Summary: Fault by the Council resulted in Mr X being left without suitable permanent accommodation for nine months longer than should have been the case. The Council has now rehoused Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the outstanding injustice Mr X suffered.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:

1. unreasonably ended its relief duty;
2. failed to make a decision about whether it owes him the main housing duty which has also delayed him getting a higher priority on the Homefinder Somerset scheme;
3. placed him in interim accommodation for over 4 months with no cooking facilities;
4. moved him to alternative interim accommodation which was in a poor condition and close to his abusive ex-partner;
5. forced him to view private rented properties which were either unaffordable or far from his work; and
6. has not communicated with him properly.

2. Mr X says he has been without suitable accommodation for much longer than he should have been and that he has suffered anxiety and stress as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X contacted the Council in January 2019 explaining he was a victim of domestic abuse and seeking assistance with alternative housing. The Council initially provided help and information about finding privately rented accommodation.
7. On 7 February Mr X contacted a housing officer explaining the police had bee called as his partner’s behaviour had become threatening. Mr X said the police advised him not to return to the shared property.
8. The Council decided Mr X was homeless and eligible and that it owed him the relief duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It provided Mr X with interim accommodation on 8 February. The Council also provided him with help to give notice on the tenancy he jointly held with his ex-partner. On 21 February, when he returned to the property to collect his belongings, Mr X had to call the police after being attacked by his ex-partner. Mr X began the process to seek a restraining order following this attack.
9. Mr X began looking at private sector properties. Mr X was also seeking help with his debt problems and was concerned about the affordability of the properties he was viewing. Mr X says the Council told him it was unlikely social housing would become available and so he should concentrate on the private rented sector. Mr X viewed several flats but did not consider them suitable for his needs or they were let to someone else first.
10. On 4 July the Council wrote to Mr X saying its relief duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act had come to an end. The letter said it was ending the relief duty because it had owed Mr X the relief duty for 56 days and he had refused an offer of suitable accommodation. It also said the housing officer had identified at least 10 properties that were affordable and suitable for his needs and on each occasion Mr X had deemed the properties unsuitable and he had refused to proceed to a tenancy. It said this was tantamount to non-compliance with his personal housing plan. The letter gave Mr X details of his right to seek a review of this decision.
11. Mr X sought advice and a housing charity wrote to the Council on his behalf on 19 July seeking a review of the decision to end the relief duty. The case was considered by another officer on 17 October. The reviewing officer took the view Mr X was not actually offered a property but was offered opportunities to view potentially affordable properties in the private sector. It said this reason for ending the relief duty was not properly explained and so would be discounted. It said the relief duty ended because a period of 56 days had passed. It said Mr X was owed the main housing duty because the relief duty had ended. It said an offer would contact Mr X to issue the correct paperwork and offer appropriate temporary accommodation.
12. The Council contacted Mr X and asked him to supply up to date details of his accommodation and health. It said it needed to verify where he had been staying since he left the emergency accommodation in June.
13. The Council wrote to Mr X on 3 January accepting the full homelessness duty. It also said it owed Mr X a new duty to make sure he had suitable temporary accommodation.
14. The Council emailed Mr X on 2 March offering him temporary accommodation from 3 March. The letter advised that Mr X had until 11 am the next day to accept the offer. The Council also provided details of Mr X’s reassessed housing application. It advised that he should bid on all suitable properties to maximise his chances of securing more permanent accommodation.
15. Mr X wrote to the Council on 3 March saying he was seeking advice and did not consider the Council had given him long enough to consider the implications of the temporary accommodation. He said the Council had sent the email at 4 50 pm and asked him to make decision by 11 am the next day. The Council said it would hold the offer until 2pm on 4 March.
16. Mr X’s housing advisor wrote to the Council on 6 March seeking information on the cost of the temporary accommodation, whether the Council would contribute to the cost and would the Council agree to him staying with friends until he is rehoused. The housing advisor described this as “duty agreed, homeless from home”.
17. The Council said it was unable to provide specific information about the cost of the accommodation as it was at a Travelodge which offers a variable nightly charge and the Council would book it on a weekly basis. It also said it is not always possible for the person to remain in the same room and so the charge could change. It said it could consider the option of homeless at home but Mr X would need to provide the address of where he was staying.
18. Mr X did not move into any temporary accommodation but remained with friends. The Council made a direct offer of accommodation during the Coronavirus lockdown, which Mr X accepted.

Analysis

Council unreasonably ended its relief duty

19. The Council wrote to Mr X on 4 July ending its relief duty. The Council gave two reasons for ending the relief duty and on review accepted one reason was not correct. The Homelessness Reduction Act states that the relief duty will automatically end after 56 days if the Council accepts the applicant is in priority need and not intentionally homeless. The information in this case suggests the Council was able to make such a decision at the end of the 56 days. The timing of the Council ending the relief duty and the reasons given amount to fault.

The Council failed to make a decision about whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty which also delayed him getting a higher priority on the Homefinder Somerset scheme

20. As explained above, the Council should have ended the relief duty after 56 days and then it should then have made a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. While the Council ended the relief duty on 4 July it did not write to Mr X until 3 January accepting it owed him the main housing duty. The time taken by the Council to write to Mr X accepting it owed him the main housing duty was too long and amounts to fault.
21. The Council should have ended the relief duty and accepted the full homeless duty in April. At this point, Mr X would have been able to bid on available one bedroom properties. I have seen information which shows if this had happened Mr X would have made a successful bid and been awarded a property much sooner than actually happened. As a result of the Council’s fault, Mr X has been without suitable accommodation for much longer than should have been the case.

The Council placed Mr X in interim accommodation for over 4 months with no cooking facilities

22. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation from 8 February. This was hotel accommodation and so Mr X had access to his own bathroom but not to cooking facilities.
23. I can understand why Mr X was unhappy with this accommodation as he had no access to cooking facilities. However, homelessness legislation does not provide any right of appeal regarding the suitability of interim accommodation. Also, The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2003 says that bed and breakfast accommodation is not suitable for households with family commitments. As Mr X is a single man, bed and breakfast accommodation would be considered suitable for his needs. I cannot find fault in the Council providing accommodation without cooking facilities.

Moved Mr X to alternative interim accommodation which was in a poor condition and close to his abusive ex-partner

24. I explained above that there is no right of review regarding the suitability of interim accommodation. Mr X moved into different interim accommodation in June. This accommodation had cooking facilities. Mr X did not stay long at this accommodation because he felt unsafe after bumping into his ex-partner near the property on more than one occasion.
25. Mr X did complain to the Council about the poor condition of the interim accommodation. The Council responded saying the property remained a commercial bed and breakfast hotel and so any complaints should first be raised with the accommodation provider. It said if the issues are not addressed then the matter should be raised with a housing officer. The Council said Mr X had not raised the issues with the provider.
26. Mr X did not stay long at the bed and breakfast with cooking facilities. He did raise the issue of the poor condition and I consider the Council’s response to be dismissive. It seems to me the Council could have raised the issues on behalf of Mr X rather than just contact the accommodation provider to see if issues had been raised. However, Mr X moved out and so the issues were not pursued.

Forced Mr X to view private rented properties which were either unaffordable or far from his work

27. As part of its duties under the relief duty of the Homelessness Reduction Act, the Council prepared a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) with Mr X. The plan said that to resolve Mr X’s housing issues he would register on Homefinder, would actively look for accommodation in the private sector and would be referred for debt advice. The PHP also said an income and expenditure form would be completed in order to assess how much rent Mr X could afford to pay.
28. I have seen emails which show the Council provided details of properties for Mr X to view. It was part of Mr X’s plan to consider properties within the private rented sector and there is evidence he viewed many privately rented properties. I am not persuaded it was fault for the Council to expect Mr X to view available private sector properties.
29. The Council has provided a copy of an income and expenditure form completed by Mr X. This shows that he had excess income per month of £133.59 assuming a rent payment of £275 per month. I have not seen anything which shows a figure assessed by the Council as an affordable amount of rent. However, the income and expenditure includes an amount of £269 to cover bills. This would give Mr X a total amount of £667 to cover rent and bills. I have seen information which shows the properties suggested by the Council had rents of between £325 to £520 per month excluding bills. On the basis of the information provided I cannot conclude that all the properties suggested by the Council were unaffordable.
30. Regarding the distance from Mr X’s work, I note that Mr X was concerned about being housed close to his ex-partner. Therefore, I do not consider it fault for the Council to suggest properties further afield.

The Council has not communicated properly with Mr X

31. Mr X has not been specific about what the Council’s communication failings are. However, there is evidence of delay from July after the Council sent the letter ending the relief duty. In August Mr X involved his MP because the Council had not responded to his complaint. When Mr X contacted the Ombudsman in October 2019 he had still not received confirmation from the Council that it owed the full homelessness duty.
32. Having considered the information presented, I am satisfied there was delay by the Council in responding to Mr X at times. Also, he was put to extra time and trouble pursuing matters because of this lack of communication.

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the Council’s delay in providing suitable accommodation it will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

• Provide a written apology to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £1,800 to acknowledge the time Mr X was not provided with suitable accommodation. I take the view, on balance, that but for the fault Mr X would have been rehoused nine months earlier than he actually was. Our Guidance on Remedies says a payment of £150 to £350 per month should be made for each month a person is not in suitable accommodation. I believe Mr X’s circumstances requires a payment in the mid range of £200 per month;
• Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the extra time and trouble he has experienced as a result of pursuing these issues; and
• Ensure its procedures and guidance for the action to take at the end of the 56 day relief period are fit for purpose in order to prevent similar faults recurring.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman