Summary: Miss D complained the Council was wrong to decide her temporary accommodation was suitable. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss D, complained the Council was wrong to decide her temporary accommodation was suitable for her. She said the Council:
• failed to listen to her and consider her medical conditions;
• should not have stopped her housing benefit; and
• was malicious in the way it dealt with her.
2. As a result, Miss D says she is isolated, does not feel safe, and has rent arrears.

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 my investigation I have considered:
• Miss D’s complaint;
• the Council’s response to Miss D’s complaint,
• the Council’s records on the matter and its response to my enquiry letter.
6. I gave Miss D and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

7. 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.
8. A person is considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
9. Council’s must provide interim accommodation if it thinks a person is homeless and has a priority need. The Act says a council should accept a person in priority need if it is satisfied the person is vulnerable or may be vulnerable. This includes as a result of violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out.
10. Councils has an ongoing duty to ensure the accommodation it provided is suitable, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty ends. This includes taking into account any social considerations relating to the applicant that might affect the suitability of accommodation, such as any risk of violence, racial or other harassment in a particular locality.
11. Applicants may ask for a review of a council’s decision that the accommodation offered to them is suitable.

What happened

12. In early 2019 Miss D made an application for housing to the Council. She told the Council she was being bullied and harassed by another person, and stalked by a gang. She also said she was a victim of credit card fraud and her social media account had been accessed.
13. The Council accepted Miss D’s application and housed her in temporary accommodation outside the Council area.
14. While in the temporary accommodation, Miss D then told the Council she was again being harassed by a gang and feared for her safety. The Council told Miss D to report the matter to the police and provide further information to the Council. However, she was reluctant to do so. The Council said out of good faith it decided to rehouse Miss D in another temporary accommodation in a different area.
15. A few months later, Miss D again told the Council she was being harassed by a gang. The Council asked her to report the matter to the police and tell it about the outcome. It said she was reluctant to do so but took its advice. The Council also asked Miss D to provide information about the areas where she was at risk. It said it told Miss D without more information it would be difficult for it to assess the suitability of her accommodation and support her further.
16. A month later, Miss D told the Council which areas she felt at risk.
17. The Council says that during the following three-months, Miss D contacted the Council three further times to report harassment and that she did not feel safe. She also said she was sleeping on the street sometimes and the police did not support her. The Council said it contacted Miss D each time to get more information about her concerns, but it did not get a response from her. It also contacted a local charity, who had previously supported Miss D, but it was no longer in contact with her.
18. Miss D then contacted the Council again. She told the Council she was not staying in her temporary accommodation because she was at risk of violence. She said she had reported it to the police, but it took no action.
19. The Council contacted Miss D, but it said Miss D did not answer. However, it arranged a hotel accommodation for her and texted her the information. The Council said this was to support Miss D until it could assess the suitability of her temporary accommodation with her. It also arranged to pay housing benefit for both of her accommodations.
20. Miss D then contacted the Council. It arranged a meeting to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation. But Miss D said the Council did not listen to her and it did not consider her medical conditions.
21. The Council said she was reluctant to provide the information it asked for and she did not provide information about why or where she was at risk of violence. The Council agreed to give Miss D more time to provide the information it needed.
22. The Council said Miss D did not provide the information it asked for. And so, it told her it would provide a different hotel accommodation without her input or she could remain in her current temporary accommodation. It also told her it would change her locks and stop paying housing benefit for one of the two accommodations. It told Miss D this was because she said she did not want to return to the accommodation. Miss D complained to the Council.
23. A few days later, the Council said Miss D had told it that she wished to return to her temporary accommodation. And so, the Council arranged for her hotel accommodation to end and told Miss D when she had to move.
24. The Council also said it raised a safeguarding concern to the local Council regarding Miss D’s mental health, but it was informed she did not engage.
25. Miss D contacted the Council and asked for another tenancy officer. She then contacted a local charity. The Charity told the Council Miss D did not understand why her hotel accommodation was ending, as she was still at fear of returning to her temporary accommodation. It also said Miss D was planning to sleep on the street.
26. The Council said it then provided Miss D with three different hotels over the following week. This was because she had asked for rooms in specific locations within the hotels and had seen someone she knew. It told Miss D it did not have any accommodations in a hotel that was not on a main road.
27. In response to Miss D’s complaint, the Council told her it did not find fault by its officers handling of her case and explained why it could not provide two accommodations for her. However, it told her it had changed her tenancy officer as she asked.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it has continued to support Miss D. It said because Miss D has stopped engaging with the Council, it raised a further safeguarding concern with the local Council. It also said its officers attended her accommodation and found the door locked from the inside. And so, it is satisfied she is living in her temporary accommodation. The Council also confirmed that Miss D housing benefit had been backdated to cover both accommodations in the period.

Analysis

29. Miss D complains the Council was wrong to decide her temporary accommodation was suitable. She said it did not listen to her, consider her medical conditions and it was malicious in the way it dealt with her.
30. Based on the information available, my view is there was no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Miss D’s suitability review. The Council attempted to conduct its review by:
• meeting with Miss D to discuss her concerns about her temporary accommodation and risk areas;
• providing Miss D with alternative temporary accommodation while the review was ongoing;
• considering Miss D’s requests and medical conditions by moving Miss D to other suitable accommodation several times;
• paying dual housing benefit for both temporary accommodation properties;
• keeping Miss D informed about its intended actions and the information it needed from her;
• Telling Miss D to report concerns or risks to the police; and
• Raising concerns about its concerns for her wellbeing with appropriate agencies.
31. I have seen no evidence that the Council did not follow the Code of Guidance. Nor that it was malicious in the way it has dealt with Miss D’s case. The Council has been unable to complete its suitability review because it has not received the information it needs from Miss D. Nor did it receive any relevant information from other agencies to support its review.
32. In addition, the Council has confirmed it has backdated Miss D’s housing benefit for her temporary accommodation. I am therefore satisfied Miss D does not have rent arrears as a result of the suitability review.
33. The Council has said it continues to support Miss D and the suitability review has not been completed. Once, the Council is able to complete its review, I would expect it to provide Miss D with a written suitability review decision. If Miss D is not satisfied with the Council’s decision, she has the right to request a review of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman