Summary: Ms X complains the Council took too long to complete a review of its homelessness decision, provided accommodation in a poor condition, and refused to help meet the costs of storage. There is some fault by the Council. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council took too long to deal with its review of her homelessness decision, meaning she lost the opportunity to bid for properties.
2. Ms X also complains the Council offered her temporary accommodation in a poor condition.
3. Ms X says the Council has caused her distress and uncertainty and she had to pay £178 a month in storage charges because the Council refused to help with this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 complaint and information Ms X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Ms X 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

Relevant Homeless Law and Guidance

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. 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)
12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:
• eligibility for assistance
• not in priority need
• intentionally homeless
• suitability of accommodation
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.
14. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
15. The council must advise applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Background

16. Ms X became homeless in May 2019. At first, she moved in with her mother.
17. In June, the Council offered Ms X interim accommodation in the property next to her mother’s.
18. In July, the Council decided Ms X was intentionally homeless. This means it decided Ms X’s homelessness was a result of something she deliberately did or failed to do. Ms X asked for a review of this decision through a homeless charity. She remained in the accommodation awaiting the review outcome.
19. In November, the Council completed its review and decided Ms X was not intentionally homeless. It accepted it had a duty to provide her with accommodation.
20. According to the Council’s housing allocations policy, Ms X would then have four weeks to place bids on properties. If after four weeks she had not been matched to a property, the Council would offer her a direct let. A direct let means instead of Ms X choosing a property to apply for and being shortlisted with other applicants, the Council would match her to an available property and offer it only to her.
21. Ms X did not successfully bid on any properties, so the Council offered a direct let. Ms X asked for a review of the suitability of the offer. The review found the offer was suitable so Ms X exercised her right of appeal to County Court.
22. The Court found the offer was not suitable. Ms X asked the Council to offer her the property she occupied as temporary accommodation a permanent tenancy.
23. At first, the Council declined this request. However, it has since agreed and Ms X is now a tenant.

My Findings

Condition of interim accommodation

24. Ms X says the property the Council offered as s188 interim and then s193 temporary accommodation was in a poor condition.
25. The Council has provided evidence that Ms X asked for this accommodation specifically because of its location. And insisted it be offered even after the Council explained it was not ready to let.
26. The Council told Ms X the property was not ready to let because it needed repairs, including a new kitchen. This means the Council accepted the property was not suitable. To offer unsuitable interim accommodation is fault.
27. Although it was fault for the Council to offer unsuitable accommodation, there is no injustice to Ms X. The Council was upfront about the condition of the property and Ms X decided to accept it anyway.

Delay completing review

28. Ms X asked for a review the Council’s decision she was intentionally homeless in July 2019. The Homelessness Review Regulations 2018 say reviews should take no more than eight weeks, unless both parties agree to an extension. The Council completed the review in November, almost four months later.
29. In response to enquiries, the Council provided evidence that the homeless charity supporting Ms X to review the decision had agreed to an extension of time. However, there is no evidence the Council said how much time it needed or gave a new date for a decision. This is fault.
30. Ms X says she missed opportunities to bid for social housing in this time. In the time taken to complete the review, the Council offered 21 properties matching
    Ms X’s housing need to applicants with a priority equal to or less than that Ms X was entitled to once the review was upheld. However, Ms X did not bid on any of these properties.
31. The injustice to Ms X is limited because the charity did agree to an extension of time, and Ms X did not place any bids for social housing in the period. I cannot say that Ms X would have secured permanent housing sooner had the Council completed the review more quickly.
32. However, Ms X had to live with the uncertainty of not knowing when to expect a decision. She emailed the Council several times to ask when she would hear about the outcome. This caused unnecessary distress at an already difficult time. This is an injustice to Ms X.

Bidding on properties

33. After the Council upheld Ms X’s review, she had four weeks to place bids for social housing properties before the Council’s policy said it would end its duty through a direct let.
34. Ms X says she could not bid for the first two weeks of this period. The Council’s records show that Ms X reported this problem several times to different people.
35. It took the Council too long to identify and communicate with Ms X about the problem. This is fault. However, once it explained the reason she couldn’t place bids, the Council agreed to extend Ms X’s bidding period by two weeks. This is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused.

Storage Costs

36. Ms X says the Council refused to help her meet the costs of storing her belongings when she became homeless. Ms X paid £178 per month for storage.
37. Ms X says the Council told her that because she had sourced her own storage, it could not help her pay for it.
38. When the Council first assessed Ms X in May 2019, its records say it discussed storage with Ms X but that Ms X told it she did not need help with storage. Therefore, I find no fault in the Council’s initial consideration of Ms X’s need for help with storage.
39. However, in September Ms X emailed the Council to ask when she could expect a decision on the review. In this email, she said the storage costs “are crippling to say the least.” At this point, the Council should have considered if it could provide any help to meet these costs.
40. The Council did not take any action until December, when it supported Ms X to apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment. This application awarded her an amount towards her rent, freeing up money she could use to pay for storage.
41. The Council should have supported Ms X to make this application in September. This is a delay of three months and is fault. As a result, Ms X experienced avoidable financial loss and unnecessary distress. This is an injustice to Ms X.

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in writing
• Pay Ms X £250 in recognition of her avoidable distress and uncertainty; and
• Refund Ms X’s storage costs for the period October to December 2019 at £178 a month for a total of £534
43. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman