 October. This meant her banding would change to Band E as she was an applicant owed a prevention/ relief duty. Her application was amended to Band E on 8 October. Later that day the Council completed its consideration of her homeless application and accepted she was unintentionally homeless, in priority need and owed a full homelessness duty. This meant she moved to Band D. The Council refers to a phone call with Mrs D but there is no record of that call for me to establish with any certainty what was said. The Council also wrote to Mrs D explaining how it decided whether to take enforcement action against a landlord and why no action would be taken in her case.
19. Also, in October the Council emailed Mrs D about making a direct offer of accommodation because it realised there had been a mistake “relating to the joint tenancy”. Mrs D declined this because she wanted to be able to choose the area she lived in.
20. On 17 January 2020 Mrs D was offered a social housing tenancy which she signed for at the start of February.
21. I understand the Council contacted Mrs D in February/ March to offer assistance with a civil action in respect of the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Mrs D did not feel able to pursue legal action. The Council says it recognised that going to court would have a detrimental impact on Mrs D’s mental health. As a result, if offered her as a “goodwill gesture” £1800 which is the amount she would have received had she succeeded in her a civil claim under the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Mrs D accepted the offer.

What should have happened

22. If the Council inspects a property and finds it is unfit or unsafe to inhabit it can offer the tenant temporary accommodation whilst it considers if it has a homelessness duty towards that person.
23. The Council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
24. A client provided with temporary accommodation by the Council receives a guidance sheet detailing how to report disrepair. They should first notify the reception at the property provider who will carry out works.
25. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
26. Prior to April 2018 where the council owes a housing duty, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211.). If a client tells the Council, before moving to temporary accommodation, they need financial assistance with removal costs the Council will consider this matter. The Council asks a Housing Debt Adviser to carry out an affordability assessment to decide if any financial support is needed.
27. The Housing Debt Advisers mainly deal with clients threatened with homelessness. They can provide tailored debt advice and liaise with landlords. They also carry out affordability assessments to see if a client can afford a property.
28. An RRO requires repayment of rent/ housing benefit for a tenancy where a landlord has committed particular offences (including failure to comply with a Prohibition Notice or managing an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation). The tenant or Council can apply for the Order to a Tribunal. If the Council finds the criteria to apply for an RRO are not met or it does not have sufficient evidence of a criminal standard of proof it will not pursue this action.
29. The Tenancy Deposit Scheme allows a tenant to make a civil claim in court for repayment of the rent deposit. The claim must be made by the tenant, but the Council can provide assistance with paperwork and costs.
30. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
31. Clients are awarded a band to reflect the assessment of their housing need. Band A is the highest priority. Prior to October 2019 applicants accepted with a full housing duty were placed in Band C. This changed in October 2019 and the same level of priority was placed in band D. Applicants accepted with a duty for prevention of homelessness/ relief were placed in Band E.
32. When a housing application is made by one person who includes their partner as part of the household the main applicant is the person who would be offered a tenancy. A person can ask to be made a joint applicant (and then would be offered a joint tenancy). Some social housing properties are age restricted and only offered to people over 55 years old. In such cases if a joint application is made and one of the applicants is under 55 they would not be eligible for the property.
33. The Council can exercise its discretion and make one direct offer of accommodation to an applicant.

Was there fault by the Council

34. Mrs D says the Council failed to assist her with cost of moving to temporary accommodation. There is no duty on the Council to provide assistance unless this is requested. As there is no record showing Mrs D asking the Council for this assistance prior to moving home I do not find evidence of fault by the Council.
35. Mrs D refers to her temporary accommodation in 2018 being infested by silverfish. The Council’s complaint response to her refers to the flat being treat in a timely manner. However, the records held by the Council contradict this because there is no evidence of any treatment during Mrs D’s occupancy. Instead the property was treated before she moved in. It may be the complaints response was wrong. In any event I am unable to prove there was an infestation that was reported by Mrs D at the time or that the Council failed to act. In the absence of evidence to verify what took place I cannot say the Council was at fault in this matter.
36. Mrs D says the Council’s actions including her having to move meant she incurred debts which it failed to assist her with. I do not see that I can find fault with the Council that Mrs D incurred debts because of the need to move. As set out above she did not request financial assistance with the need to move. The costs of installing broadband in temporary accommodation is not something the Council has a duty to pay for. I do find the Council delayed offering assistance to Mrs D with the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. I consider the offer of assistance with this could and should have been made sooner.
37. Mrs D says the Council should have had her as a joint tenant. This is clearly a matter she raised with the Council several times and I cannot see that her request to be a joint tenant was fully considered. The Council has already accepted there was an error in its October 2019 complaint response.
38. I understand Mrs D feels the Council should have taken action against her former landlord under the RRO process. The Council considered whether action could be taken and explained the reasons why it could not do so to Mrs D. I see no evidence of fault by the Council as it followed the correct procedures. Mrs D disagrees with its decision, but the Ombudsman will not question the merits of such decisions in the absence of fault.
39. Mrs D says the Council placed her in the wrong housing Band. I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council. It had to alter the banding in 2019 when its housing policy changed. This change was fully explained to Mrs D at the time.
40. Mrs D says the stress caused by the Council’s actions led to serious issues in her marriage ending in separation. She feels the Council should pay redress for this. It is not possible for me to prove that actions by the Council were solely responsible for the distressing events Mrs D experienced in her relationship and, as such, I am not able to say the Council should pay her financial redress for this.

Did the fault cause an injustice

41. Mrs D declined the offer of assistance from the Council regarding civil action for the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. As such I do not see Mrs D lost an opportunity. Furthermore, the Council decided to exercise discretion and paid her the amount she would have received had she been successful in her court claim, this was done to prevent Mrs D having the distress of court action. I consider that an adequate remedy to this matter.
42. The Council should have fully considered Mrs D’s request to be a joint tenant in 2018. I cannot see it did so instead it repeated the benefit of her being on the housing application with Mr D as the main applicant. However, I do not see this caused a significant injustice to Mrs D because Mr D as the main tenant was eligible to bid for a wider range of age restricted properties which the couple, had they been joint tenants, would have been ineligible for. In addition, the Council offered Mrs D the opportunity of a direct offer as result of its error.
43. Whilst I appreciate that Mrs D feels the Council should do more to assist her and pay her financial redress, I do not find an outstanding unremedied injustice in this case. The Council has taken adequate steps to remedy the faults identified.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I am not looking at events prior to February 2018.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman