Summary: Ms C said the Council failed to respond to her emails and phone calls and failed to offer her a property when she was at risk of domestic violence. The Council was not at fault. The records do not show the Council failed to respond to contact and it did offer her suitable properties. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in considering whether to house Ms C pending a review of a decision. The Council has offered Ms C £250 to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Ms C, says the Council is at fault for:
1. making her offers of unsuitable accommodation; and
2. a failure to deal with her requests for help.
2. Ms C says she has suffered injustice because:
1. she has had to move house many times, incurring moving costs each time;
2. she suffered distress and was put to time and trouble because the Council failed to respond to her emails and phone calls;
3. she lost property when she had to move house with only one day’s notice;
4. her mental health has suffered; and
5. her child has been unsettled by the many moves.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Ms C’s claim that the Council failed to respond to her requests for housing over the summer of 2020. I have also investigated whether there was administrative fault in the way that the Council dealt with its offers of housing to Ms C in November 2020.
4. Paragraphs 67 to 72 of this statement contain my reasons for not investigating other parts Ms C’s complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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)
7. If we find fault, we must also consider whether that 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)
8. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
9. 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

10. I spoke to Ms C. I wrote an enquiry letter to the Council. I also wrote to one of the other councils with which Ms C was involved while she was living outside the Council’s area. I researched the relevant law and applied it to Ms C’s complaint.
11. I wrote a draft decision and Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on this. I considered comments received by Ms C and the Council before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should happen

Councils’ housing duties

12. 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.
13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their households if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children; and
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for them unless it finds, on investigation, that another housing authority is better placed to do so. (Housing Act 1996, section 198)

Suitability of accommodation

17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is ‘suitable’ for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. 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)
18. When considering whether a property is suitable, councils must consider a number of factors including the following:

• the risk of violence or harassment in the area;
• whether the accommodation is fit for human habitation;
• whether it is affordable. Those offered accommodation will usually have to pay a rent contribution and must be able to do so without falling into poverty; and
• whether the accommodation is in a suitable location. Councils should usually:
• try to source accommodation as close to their areas as possible;
• consider the applicant’s need to reach their workplace; and
• consider the welfare of children of the household.

19. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Refusals

20. Councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down an offer of suitable permanent accommodation or an offer of suitable temporary accommodation. A refusal will bring a council’s duty to an end. The duty can also cease due to an applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
21. Where a person wishes to challenge a decision to end the main housing duty, they may ask for a review of that decision. They may also ask to be housed pending the outcome of the review.

The Council’s allocations scheme

22. The Council has a published housing allocation scheme which can be found on its website. It says that, where an applicant wishes to review a housing decision, they must apply within 21 days of the date of that decision. The Housing Register Officer should acknowledge receipt and tell the applicant the date by which the review will be complete. This must be within eight weeks of the date of the request unless the applicant agrees an extension. The decision will be made on the evidence available at the time of the review.

Right of appeal from review decision

23. If the applicant disagrees with the review decision, they have a right of appeal to the County Court. An appeal must be lodged within 21 days of the receipt of notification of the decision.

What happened

24. Ms C is a single mother with links to the Council’s area. Her child, X, lives with her. In August 2018, the Council accepted Ms C was homeless, in priority need and that it had a duty to house her. It housed her in temporary accommodation which I have called Accommodation 1.
25. In 2020, Ms C twice asked the Council to remove her from its housing register as she wanted to apply to be housed by other councils. She did this the first time in June 2020 when she applied to be housed by a central London council which I have called Council 2. She said she feared gangs and her former partner’s friends in the Council’s area.
26. Council 2 investigated Ms C’s circumstances. It also contacted the police who did not support her claim to be at risk from her former partner. Council 2 refused to house Ms C and referred her back to the Council.
27. By the time Ms C received Council 2’s decision, the Council had already withdrawn funding for Accommodation 1. However, a housing charity approached the Council on Ms C’s behalf and asked it to continue to house her. The Council agreed to reinstate its housing duty to her without a further application.. The Council copied Ms C into an email confirming that it had done this.
28. Ms C says that, also in June 2020, she contacted the Council and asked to be moved to different accommodation because she feared violence from her former partner.
29. Ms C says that, because of her fear of her former partner, she left the Council’s area went to stay with friends and, later, at a women’s refuge. She says she made several phone calls and sent several emails to a Council housing officer over the summer of 2020 asking for assistance.
30. In September 2020, Ms C approached another central London council, which I have called Council 3, and asked to be housed. She said she was homeless and was at risk of domestic violence in the Council’s area.
31. Council 3 placed Ms C and her child in temporary accommodation while it investigated. It spoke to the police and to the Council. Council 3 social workers tried to visit Ms C on several occasions but she would not let them in. After an investigation, Council 3 refused to house Ms C which meant that she could no longer live in its temporary accommodation.
32. In October 2020, while still living in Council 3’s temporary accommodation, Ms C complained formally to the Council. She raised several concerns. She said the Council had inappropriately shared an email with numerous people and had failed to respond to her emails over the summer of 2020. She said that, as a result, she had been obliged to move house on nine occasions. The Council responded to her complaint. It also asked her which email she was referring to.
33. By late October 2020, Ms C says she had moved out of Council 3’s temporary accommodation and into another women’s refuge. The housing charity which originally helped Ms C wrote to the Council again. It said Ms C would soon have to leave the refuge and asked the Council to find Ms C temporary accommodation.
34. The Council said that Ms C still had access to Accommodation 1. It said it had carried out checks which showed no evidence that Ms C was at risk of violence from her former partner or others. It said the police did not support her claims. Nonetheless, the Council agreed to find Ms C alternative accommodation. It wrote to Ms C and asked her where she believed she would be unsafe.
35. The next day, Ms C wrote to the Council and said she was at risk in ten London boroughs, mostly in east London and including the Council’s area. She said she would like to be offered accommodation in central London because she had a job and a child support network there. She said she also had a therapist there and asked the Council to consider her mental health.
36. in early November 2020, the Council offered Ms C accommodation in an outer London borough. I refer to this as ‘Accommodation 2’. It was not in any of the ten boroughs that Ms C had said were unsafe. Ms C refused it on the grounds that she would be at risk from her former partner who had friends there and it was not in London. The Council considered it had made her an offer of suitable housing which she had refused and so had discharged its housing duty to her. Ms C asked for a review of the property’s suitability.
37. The reviewing officer noticed errors made by the Council when sourcing and offering Accommodation 2: The Council had not sent Ms C a written offer or informed her of its decision that the accommodation was suitable. The letter in which the Council informed Ms C of its decision that it no longer had a duty to house her had cited the wrong legislation. The review was therefore successful and the Council reinstated its housing duty towards Ms C.
38. Approximately two weeks later, the Council offered Ms C accommodation in another outer London borough which, again, was not on the list of unsafe London boroughs. I have referred to this as “Accommodation 3”.
39. Accommodation 3 was a property with two bedrooms which was unfurnished save for white goods. The Council sent Ms C an email offering her the property at 3:15pm on the day in question. The email said “the property is unfurnished. White goods only”. Ms C sent an email to the Council at 3.45pm saying she had checked the accommodation and accepted it.
40. The next day, Ms C contacted the Council and withdrew her acceptance. She said she would have to go back to the Council’s area to pick up furniture and that this would be unsafe. The Council says it offered to take the furniture to Accommodation 3 for her but Ms C did not accept. Ms C says that this happened after she had refused the property. She asked for a review of its suitability.
41. In her letter to the Council sent two days later, Ms C said she was only offered Accommodation 3 at 4:30pm in the afternoon and it took her an hour and a half to get to the area so she did not see the accommodation until 6pm. She says it was only then that she realised it was unfurnished. Ms C says the Council had informed her the property would be furnished.
42. A week later, the Council wrote to Ms C saying that, by making its offer of accommodation, which it considered suitable, and which she had refused, it had discharged its housing duty to her. It told her she could ask for a review.
43. Ms C contacted the Council two days later saying there had been various administrative errors in the handling of her case. She said she had had to move many times due to Council fault. She said her housing officer had failed to respond to her calls. She said that Accommodation 3 was unsuitable because a relative of her former partner lived nearby. She threatened the Council with judicial review.
44. Due to some confusion over Ms C’s requests for reviews of suitability for Accommodation 2 and Accommodation 3, the Council initially believed there had been only one request for a review of suitability. It therefore asked Ms C to request a review for the Accommodation 3 decision again.
45. Ms C had also asked to be housed pending the review. The Council accepts that its consideration of this request was delayed by five days. It accepts that this was fault on its part. When it did consider her request, it decided not to house her.
46. The Council’s completed its review of the decision that Accommodation 3 was suitable in late January 2021. The reviewing officer upheld the Council’s decision that the accommodation had been suitable and agreed that the Council had discharged its housing duty to Ms C.
47. Ms C had a right to appeal this decision to the County Court. She did not do so.
48. Ms C complained to the Council. She said the Council was at fault because:
1. It had breached her data security;
2. It had accepted a duty to house her but had offered her a place which was unsafe;
3. It had refused to house her; she had been forced to move ten times in nine months incurring moving expenses;
4. It had twice asked her to move to areas it knew to be unsafe; and
5. It had ignored her emails and phone calls.
49. In its stage two response, the Council said:
1. It did not accept that it had breached Ms C’s data security.
2. It had discharged its duty to house her by offering her Accommodation 3 which she had refused. The Council accepted it had been at fault for a failure to consider her request to be housed pending the review for five days and offered her £250 in recognition of the injustice caused.
3. It did not accept that it had asked Ms C to live anywhere unsafe. It had checked with the police and children’s social services who had said that Accommodation 1 was safe. Neither Accommodation 2 nor 3 were in any of the ten boroughs Ms C had named as unsafe.
4. The Council had not required Ms C to move. It had provided Accommodation 1 where Ms C had lived for nearly two years before applying to live in Council 2’s area. When Council 2 had refused to house her, the housing charity had asked the Council to rehouse her again which it had done. She had not asked for alternative housing at that time. When she did, in October 2020, the Council had quickly offered her alternative accommodation.
5. The Council had not asked Ms C to move anywhere unsafe. It had offered her two properties which were not in areas she had identified as unsafe.
6. It had no records of any emails or phone calls which had been ignored on file.
50. In late March 2021, Ms C complained to the Ombudsman as she was unhappy with the Council’s response.

Was there fault causing injustice?

Failure to respond to emails over summer 2020

51. Ms C says she contacted a Council housing officer in June 2020 and asked to be rehoused. I have looked at the Council’s case notes system and all correspondence provided by the Council and Ms C and have seen no evidence to support this claim. I do not therefore uphold this part of Ms C’s complaint.
52. Ms C also says she made phone calls to the officer over the summer of 2020 and left messages to which the officer did not respond. The Council does not have a call log. Therefore, I have no evidence to support this part of Ms C’s complaint.

Making offers of unsuitable accommodation

53. The Council, along with other councils, investigated Ms C’s claims to be at risk from her former partner. The police said it had investigated and did not accept that she was at risk. The Council relied on the police’s advice. It therefore took adequate steps to ensure that she was not at risk. Even so, when asked to do so in October 2020 by the housing charity, the Council sought alternative accommodation for her.
54. The Council first offered Ms C Accommodation 2. She refused saying it was unsafe. Ms C requested a review, during which, the Council discovered procedural errors. These errors were administrative fault. Following the review, the Council withdrew the offer and resumed its housing duty towards Ms C. Therefore, this fault did not cause Ms C any significant injustice.
55. The Council says it has amended its processes to ensure that similar errors will not occur in future. It did not make the same mistakes during the handling of the offer of Accommodation 3. For that reason, I accept that the Council has remedied the fault and I do not intend to recommend any service improvements.
56. Ms C says Accommodation 3 was also unsuitable. I have not reached a view on this. Ms C requested a review of the decision which found the property was suitable. She had a right of appeal to the County Court. The Ombudsman will not, investigate such issues unless there was good reason why Ms C did not do so. I am not aware of any such reason.
57. However, the Council was at fault for a failure to carry out the review of whether Accommodation 3 was suitable or not within eight weeks. The Council says that Ms C did not ask for a review until December 2020.. The evidence shows that Ms C first asked for a review in late-November 2020. The review was completed in just over eight weeks. The fault was, therefore, minor and caused no injustice.

Failure to consider request to be housed in late November 2020

58. The Council found in its Stage 2 response that it should have begun its consideration of Ms C’s request to be housed pending the review of the suitability of Accommodation 3 five days earlier than it did. This was fault which caused Ms C some injustice in the form of distress. However, as the decision was taken not to house her pending the review, it did not cause her a loss of housing.
59. The Council offered Ms C £250 in recognition of this injustice and I find that this was an adequate offer to remedy the injustice caused.

Injustice – moving

60. Ms C says she had to move nine or ten times because of Council fault. I have seen no independent evidence to support this claim. It is clear that Ms C did move several times; she lived in two women’s refuges and at accommodation provided by Council 3. There is evidence on the file of at least one further move. However, whilst these moves must have been very unsettling for her and her child, the Council was not responsible for them. Ms C had access to Accommodation 1 throughout 2020 but chose to live elsewhere. She did not request alternative accommodation from the Council until October 2020. The Council was not, therefore, at fault.
61. Ms C says the Council failed to respond to requests for alternative accommodation over the summer of 2020. However, I have seen no evidence that it received any such requests. Instead, Ms C asked twice for the Council to end its duty to house her and asked other councils to house her instead. Council 3 provided her with accommodation and later asked her to leave. The women’s refuge charity also asked her to leave twice. These moves were not caused by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

62. The Council has already offered Ms C £250 which she has rejected. It has agreed to keep this offer open for one month after the date of this decision. Final decision
63. I find the Council at fault. It has offered a proportionate remedy. I have closed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

Data security

64. Ms C says the Council sent her an email which was also copied to many other people. She says this is a data breach. This is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner.
65. Ms C also complains that the Council made her unsuitable offers of accommodation in November 2020. I have dealt with administrative fault made during the two offers above.
66. However, I have not investigated whether the accommodation itself was unsuitable. Ms C had a right to appeal the review decision that Accommodation 3 was suitable to the County Court. She was informed of that right in the decision.
67. The Ombudsman does not normally investigate complaints where someone could take the matter to court unless it would be unreasonable to have expected them to do so. I do not know of any reason why Ms C could not have appealed. I have not, therefore, investigated this part of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman