Summary: Mr X complained the Council placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation which he could not afford. He also said it failed to process his housing benefit claim which led to significant rent arrears and the Council placing a charge on a property he owns. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to place him in the temporary accommodation. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for the delay in dealing with his housing benefit application and has offered a suitable remedy for this. I cannot consider the Council’s decision to place a charging order on Mr X’s property as the court has already considered this matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness. He says the Council placed him in unsuitable temporary accommodation which he could not afford and failed to process his housing benefit claim which led to significant rent arrears and the Council placing a charge on a property he owns. In addition, he complains the Council has failed to help him find private rented accommodation.

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 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)
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) I have exercised my discretion to consider what has happened since March 2019 given delays in the court and tribunal processes and in the Council responding to Mr X’s complaint.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The Social Entitlement Chamber (also known as the Social Security Appeal Tribunal) is a tribunal that considers housing benefit appeals. (The Social Entitlement Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal)
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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 have considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I have considered the relevant law and guidance.
8. I gave Mr X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

9. Housing benefit helps people on low income to pay their rent. It is a means tested benefit taking into account both capital and income. Working age claimants who have more than £16,000 are not entitled to housing benefit. If a claimant is taking reasonable steps to sell a property, its value should be disregarded for 26 weeks or, if it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case, for a longer period at the discretion of the council.

Background

10. In 2017 Mr X and his daughter approached the Council as they were homeless. Mr X owns a property which he rents out as an investment. That property is tenanted and is not suitable for Mr X’s medical needs. In November 2017 the Council assessed Mr X was homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. It provided him with temporary accommodation and Mr X received housing benefit. Mr X moved to different temporary accommodation in December 2018.
11. In March 2019 the Council made an offer of accommodation in the private sector to Mr X. It later withdrew the offer following discussion with the landlord.

What happened

12. In March 2019 the Council terminated Mr X’s claim for housing benefit. Mr X appealed this decision. The Council responded and told Mr X he had over £16,000 due to the capital value of his buy to let property, so he did not qualify for housing benefit. Mr X appealed to the tribunal.
13. In December 2019 a court granted the Housing Association outright possession of Mr X’s rented property due to rent arrears and scheduled an eviction for March 2020. This was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
14. In January 2020 the tribunal refused Mr X’s housing benefit appeal. It concluded Mr X was not entitled to housing benefit from March 2019 because he had capital worth more than the capital limit of £16,000. It said the property could not be disregarded because he did not live there and he was not, at the date of the decision, taking reasonable steps to sell it. It noted Mr X put the property up for sale in July 2019.
15. In February 2020 Mr X started receiving universal credit. He applied again for housing benefit. The Council turned down his application due to him having over £16,000 in capital. Mr X appealed the decision. He advised his property was for sale and he was in receipt of universal credit.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X in April 2020. It said he had capital over £16000 and had received housing benefit since 2013 when he was ineligible for it. It could have used its discretion to cancel it to an earlier date but did not. Mr X emailed the Council to ask if this was the final decision so he could appeal. He did not receive a response.
17. The Council obtained an interim charging order on Mr X’s buy to let property in early October 2020 for around £21,500.
18. In October 2020 an organisation complained to the Council on Mr X’s behalf that he had not received housing benefit since March 2019. It asked the Council why it was refusing to pay.
19. The Council responded in late October 2020. It said it understood Mr X had put his property up for sale in July 2019 and the regulations did enable it to pay benefit for six months from the date the property was put up for sale or longer if reasonable in the circumstances. It said it was willing to accept Mr X had an intention to claim at that point and so agreed to pay benefit back to that date. It also agreed to extend the six months due to the difficulties in selling a property during the pandemic.
20. The Council explained it turned down Mr X’s application for housing benefit in February 2020 as his property had been on the market for more than six months. However, the Council agreed to pay Mr X housing benefit that should have been paid for the period from July 2019.
21. In late October Mr X applied to the court objecting to the interim charging order because he had been awarded housing benefit which significantly reduced the arrears. At a court hearing in May 2021 the court dismissed Mr X’s claim and granted a final charging order.

Mr X’s complaints to the Council

22. In November 2020, Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his homeless application.
23. In December 2020, the Council responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said Mr X was advised he needed to sell the investment property as this affected his entitlement to benefit. It said his case was referred to the procurement team. An offer was made but withdrawn as unsuitable.
24. Mr X was not happy with the Council’s response and said he asked the Council to respond to his complaint at stage 2 in December 2020. In April 2021, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman because the Council had still not responded to his complaint at stage 2. We asked the Council to respond to Mr X’s complaint at stage 2. Mr X returned to the Ombudsman in May 2021 as he had still not received the Council’s stage 2 response.
25. The Council provided its stage 2 response in September 2021. In the response it explained it could not provide Mr X with social housing as he owned a property. It said it had not made a private sector offer as Mr X’s ownership of a property excluded him from being able to receive housing benefit to cover his rent. As he had no alternative means of paying rent the offer of a property would not be suitable. In addition, the rent arrears on his temporary accommodation prevented the Council making an offer. It said it made a backdated payment of housing benefit in November 2020 for housing benefit back to July 2019, but Mr X still had over £8000 of arrears.
26. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and noted he could request a stage 3 review by the independent adjudicator. Mr X contacted us, and we found the Council at fault for the significant delay in dealing with the complaint at stage 2. It agreed to pay Mr X £200 to recognise the time and trouble this caused him. It also agreed to consider the complaint at stage 3 of the complaints’ procedure.
27. In September 2021 the Housing Association decided to evict Mr X. The Council advised Mr X it could provide financial assistance to find a property. In October 2021 it offered him alternative temporary accommodation where Mr X is now living.
28. The Council completed its stage 3 review in November 2021. This set out:
• It was open for Mr X to request a suitability review if he could not afford his temporary accommodation.
• The accrual of rent arrears was due to periods when Mr X’s entitlement to housing benefit was in dispute. Entitlement to benefits is a matter for tribunal. However, the Council failed to provide Mr X with an appealable housing benefit decision between March and October 2020 which was fault and caused him considerable distress. It offered Mr X £150 to acknowledge the impact of the fault.
• Mr X applied to the court to set aside the interim charging order and there was a court hearing in May 2021. The court had therefore considered the decision to issue the charging order.
• Mr X was not eligible for the Council’s housing allocation scheme due to his level of capital.
• The Council had offered to pay Mr X’s deposit and first months rented for private rented accommodation, but officers may not be able to match him to private rented accommodation which meets his mobility needs while he has rent arrears.
29. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Findings

30. When the Council first placed Mr X in temporary accommodation he received housing benefit. There is no evidence the accommodation at that time was unaffordable.
31. The Council advised Mr X it would assist him to find accommodation through the private sector. The Council did offer Mr X one property in 2019 but this was withdrawn as unsuitable. The ability to offer Mr X accommodation was impacted by Mr X’s rent arrears and by him not getting full housing benefit throughout this period. The Council has a duty to disclose rent arrears to any prospective landlord. The Council has offered to assist Mr X with a deposit and first month’s rent if he finds a property. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
32. The Council refused Mr X’s claim for housing benefit in March 2019. Mr X appealed, and the Tribunal upheld the Council’s decision noting that in March 2019 Mr X’s property was not up for sale. Mr X had a right of appeal and used that right. I therefore cannot investigate this matter further.
33. Mr X made a new claim for benefit in February 2020. The Council has accepted it delayed dealing with his housing benefit claim between March 2020 and October 2020. This was fault. The Council has offered Mr X £150 to acknowledge the frustration caused by the delays. This is appropriate and in line with our published guidance on remedies.
34. In November 2020 the Council awarded Mr X housing benefit backdated to late July 2019. However, Mr X did not receive any housing benefit between early March 2019 and late June 2019. He did not pay rent during this period and so has accrued rent arrears which remain outstanding.
35. Mr X considers the Council should not have applied for and obtained a charging order as this was because of the delay in awarding him housing benefit. Mr X challenged the charging order in the court. The court was aware that Mr X had received backdated housing benefit at the time he challenged the charging order. We cannot consider any matter that has been considered by the courts. I therefore cannot investigate this matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. The Council’s delay in dealing with Mr X’s benefit claim was fault for which it has already offered an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. I cannot investigate the Council’s decision to obtain a charging order as this matter was considered in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman