Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to support Ms M when she could not access her new home and was made homeless. He says this meant she ended up paying higher rent for different accommodation. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Ms M that the Council failed to support her when she could not access her new home and was made homeless.
2. Mr X says this meant Ms M ended up paying higher rent for different accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. Ms M has given written consent for Mr X to represent this complaint on her behalf.
6. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about this complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

8. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 says that councils must provide a free service which gives information and advice on preventing homelessness, securing accommodation for homeless people, the rights of those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and what help the council can give.
9. If someone applies to a council for housing, the council must determine if the person is homeless, threatened with homelessness, and whether they are eligible for assistance. The council must assess the person and complete a personal housing plan. The council must determine if it has a duty to accommodate that person.
10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need, and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. ‘Priority need’ means someone with dependent children, are pregnant, are under 18 years old or are vulnerable, for example – being ill, disabled, or the victim of domestic abuse.
11. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 defines a ‘residential occupier’ as someone occupying a premises as a residence. It is an offence for anyone to unlawfully deprive the residential occupier their occupation of that premises.

What happened

12. Mr X is a landlord and owns a property that has several flats within it. He privately rents these flats to tenants.
13. In June 2019, Ms M was due to move into one of Mr X’s flats in the property. She was not able to do so because another tenant (Miss P) had changed the locks. Mr X contacted the Council asking for help.
14. Three days later, Ms M emailed the Council. Ms M told the Council she had found alternative accommodation and would be able to move into that property in just over a week’s time. Ms M asked the Council to get back to her with “possible resolutions of this situation”.
15. On the same day, the Council advised Mr X as the landlord to seek independent legal advice on gaining access to the property.
16. Ms M then moved into her new accommodation.
17. A few days later, the Council emailed Ms M. It apologised for not getting back to her sooner. It repeated the advice it gave Mr X: that Mr X as landlord needed to seek legal advice.
18. Mr X complained to the Council on behalf of Ms M.
19. The Council’s complaint response said Ms M told the Council she had arranged alternative accommodation. It said if Ms M had presented as homeless, she would not have been deemed to be in priority need and so the Council would not have owed her a homelessness duty.
20. The Council said it had considered whether it could have done more to help Ms M gain access to the property. It said it may have been possible to investigate Miss P’s actions under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
21. The Council said it was unusual for a tenant to prevent access. It said it was therefore unaware that it could investigate Miss P. The Council said more specialist advice may have resulted in additional action in at least contacting Miss P to understand the circumstances and make Miss P aware of her responsibility to permit access to a new tenant.
22. The Council said, however, that this action in itself may not have resulted in Ms M gaining access to the property. The Council apologised for not investigating further. It said it would share the learning from this situation with the team, and would provide training to staff so they know how to deal with any future similar situation.
23. Mr X asked that the complaint be dealt with at stage two of the complaints process.
24. The Council’s response said Ms M could not be considered a ‘residential occupier’ because she never had an opportunity to move herself or her belongings into the property. It said the purpose of the Protection from Eviction Act is to protect the rights of residents from unlawful eviction. It said this would require Ms M to have moved herself or her belongings into the property.

Analysis

Access to the property

25. Mr X complains that the Council failed to support Ms M when she could not access her hew accommodation.
26. The Council accepted that it should have further investigated the situation. I agree. However, I find that had the Council done so, it would have come to the same conclusion that it later came to: that it could not take any enforcement action because Ms M was not a ‘residential occupier’ as defined by the Protection from Eviction Act.
27. I agree with the Council, that Ms M was not a ‘residential occupier’ despite signing a tenancy agreement. I therefore find that the Council did not have a duty to Ms M to help her access the property.
28. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Homelessness support

29. I do not find that Ms M asked the Council for help with housing or presented as homeless. She did not make a homeless application. For this reason, I do not find that the Council owed Ms M a homelessness duty.
30. Ms M asked the Council for “possible resolutions of this situation”. She did not specifically ask the Council for help because she was homeless. Given the context of her email, it seems clear that Ms M was asking for help to gain access to the property, which I have addressed above.
31. For these reasons, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and I do not uphold this complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman