Summary: There was fault by the Council. It has not evidenced that it made sure the property it procured for Mr B was in a reasonable condition and suitable for him. It did not advise Mr B of his rights and how to raise issues about the property, and did not give him the support he needed to resolve these issues. This caused Mr B uncertainty and frustration and impacted on his wellbeing. The Council has agreed to improve its service. It should also apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• Placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation;
• Did not support him sufficiently given his vulnerability;
• Took too long to deal with his complaint about this;
• lost and damaged his belongings when it moved him to the temporary accommodation; and.
• accessed his bank and benefit accounts without explaining why this was needed.
2. Mr B has since moved to a council tenancy. However he says the Council’s shortcomings meant that he was in unsuitable accommodation and this has impacted on his mental health.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. Some of the events Mr B complains about were older than 12 months when he contacted the Ombudsman. I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate events back to 2019 because it is clear that Mr B was not getting the support he needed and his housing problems were overwhelming. In these circumstances it would not be reasonable to have expected Mr B to complain sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered the information provided by Mr B and discussed the issues with him and his representative. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken their comments into account before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

8. Part 7 of 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.
9. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.8)
14. A private rented property must not be regarded as suitable if the housing authority are of the view it is not in a reasonable physical condition. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.14)
15. The particular requirements that a property is suitable do not apply to accommodation secured for households that do not have priority need, or to accommodation that the authority helped the applicant to secure (for example through a bond guarantee or financial assistance) but which the applicant identified themselves. However, the Secretary of State expects housing authorities to make reasonable efforts to ensure private rented accommodation secured for applicants who do not have priority need is safe, and in reasonable condition; and that all applicants looking for their own accommodation have sufficient guidance to enable them to consider standards. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.16)

What happened

16. This statement is based on my understanding of the events. However, the information the Council has given me about the various tenancies Mr B has held do not match the file documents, and the Council is unable to provide a running record or a chronology from its file (for example notes of its contact with Mr B and his representative, or a record of what action it took when).
17. In May 2018, the Council placed Mr B in a private rented property that it had found for him. Mr B had fled his previous home due to domestic abuse. Mr B understood that this would be a temporary measure but he stayed there for over a year.
18. The Council’s files show that Mr B had contacted it several times by visiting its offices in person. He was very concerned about the behaviour of other residents of the property and its condition. The Council told him to contact his landlord as it had discharged its housing duties to him. The landlord’s agent repeatedly referred Mr B back to the Council.
19. In May 2019, Mr B was attacked by another tenant of the property. The Council’s records say he was attacked by the ‘resident drug dealer’. The file shows the A&E record. Mr B completed the Council’s vulnerability questionnaire, which says he is scared and suicidal. The Council says this was the first time it understood that Mr B was vulnerable.
20. The Council accepted that it had a relief duty and gave him interim accommodation. Mr B first complained about the condition of the Council’s interim accommodation in February 2020. The Council’s records say that he told him it had fulfilled its homelessness obligations and he should direct his issues to the landlord. Mr B told the Council he could not reach the landlord. Mr B was also concerned that the accommodation was close to his ex-partner who had previously abused him.
21. In March 2020, he sent it photographs of disrepair including an electric socket hanging from the wall. The Council visited the house. It found rubbish outside the property and significant refurbishment in progress. There were holes in the wall, stained carpets, open waste in the kitchen, and electrical sockets off the walls (which I understand suggests the property was being used to hide drugs). Mr B’s room door had no lock or handle and could not be closed. The Council’s reports say there were regular altercations and some tenants were selling drugs with a constant stream of customers all day and night.
22. In April 2020, Mr B sent the Council photographs of debris and rubbish left around the communal areas of the house. In May 2020, the landlord contacted the Council. He said that Mr B owed £5,800 in rent arrears. Payments towards this was being deducted from his Universal Credit. The landlord asked the Council to help with Mr B’s benefits..
23. A case note from May 2020 acknowledges that Mr B had approached the Council due to poor conditions, but Mr B now said there had been no further incidents. The note says the Council had helped with the issues, but does not say what action it took. In June 2020, the Council sent a letter ending its relief duty as he had stayed at the property and there had been no further incidents. The Council deemed that Mr B had withdrawn his homelessness application.
24. However, the Council visited the property again in August and September 2020. Its notes, photographs and videos show that the property was undergoing extensive renovations, including demolition of external walls. One Council officer describes it as ‘essentially a building site’.
25. In September 2020, the Council made a direct offer to Mr B of a Council tenancy because it deemed that he had an urgent need to move.
26. In October, Mr B complained to the Council that the interim accommodation it had provided had not been suitable. It had been dangerous and used by drug dealers, and it had been in very poor repair. Mr B also complained that a Council officer he had dealt with had asked for and used his personal log-in details to access his Universal Credit account without first telling him what information he needed and why. He and his sister also said that the officer told Mr B he would need to apologise before he would offer him accommodation.
27. The Council says it responded to Mr B’s complaint in January 2021, but its final response in which it referred Mr B to the Ombudsman is dated 25 February 2021. The Council agreed that the officer would complete further training on customer service, and that all its staff would advise customers why they need details of universal credit and bank statements. The Council also said it has a specialist private tenancies team that advises on landlords responsibilities. It said it would in future give details of this team to tenants who, like Mr B, it had procured tenancies for.
28. The Council accepted that the properties had been in poor condition. However it also said that Mr B had not raised these issues with it initially and he had accepted the property. The Council said that it moved Mr B but recognised that its resettlement service could have supported him better when he raised issues about the accommodation. It also offered him £250 in recognition of its failure to support him better while he was in poor accommodation.
29. I have spoken to Mr B and his sister, who has helped him with this complaint. He says that he tried to raise the issues sooner, but he did not know how to and the Council had not explained this to him. He had sent emails to the contact details displayed in the communal area of the property, but he later learned that these were out of date and nobody was reading his emails. He said he did not get any real help until his sister got involved and the period in both unsuitable properties had a serious impact on his mental health.
30. The Council has not been able to give any further information about the apology demanded of Mr B.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr B?

31. The Council has accepted that it was at fault because it did not give Mr B the required support when he raised issues about his property and whether it was still suitable for him. I also consider the Council did not do enough to explain to Mr B how he could raise these issues when he first took the tenancies and it did not refer the matter to its specialist team.
32. We cannot say whether the properties were unsuitable when the Council first procured these or if they became unsuitable later. We also cannot say whether had the Council addressed these issues sooner it would have taken effective action or move Mr B to another property. However, I note the Council’s files suggest that it knew this landlord does not maintain his properties, and the Council had information that Mr B had experienced domestic abuse and later, that he was vulnerable due to his mental health. On the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the Council did not do enough to check the condition of the properties, whether these were suitable for Mr B given his vulnerability, or advise Mr B of his options.
33. In addition, the Council took too long to respond to Mr B’s complaint at stage two of its procedure.
34. While I am pleased the Council has acknowledged that its service should have been better, overall it has not recognised the impact its shortcomings, lack of clarity and lack of support, had on Mr B and his wellbeing. It left Mr B uncertain as to whether the Council would help him, and caused frustration and distress to him, despite knowing that he was vulnerable due to his mental health.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council has moved Mr B. It agreed to provide additional training to an officer and promised to give proper details to tenants of private rented properties that it procures, so that they know how to raise issues.
36. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. The Council has offered £250 to Mr B but it should increase this to £500.
37. The Council should within one month of the date of this decision show the Ombudsman it has:
• apologised to Mr B for its failures identified above;
• paid £500 to him in total;
• ensured its officer completed the additional training as promised; and
• shared this decision with its relevant staff and ensure that officers are aware of the suitability of accommodation requirements.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

39. I have not investigated whether the Council did not protect Mr B’s belongings. This is because the law says we must normally be satisfied the complainant has made a formal complaint to the Council and it has been given the opportunity to respond. Mr B made a formal complaint but it did not include any details of lost belongings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman