Summary: The Council is at fault as it did not make sustained efforts to move Miss X to alternative accommodation as it had undertaken to do, delayed in carrying out a housing assessment, producing a personalised housing plan and making a decision on whether it owes the main housing duty to her. This caused uncertainty to Miss X. The Council also failed to notify Miss X of her right to appeal against its decision that she had been overpaid housing benefit so she was denied the opportunity to appeal. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X’s injustice by making a payment of £300 to her, make a decision on whether it owes the main housing duty and reissue the housing benefit determination with her appeal rights to allow her to appeal.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that about how the Council has dealt with her housing since 2017. In particular she complains:

• The Council has placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation in two hostels and a house where she has suffered threats of violence, racial discrimination and abuse.
• The most recent hostel was unsuitable as Miss X could not get her zimmer frame into her room and the bathroom was not adapted for her needs as a disabled person.
• The Council has failed to keep to a commitment that she would be moved to more suitable temporary accommodation after two weeks.
• The Council has wrongly accused her of harassing another resident at a hostel and required her to sign an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement without interviewing her first or examining CCTV evidence. Miss X considers this shows hostel staff are bullying and discriminating against her.
• The Council unreasonably evicted her from her temporary accommodation in 2018 as it wrongly considered she had abandoned it.
• The Council wrongly considers there is a recoverable housing benefit overpayment in respect of the temporary accommodation
• The Council has not issued any decision letters regarding her homelessness case.
• The Council has not advised her about joining the housing register.
• The Council has not dealt with any safeguarding alerts raised by Miss X and other agencies including the police.

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. I have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

5. The Homelessness Reduction Act was introduced on 3 April 2018. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
6. A 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
    
7. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

What happened

8. In June 2017 Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council placed her in hostel A as emergency accommodation while it made enquiries into her homelessness application. In November 2017 Miss X complained that staff and residents at the hostel were harassing her and she had called the Police on a number of occasions. Two weeks later the Council moved Miss X to self contained accommodation in another area. I shall call this property B. There is no evidence to show the Council made a decision on Miss X’s homelessness application at this time.
9. The Council’s records show that in June 2018 the Police contacted the Council as they were unable to contact Miss X to follow up on reports she had made. Miss X has said the Police informed the Council that she was sleeping on the streets but there is no evidence to show this. An internal Council email dated 28 June 2018 states the Police contacted the Council again to make enquires as to whether Miss X could be move. The Council has said it sought to offer alternative accommodation to Miss X at this time but could not contact her.
10. The Council’s records note contact from the managing agent of Miss X’s property in July 2018. They reported the Police had broken into Miss X’s property due to concerns about her welfare. Miss X was not at the property and the Police boarded up the property to secure it.
11. The Police contacted the Council in August 2018 to report concerns for Miss X’s welfare. The Police also considered Miss X was no longer living at the temporary accommodation.
12. The Council’s records show it tried to contact Miss X to arrange for her to move to alternative emergency accommodation. The Council was unable to contact her so asked another agency which Miss X had contact with to pass a message to her. There is no record of any contact from Miss X at this time.
13. The Council’s records show it cancelled the search for alternative accommodation for Miss X. The Council’s records note the managing agent was arranging access to the property to remove Miss X’s belongings to place them in storage. The Council says it cancelled the accommodation in November 2018. However, emails between officers and the hospital variously state that the accommodation was cancelled in August 2018 and that Miss X was last at the property in September 2018.

Housing benefit claim

14. The Council has said that the Department of Work and Pensions provided information which suggested Miss X had moved from property B in June 2018 and was living at another address. In early September 2018 the Council cancelled Miss X’s housing benefit claim for property B and notified her that an overpayment between June and September 2018 had occurred and it intended to recover the payment from her rent account. The notification letters advised Miss X of her right to appeal against this decision. The letters were sent to Miss X shortly before she was admitted to hospital.

Hospital discharge and hostel C.

15. Miss X was admitted to hospital in September 2018 where she remained until early July 2019.
16. The Council’s records show it looked for accommodation for Miss X to enable her discharge from hospital. It was unable to find affordable accommodation in a suitable area so it placed Miss X in hostel C. Its records show it intended the placement to last for two weeks as it was seeking a longer term pathways supported hostel placement.
17. Prior to the placement the hospital sent an email to the Council advising Miss X was mobilising and able to manage a flight of stairs. Miss X considers the hostel was unsuitable as it had steps to the entrance and she could not use her zimmer frame in the room or the bathroom facilities. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said the bathroom included a level access shower which Miss X could access.
18. The Council considers the hostel was suitable for Miss X as it had a floating support worker and was suitable for Miss X’s physical capabilities.
19. The Council’s records show it continued to pursue a pathways hostel place for Miss X during July and August 2019. One record notes the Council would consider extra care sheltered accommodation but there is no evidence to show the Council pursued this. Another record shows the Council tried to contact Miss X to discuss her options in August and early September 2019 but could not make contact with her. A Council internal email suggests it was unwilling to procure temporary accommodation for Miss X due to concerns about her behaviour so private rented accommodation was the only option. An officer sent an email to Miss X asking her to contact him to discuss private rented accommodation. Miss X did not contact the officer and there is no evidence to show the Council made any offers of private rented accommodation to her.

Eviction from hostel C

20. Shortly after moving to hostel C, Miss X made complaints about residents and staff. In late August 2019 Miss X sent an email to the Council stating she was making a safeguarding self referral and detailed further complaints about staff and residents.
21. The Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints of anti social behaviour in interim accommodation provides it will:
• meet will meet with the alleged victim and staff to discuss the incident
• meet with the alleged perpetrator to discuss the incident.
• Investigate and gather witness statements, look at CCTV and contact police
• The outcome may be to have a meeting with the alleged perpetrator and issued a yellow acceptable behaviour agreement. If a further incident occurs the Council will serve a notice to quit.
22. A senior officer at the hostel sent a letter to Miss X. In the letter he referred to offering two meetings to Miss X to discuss her concerns but she had declined to attend. The officer said he had investigated Miss X’s allegations against staff but found no evidence to support her allegations. He also concluded there was no evidence another resident was harassing her but he had received complaints about Miss X harassing staff and a resident.
23. Miss X made further allegations about the behaviour of staff and residents and reported her concerns to the Police. The Police attended the hostel to speak to Miss X and investigate her allegations but did not take further action.
24. A resident also made allegations about Miss X harassing him. The Council invited Miss X to a meeting to discuss the allegations. Miss X did not attend. She has said this is because the Police advised her not to attend meetings without them being present. Miss X sent an email to the Council raising a number of complaints about residents and staff and about how the Council had investigated her concerns.
25. The Council served an acceptable behaviour agreement on Miss X which provided she should stop harassing the resident. The letter advised Miss X that her licence at the hostel could be terminated if she breached the agreement.
26. Following further complaints about Miss X’s behaviour, one of which was investigated by the Police, the Council asked Miss X to attend another meeting. Miss X did not attend. She has said this was because the Council would not allow her to bring an independent representative. The Council served a notice on Miss X stating she had breached her licence conditions. This meant she would be evicted from the hostel.
27. Incident reports completed by staff record further concerns about Miss X harassing a resident. These note the incidents were witnessed by staff.
28. Miss X was evicted in November 2019. The Council’s records show it offered bed and breakfast accommodation to Miss X in another area which she considered to be unsuitable. The Council’s records note an officer spoke to Miss X and her representative and explained the difficulty in finding alternative accommodation for Miss X due to affordability and due to her behaviour in previous placements. The officer also asked Miss X to provide evidence of her hospital appointments. The officer also advised Miss X’s representative that Miss X could apply to the housing register if the Council considered she was homeless and it had a duty to accommodate her.
29. The Council sent a letter to Miss X in November 2019 advising it owed the relief duty to her and it also assessed her housing circumstances and produced a personalised housing plan (PHP). The Council has said Miss X has not yet agreed the PHP. The Council has not made a decision on Miss X’s homelessness application as yet.
30. The Council held a meeting to discuss Miss X’s safeguarding referrals in November 2019. The outcome of the meeting was for a social worker to contact Miss X to discuss her concerns. She was unable to contact Miss X so the Council decided to take no further action.

My assessment

Suitability of accommodation

Hostel A and property B

31. There is no evidence to show why the Council considered hostel A was suitable for Miss X in 2017. But I will not pursue this matter any further. The Council moved Miss X to property B within a few weeks of her complaining about harassment at hostel A. I therefore do not consider Miss X could have sufficient injustice to warrant pursuing this matter further. I also consider it is unlikely further investigation will establish how the Council considered the placement of Miss X at hostel A due to the passage of time.

Property B

32. As I understand it property B was self contained. There is also no evidence to show that this was unsuitable for Miss X and the Council could not have known Miss X may be subject to harassment when placing her there. So, on balance, I do not consider the Council was at fault in placing Miss X at property B. The evidence shows the Council tried to source alternative accommodation for Miss X when the Police requested she be moved. The evidence also shows the Council attempted to contact Miss X directly and through her representative when it was seeking alternative accommodation for her.
33. The Council is also not at fault in cancelling property B as it had information from the Police that Miss X had left the property. It also made appropriate attempts to contact Miss X and through her representative. It is also likely the Council would have cancelled property B in late 2018 due to Miss X’s extended stay in hospital.

Hostel C

34. The Council intended to move Miss X to a supported hostel after two weeks. It made efforts to seek alternative accommodation for Miss X in July and August 2019. The evidence also shows it tried to contact Miss X in early September 2019 to discuss private rented accommodation. But there is no evidence to show the Council made sustained efforts to source alternative accommodation, including private rented, or take any action from September 2019. I am mindful the Council had concerns about Miss X’s behaviour and that she did not always engage with officers. But the Council had accepted a duty to provide interim accommodation to Miss X and it intended to move Miss X to a supported hostel. The Council is therefore at fault for not making more sustained efforts to find suitable accommodation for Miss X and for not moving her after two weeks.
35. But, I cannot conclude, on balance, that hostel C was unsuitable for Miss X. The hostel had a floating support worker so support was available for Miss X. I have considered Miss X’s position that the hostel was unsuitable due to the steps to the entrance, that she could not use her zimmer frame in her bedroom or access the bathrooms as they were not adapted. I have also considered the medical evidence provided by Miss X. There is no doubt Miss X has mobility problems. The evidence shows the hospital advised the Council that Miss X could manage a flight of stairs and could mobilise. The hospital did not say Miss X required adapted facilities and this was information the Council was entitled to rely on when placing Miss X in the hostel. So I am satisfied Miss X would have been able to use her room. I note Miss X’s GP comment that she could not use the bathroom. However, the bathroom contained a level access shower so Miss X would have been able to use the bathroom. So, on balance, I consider the hostel was suitable for Miss X.
36. But Miss X had the expectation she would be moved after two weeks and the Council’s failure to take sufficient action to source alternative accommodation will have caused uncertainty to Miss X about her housing situation. The Council should remedy this uncertainty.

Eviction from hostel C

37. The Council did not follow its own procedures when investigating Miss X’s complaints about staff and a resident of hostel C. The procedures provide the investigating officer should take witness statements, look at CCTV and contact the police. The officer’s letter refers to speaking to hostel staff but there are no witness statements, evidence to show the Council viewed CCTV or contacted the Police. There is also no evidence the Council spoke to the resident who Miss X alleged was harassing her. Given such allegations can result in an eviction, it is important the Council keeps proper records of its investigation including the evidence considered and reasons for its decision. The failure to do so here is fault.
38. Similarly, the Council’s investigation into the allegations against Miss X are poorly documented. There are no records of the Council’s investigation into the allegations against Miss X until the Council served the acceptable behaviour agreement. However, I do not consider this fault calls into question the decision to evict Miss X. The Council offered meetings to Miss X to give her the opportunity to discuss the allegations and put forward her view of events. Miss X declined these meetings. I note her reasons for doing so but the Council gave Miss X the opportunity to put her case. The Council started to keep records of the incidents following the service of the acceptable behaviour agreement. These records support the Council’s position that Miss X had breached the terms of the acceptable behaviour agreement.

Housing benefit claim at property B

39. The Council sent letters to Miss X advising her it considered she had been overpaid housing benefit between June and September 2018. The letters advised Miss X of her right to appeal against this decision. However, the letters were sent to Miss X at another address, not property B and this was a few days before she was admitted to hospital. The Council has not provided evidence to show Miss X was at this address. There are also conflicting accounts in the Council’s own emails of when Miss X left property B. So, I cannot be satisfied Miss X received a copy of the Council’s determination letters notifying her of her right to appeal against the decision that an overpayment of housing benefit had occurred from June to September 2018. The Council should reissue the determination letters to Miss X to allow her to appeal against this decision.
40. Miss X has said the Council considers she was overpaid housing benefit at hostel C. I have not investigated this complaint as it is a new issue which has arisen since I started my investigation. In any event Miss X has the right to appeal against this decision.

Homelessness application

41. The Council has said it accommodated Miss X under its homelessness duties. There is no evidence to show the Council made a decision on Miss X’s homelessness application in 2017. This is fault.
42. The Council owed the relief duty to Miss X in July 2019 as she was homeless. So, the Council should have carried out a housing assessment and produced a personalised housing plan (PHP) in July 2019 when it provided interim accommodation to Miss X. It did not do this until November 2019. In response to my enquiries the Council has said the homelessness code of guidance states practical solutions may proceed paperwork. An assessment and PHP should be conducted alongside any practical action the Council is taking to relieve homelessness. Furthermore, Miss X was placed at hostel C for four months so there was no reason why the Council could not carry out the assessment and draw up a PHP as it is required to do and to keep the PHP under review. The Council also did not notify Miss X in writing about what duty it owed to her at this time. Its failure to do so is fault.
43. Had the Council carried out a housing assessment and produced a PHP then Miss X would have had clear information about her housing options, including whether she could apply to the housing register, and information on the steps the Council and she should take to secure accommodation. The Council may have had a greater understanding of what accommodation it could secure for Miss X at an earlier stage. So, the delay in carrying out a housing assessment and producing a PHP has caused some uncertainty to Miss X as to how her housing situation could be resolved.
44. There is no evidence to show the Council has made a decision on Miss X’s homelessness application which it accepted in July 2019. There is no statutory timescale for councils to make decisions on homelessness applications. But we expect councils to make decisions in a reasonable timeframe so the applicant can have certainty about the outcome of their homelessness application and can seek a review of the council’s decision if they disagree with it. The Council has suggested Miss X will not allow it to contact third parties as part of its inquiries. However, this should not prevent the Council from making a decision on her homelessness application. The Council is taking an excessive amount of time in making a decision about whether it owes the main housing duty to Miss X. The Council should make its decision as soon as possible to provide some certainty for Miss X.
45. The Council had explained it is improving its procedures for homelessness prevention work and to ensure it adheres to statutory and internal procedures for homelessness applications. This will prevent the delays which occurred in this case.
46. Miss X has said she made a number of safeguarding referrals and other agencies also made referrals on her behalf. I have not seen evidence to show other agencies made such referrals. The Council did not deal with Miss X’s safeguarding referral until November 2019. However, Miss X’s safeguarding referrals were in connection with the allegations she made about staff and residents at the hostel which officers responded to in September 2019. So, I am satisfied the Council broadly dealt with the referral.

Agreed action

47. That the Council will:

1. send a written apology to Miss X to acknowledge the uncertainty caused to her about her housing situation as a result of its failure to take sufficient action to source alternative accommodation for her and the delays in carrying out a housing assessment, producing a personalised housing plan and issuing the Council’s decision about whether it owes Miss X the main housing duty.
2. make a payment of £300 to Miss X to acknowledge the uncertainty caused to her about her housing situation by the delays in sourcing alternative accommodation and the delays in carrying out a housing assessment, producing a personalised housing plan and issuing the Council’s decision about whether it owes Miss X the main housing duty.
3. reissues its determination that Miss X was overpaid housing benefit for the period June to September 2018 to enable Miss X to appeal against this decision.
4. make a decision on whether the Council owes the main housing duty to Miss X.
5. ensure officers follow the Council’s procedure for investigating allegations anti social behaviour in interim/temporary accommodation and ensures adequate records are kept of the investigation.

48. The Council should take the action set out at a) to d) within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

49. The Council is at fault as it did not make sustained efforts to move Miss X to alternative accommodation as it had undertaken to do, ,delayed in carrying out a housing assessment, producing a personalised housing plan and making a decision on whether it owes the main housing duty to her. The Council also failed to notify Miss X of her right to appeal against its decision that she had been overpaid housing benefit. The Council has agreed to remedy Miss X as recommended so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman