Summary: A woman complained that the Council unreasonably refused to accept her request for a review of its decision that she is intentionally homeless, unfairly evicted her from her temporary accommodation, and was going to take too long to review her priority on its Housing Register. But the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council in the woman’s case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Miss B, complained that the Council had unreasonably refused to consider her request for a review of its decision that she is intentionally homeless. Miss B also complained the Council unfairly evicted her family from their temporary accommodation despite them having no alternative accommodation to go to. In addition Miss B was unhappy the Council told her it would take 56 days to carry out a review of its decision to reduce her priority on its Housing Register.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Miss B provided with her complaint, and her comments when we spoke on the telephone. I also gave Miss B an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision before I reached a final view. In addition I took account of information from the Council about its decisions in Miss B’s case.

What I found

The Law

4. The Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
5. The Act says a council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. The interim accommodation duty lasts until the council reaches a decision about the homelessness application.
6. If a council decides that an applicant is intentionally homeless it has no further duty to provide them with accommodation, apart from for a reasonable period to allow the applicant to find their own housing.
7. The Act also gives homeless applicants a right of review about councils’ main decisions on their homelessness application. This includes a decision that someone is intentionally homeless. A review request must be made within 21 days of receiving the original decision.

What happened

8. Miss B applied to the Council as homeless last year after she was given notice to leave her private rented property. The Council then provided Miss B’s family with interim accommodation when they were evicted from the property.
9. However the Council subsequently decided Miss B was intentionally homeless because she had been evicted due to rent arrears.
10. Miss B sought legal advice about asking for a review of the Council’s decision, and a solicitor agreed to make a review request on her behalf.
11. Some weeks later Miss B contacted the Council to ask about progress with its review. But the Council said it had not received a review request. Miss B’s solicitor then sent the Council a copy of a letter making a review request, which they said they had posted to it the previous month.
12. However the Council said it would not accept the review request as it had been made late. At the same time it gave Miss B three weeks’ notice to leave her temporary accommodation.
13. Meantime Miss B had also applied to join the Council’s Housing Register for social housing. But the Council placed Miss B’s application in the ‘Reduced Priority’ band because she had outstanding rent arrears.
14. Miss B asked the Council to review its banding decision as she had now paid off her previous arrears. Miss B said the Council told her it would take 56 days to complete the review.

Analysis

Homelessness review

15. Bur from the information provided I was not convinced we had grounds to pursue Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out a review of its intentional homelessness decision in her case.
16. In particular, there seemed no evidence the Council received an on-time review request from Miss B. The Council said the first it knew about a review request was when it received the solicitor’s email with a copy of a review request letter. But this was six weeks after the deadline for requesting a review.
17. In addition, the letter the solicitor said they sent previously was dated around two weeks after deadline. So even if the Council had received the letter at that time this would still have been outside the 21-day timescale for a review request. In the circumstances I do not see we could fault the Council for considering Miss B’s review request as out of time.
18. Councils have discretion to accept out of time review requests. If a council receives a late request it should consider the reasons for the delay and whether there may be grounds for success on the review. But what weight is given to these or any other relevant matters is for the council to decide.
19. However I consider the Council’s response to the solicitor’s review request on Miss B’s behalf addressed the above points and provided a reasoned explanation as to why it would not accept a late request in her case. As a result I do not see sign of fault in the Council’s response which would allow us to challenge its decision.
20. In addition, I am not convinced there is sign of any other fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss B’s homelessness case.
21. In particular, the Council was entitled to end its housing duty in Miss B’s case having found her intentionally homeless. I also consider the Council gave Miss B sufficient notice it was ending her temporary accommodation booking after it decided it would not proceed with a review. In addition I note the Council continued to provide temporary accommodation for Miss B’s family for over three months after making its intentional homelessness decision.
22. Furthermore I consider the Council offered appropriate assistance to Miss B in finding alternative accommodation, even if she was unsuccessful in her attempts to secure other housing.

Housing Register review

23. The Council’s Allocations Scheme says it will determine reviews within 56 days of the request.
24. Miss B complained the Council told her it would take 56 days to review its decision to place her in the Reduced Priority band. However, in response to my enquiries the Council said it had advised Miss B it would make a review decision within, rather than after, 56 days.
25. The Council subsequently confirmed it had completed its review and it had decided to move Miss B from the Reduced Priority band to band B. I understand the Council made this decision around 56 days from the date of Miss B’s review request. In the circumstances I do not see we are likely to find grounds to fault the Council in this respect.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Ombudsman does not have reason to start an investigation of Miss B’s complaints about the Council’s refusal to review its decision that she is intentionally homeless, her eviction from her temporary accommodation, and its review of her priority on the housing register. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council regarding these matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman