Westminster City Council (20 009 809)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 21 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council misled him about his liability to pay Council Tax on temporary accommodation out of the borough and the process for claiming Council Tax Support. He also complained that it did not offer him the tenancy of a flat which he bid for in November 2020. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained that the Council misled him about his liability for Council Tax, and the process for claiming Council Tax Support, when it placed him in temporary accommodation in another council’s (Council Z’s) area. He incurred a substantial Council Tax debt. Council Z obtained a Liability Order and started enforcement action which led to extra costs and charges.
  2. Mr X also complained that the Council wrongly allocated a flat, which he had previously been offered and accepted, to another applicant in November 2020. He says the Council offered him this flat as part of a remedy for a complaint it upheld about its delay in making a decision on his homelessness application. Mr X says this error prolonged his stay in temporary accommodation in Council Z’s area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I have spoken to Mr X and considered all the evidence he sent me.
  2. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant records.
  3. Mr 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

Council Tax

What should happen

  1. When a council places a homeless person in self-contained temporary accommodation outside its area, the person must register for Council Tax and claim Council Tax Support from the council for that area.  
  2. Usually, the person who occupies a property is liable to pay Council Tax. The occupier does not have to be the owner, tenant or licensee. There are some exceptions for properties which are not self-contained, and for certain categories of occupiers, but none of these apply in this case.
  3. Council Tax Support is a means-tested support provided by councils to help residents on benefits or low incomes pay Council Tax. A person can claim Council Tax Support if they are liable to pay Council Tax, occupy the home on which Council Tax Support is to be awarded and satisfy the means test.

What happened

  1. At the time of these events, Mr X was homeless and the Council had placed him in interim accommodation in Council Z’s area while it considered his homeless application. The accommodation was a self-contained studio flat managed by a property management company. It was provided on a nightly let basis and intended to be emergency short-term accommodation until the Council decided what homelessness duty, if any, it owed him. In the event Mr X stayed in this accommodation for a very long time due to the Council’s delay in making a decision on his homelessness application.
  2. On 22 May 2019 the Housing Options Service wrote to inform Mr X of the weekly charge for his temporary accommodation. One section of the letter dealt with his liability to pay Council Tax. It said:

“Council Tax

If you are placed in self-contained accommodation outside of the borough of Westminster, you will be responsible for paying the Council Tax for the property. If you are eligible for Council Tax benefit, you must ensure that you make a claim with the borough in which you have been placed.”

  1. This was the only letter Mr X had to prove he occupied the accommodation. He had no licence or non-secure tenancy agreement.
  2. We have not investigated Council Z’s actions because Mr X only complained to us about Westminster City Council. But I have included a brief summary of what happened next to explain the reasons for Mr X’s complaint.
  3. Mr X says he telephoned Council Z to try to register for Council Tax. He says Council Z told him that, although he was in temporary accommodation, he must still provide a tenancy agreement to register for Council Tax. Mr X did not have this document.
  4. Mr X says he visited the Housing Solutions Service at Westminster City Council several times to explain his difficulties in registering for Council Tax with Council Z. He asked Westminster City Council for a tenancy agreement. He says officers told him he was exempt from Council Tax due to his benefit status. The Council says it has no records that officers gave him this advice. It made the point that its letter of 22 May 2019 clearly stated Mr X was responsible for Council Tax.
  5. Nearly a year later, in early April 2020, Mr X received two Council Tax bills from Council Z. One covered the period from 22 May 2019 until the end of that Council Tax year. The second bill was for the 2020/21 tax year. The total amount demanded was just under £2,000.
  6. In mid-June 2020 Council Z sent Mr X revised bills after it awarded a 25% Single Person Discount.
  7. In mid-July 2020 Mr X complained to the Council’s Housing Solutions service about the difficulty he had in registering for Council Tax with Council Z and his efforts to get the evidence Council Z had requested. In late September 2020 he chased the Council for a reply and forwarded his July email. The Council replied in early October. It accepted Mr X had first complained about this issue in July and apologised for the delay. But it did not uphold his complaint that the Council had misinformed him about his liability to pay Council Tax and the process for claiming Council Tax Support.
  8. Mr X was not satisfied with this response. In mid-October he asked the Council to consider his complaint at the second stage of its complaints procedure. He also raised some new housing issues which the Council investigated. The Council sent a final response in late November 2020. It apologised for the delay in completing the Stage 2 investigation. It upheld the other parts of his complaint but not his complaint about the information and advice given about his liability for Council Tax.
  9. Mr X left this property in mid-February 2021 when he accepted an offer of social housing in Westminster.
  10. Mr X started a claim for Council Tax Support (CTS) online with Council Z. In June 2021 Council Z told Mr X its records showed he had started to make the CTS claim online in February and April 2021 but had not completed and submitted the claims. For this reason, it had not assessed his claim.
  11. Mr X recently made an arrangement with Council Z to pay the Council Tax debt in instalments to prevent further enforcement action and charges.

My analysis

  1. Westminster City Council did not misinform Mr X about his liability to pay Council Tax. The letter sent on 22 May 2019 clearly stated that a homeless person placed in self-contained accommodation outside the borough is responsible for paying Council Tax. It advised Mr X to claim Council Tax benefit (Council Tax Support) from the Council in whose area he had been placed.
  2. Mr X says Council Z required a tenancy agreement to prove he was resident and liable to pay Council Tax. I cannot comment on Council Z’s actions because Mr X has only complained to us about Westminster City Council. However, the law says a resident occupier who is not an owner-occupier, leaseholder, or tenant may still be liable for Council Tax on a property.
  3. Westminster City Council could not give Mr X a tenancy agreement because he was living in emergency interim accommodation and he was not a tenant. I have not seen any evidence that officers in the Housing Options Service wrongly informed Mr X that he was exempt from Council Tax. For these reasons, I have not found the Council was at fault.

The offer of accommodation in November 2020

What should happen

  1. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
  2. Westminster City Council has a choice based lettings scheme – Home Connections – to allocate social housing. Available properties are advertised every week on the website. Applicants may express interest in a property by making a bid before the closing date.
  3. The Council’s published housing allocations scheme explains how it prioritises bids and draw up the shortlist for a property. Every eligible bidder is ranked in order of priority by reference to their priority group, points and date of registration. The Council usually invites the top three bidders on the shortlist to view the property. At the viewing, each bidder is asked if they still want the property. Generally the bidder with the highest priority, who accepts the property, is then invited to sign the tenancy agreement. If the bidders have equal points, the one with the earliest registration date takes priority.

What happened

  1. In November 2020 Mr X made a bid on Home Connections for a studio flat in Westminster. I shall refer to it as Flat A. Mr X was placed in second position on the shortlist.
  2. On 23 November the Council invited Mr X to a viewing at Flat A on 26 November. Mr X did a virtual viewing and confirmed he wished to accept the property. However the applicant ranked first on the shortlist accepted the property. The Council says this applicant had the same number of points as Mr X but had been on the Housing Register since 2015. This applicant therefore had priority over Mr X whose registration date was 2019.
  3. An officer in the Choice Based Lettings team informed Mr X on 1 December that his bid had not been successful.
  4. Meanwhile, on 27 November 2020 the Council sent Mr X its final response to his complaint about various matters, including its handling of his homelessness application. It accepted there had been delay in making a decision on his homelessness application due to a backlog of cases. Although it had accommodated him throughout this period, it accepted he could have been rehoused sooner but for this delay. It said it would make him one direct offer of a studio flat and pay £200 as a financial remedy.
  5. The Council says Mr X later telephoned on 15 December 2020 to say he would prefer the Council to extend his bidding period by three months rather than getting a direct offer. The Council agreed.
  6. Mr X successfully bid for another studio flat on 29 January 2021. The Council offered him this property on 1 February and he moved to the flat on 15 February.
  7. Mr X believes the Council should have offered him the tenancy of Flat A to honour the commitment given in the letter of 27 November 2020 to make a direct offer of a studio flat. He says he spent a further two months in temporary accommodation outside the borough due to the Council’s error.

My analysis

  1. The sequence of events shows the Council had already advertised Flat A on the Home Connections scheme, and ranked the bids received by the closing date, before the Stage Two decision was made on 27 November. It was therefore too late to make Mr X a direct offer of this property.
  2. The Council allocated Flat A to the highest ranked bidder who viewed the property and accepted the offer on 26 November. Mr X missed out on this property because his bid came second and the bidder in first position accepted the property. The successful bidder had the same points as Mr X but had priority because of an earlier registration date. This followed the process set out in the Council’s housing allocations scheme for prioritising bids.
  3. Mr X’s reading of the Stage Two decision letter was that the Council had promised to make him a direct offer of Flat A. However I believe he misinterpreted the letter. By the time the Stage Two decision letter was sent, Flat A had already been allocated and it was not available. The letter was referring to a future direct offer.
  4. I understand Mr X was very disappointed to miss out on Flat A. However I do not consider there was fault in the way the Council allocated this property to another applicant. This decision was made one day before the Council wrote to Mr X on 27 November to say it would make a direct offer. The Council had invited Mr X to view Flat A as one of the shortlisted applicants but allocated the property to a bidder who had higher priority than Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed the investigation and found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings