Summary: The Council delayed in determining a homelessness application and subsequent review. While there was no fault in the Council’s decision not to provide accommodation during this time, the delay caused greater distress. The Council also delayed in visiting Ms X’s property and taking action in respect of disrepair. A suitable remedy has been agreed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed in determining her review regarding an intentionally homeless decision and failed to provide accommodation for the whole period it was determining her review. She also complains the Council failed to take effective action in response to her complaints of disrepair at a privately rented property.
2. Ms X says her mental health and the physical health of herself and her children has been affected.

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 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.
• considered the comments of both parties before issuing my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In March 2018, the Council accepted it owed Ms X a homelessness duty and found her temporary accommodation in a hostel. Ms X tells me that she signed a contract for a self-contained studio flat. Ms X says she went to the accommodation and found it was a hostel, there was vomit in the lift and staircase and decided the property was not safe for herself and her daughter. Ms X never stayed at the property though she continued to pay for it.
7. Ms X sought email advice about her situation and on 1 June 2018 received an email from a council officer saying that if she returned the keys for the temporary accommodation the Council would assist her with renting a property in the private rented sector. Ms X subsequently handed in the keys.
8. In July 2019, Ms X’s mother asked her to leave her home due to overcrowding. Ms X contacted the Council and made a homeless application. The Council accepted there was overcrowding at her mother’s property and so she was homeless and eligible for assistance. However, it decided that she was intentionally homeless because she had abandoned the temporary hostel accommodation previously. The Council notified Ms X of the intentionally homeless decision on 18 November 2019.
9. Ms X visited a local councillor at his surgery seeking assistance. On 23 November he emailed a senior housing officer setting out the issues and requesting a review of the intentionally homeless decision. The Council says the email was not forwarded to the review team before 9 December 2019.
10. Ms X asked for a review of the Council’s intentionally homeless decision on 9 December 2019. She set out her position regarding the offer of the previous temporary accommodation, the advice from the previous housing officer and that she did not consider she was intentionally homeless. The Council acknowledged receipt of the review request on 17 December 2019.
11. Ms X instructed a solicitor to act on her behalf. The solicitor contacted the Council on 20 January 2020 requesting a copy of Ms X’s housing file. The Council provided this the following day. However, the solicitor found that the file was not complete and he could not access some of the documents. He contacted the Council several times, but the Council did not resolve the problem.
12. On 8 April, the Council asked Ms X’s solicitor to agree an extension to the review period. Eventually, Ms X’s solicitor made a submission on 17 April, despite his concerns that he did not have the whole file.
13. On 13 May the Council sent a “minded to” letter. This letter indicated the Council was likely to conclude that Ms X did make herself intentionally homeless. The letter set out the Council’s reasons for taking this view and it gave Ms X and her solicitor an opportunity to respond. It asked for a response by 20 May and a further three-week extension to 10 June for the decision to be finalised. Ms X’s solicitor emailed the response on 19 May but the Council appears to have overlooked this. It wrote to the solicitor on 1 June asking for the response and requesting a further two weeks to 22 June to complete the review.
14. Ms X’s solicitor responded saying he was only given five working days to complete his submission and there was still seven working days to complete the review by 10 June so queried why the Council needed more time. The Council officer explained she wanted extra time to make further enquiries. Ms X’s solicitor asked for an explanation of what further enquiries were proposed as an extension had already been granted to the Council. The Council did not provide any details of the proposed further enquiries and so Ms X’s solicitor declined to grant the requested further extension. He said Ms X’s social worker had expressed concerns about the delays in concluding the review and that it was not in the best interests of Ms X’s children. He said the Council had declined to provide accommodation pending the review and so the time taken is not immaterial to Ms X. He insisted the review be concluded by 10 June.
15. On 3 June, the housing officer sent an email setting out seven further questions in respect of the case and requested a response the following day. Ms X’s solicitor responded saying he did not consider the review was being conducted fairly but that he would attempt to reply by 4 June, which he did. Ms X describes that she had to stay up to the early hours of the morning to collate the information for her solicitor to respond in time.
16. The Council sent its review decision on 9 June 2020. The Council found that Ms X was not intentionally homeless and so referred the case back to a housing officer to make a new decision on her homelessness application. The Council found Ms X had not voluntarily ceased to occupy the temporary hostel accommodation because she had never moved in; that it should have taken steps to assist her when she approached the Council after finding her own private sector accommodation; that her complaint about the temporary accommodation should have been treated as a review about the suitability of the accommodation and that it failed to properly advise her about implications of not occupying and giving up the temporary accommodation.
17. On 16 July 2020, the Council made Ms X an offer of a privately rented property in order to discharge the homelessness duty. Ms X says she moved into the property on 30 July. Ms X requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation on 11 August. The Council declined to accept the request saying it was received five days late. It did not accept her grounds for making a late review request.
18. The Council says Ms X first contacted it about the disrepair at the property on 11 August 2020. The Council then wrote to the owner setting out the issues and asking the owner to investigate and report back in seven days. On 19 August Ms X confirmed a pest controller had visited but that no other works had been completed. Ms X has told me that the pest controller had first told her that it would take two days to complete the treatment but then only stayed for a few minutes to spray the area. She says her children were still being bitten.
19. The Council wrote to Ms X on 24 August addressing her concerns about the state of the property. Ms X has pointed out that this response contained several factual errors and incorrect assumptions, and at that time the Council had not at any stage visited the property. The Council arranged to visit the property to carry out an inspection on 27 August.
20. On 27 August, the Council contacted Ms X to say the owner had informed it the mice treatment took place on 3 August, the boiler was repaired on 10 August and the first bed bug treatment was undertaken on 12 August. It asked if anything else was outstanding. Ms X said some works had taken place but she was still waiting for a date for flooring to be laid and kitchen taps replaced. The Council confirmed the visit would not take place as the owner appeared to be rectifying issues and it was during the COVID-19 pandemic.
21. On 2 September, the Council contacted Ms X who confirmed the second bed bug treatment had been carried out but the owner was refusing to pay for the new flooring. The officer arranged a visit for 18 September but says Ms X cancelled this visit due to ill health in her household. An officer visited the property on 22 October 2020 but says the door was not answered so no inspection took place.
22. Ms X says that after the Council failed to visit as arranged, she contacted a solicitor who arranged an independent surveyor to visit the property. Ms X says that a copy of this report was provided to the Council and it took no action. The Council says it has no record of ever receiving the report.
23. Ms X says she made a formal complaint to the Council in July 2021. The chronology of actions provided by the Council indicates no further action took place for a year until 1 October 2021 when the Council served a Prevention of Damage by Pests notice. The Council also wrote to the owner on 4 October 2021 saying it had a responsibility to ensure that privately rented homes meet minimum statutory standards of repair, safety and comfort. It provided details of defects that required attention which were minor in detail and included replacing the batteries in a smoke alarm, cleaning the communal area, clearing a waste bin and inspecting damp in a bedroom.
24. An officer visited the property on 8 April 2022 to conduct a compliance visit and confirmed all works had been completed. There are no notes of the compliance visit and Ms Z says that there is still a cockroach infestation at the house. Ms X says the property was never suitable, the Council did not check this properly and should not have offered it to her.

Analysis

Homelessness application and review

25. Ms X complains about delay in determining her homelessness application in July 2019 and delay in completing her review request. The information provided shows that Ms X made the homelessness application on 19 July 2019 and the Council made the decision that she was intentionally homeless on 18 November 2019.
26. As Ms X had been asked to leave her mother’s house, she was accepted as homeless and so under the Homelessness Reduction Act, the Council owed the relief duty. The relief duty ends after 56 days but it took the Council over twice this time to make a decision on Ms X’s homeless application. The Council says that the officer dealing with the case was relatively new in post and that enquiries on the issue of intentionally homeless can sometimes be more complex. However, the chronology of actions taken by the Council does not indicate the enquiries were complex in this case. The chronology shows a visit to Ms X on 6 August, with enquiries into the loss of temporary accommodation on 12 August and a further enquiry on 2 October. The fact the Council did not complete its enquiries in 56 days is service failure which amounts to fault.
27. A request for a review of the intentionally homeless decision was made on behalf of Ms X on 23 November. The Council failed to act on this even though it was emailed to a senior housing officer by an elected councillor. I consider the failure to act on this request was fault.
28. The Council only began the review process in response to Ms X’s email received on 9 December 2019. It therefore argues the review took six months to complete. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (which is the government’s advice to local authorities on how to deal with homelessness applications) says that this kind of review should take eight weeks to complete, but that a council can agree an extension of this time. The Council acknowledged that the review took a long time, but that it agreed extensions with Ms X’s solicitor.
29. I note Ms X instructed a solicitor in January 2020 but there is no evidence to suggest the solicitor delayed the process. The emails I have seen show that it was the Council requesting extra time and that Ms X’s solicitor met the timescales set by the Council. The solicitor noted in correspondence that the Council requested he respond in much shorter timescales than those requested and taken by the Council.
30. Based on the evidence seen, I consider there was avoidable delay by the Council in determining the review. The Council should have completed the review within eight weeks, so by 3 February, but it took six months plus the month it failed to act on the initial review request. This is fault. Although the Council agreed extensions, much of the delay was due to the Council not progressing the review, not providing the correct information to the solicitor and not responding to his contact about this. The Council agreed extensions but not always before the deadline had expired. More importantly, the review was only necessary because the Council had not given Ms X proper advice about ending her tenancy at the hostel. Taking all these factors into account, the delay was avoidable and the fact that the Council sometimes agreed extensions to deadlines, does not completely mitigate the fault.
31. Ms X had asked the Council to provide accommodation while the review was pending and the Council refused. While I cannot say it was fault that accommodation was not offered while the appeal was pending, the delays caused Ms X and her family a much greater injustice.
32. In total the avoidable delays amount to an additional seven months. That is, had the Council made the homelessness decision and then reviewed that both in good time, it would have reached its favourable decision around mid-November. Instead it did not issue its eventual decision that Ms X was not intentionally homeless until June. The Council took seven months longer than it would have had it acted without delay.

Failure to take effective action in respect of disrepair

33. The information provided indicates the Council responded in a timely manner when first contacted by Ms X about disrepair issues. The Council accepts it should have continued with the visit arranged for 27 August. However, it did re-arrange the visit for a later date.
34. The Council and Ms X have different accounts regarding subsequent visits. It is my understanding Ms X cancelled one visit due to positive COVID-19 tests in her household. Whatever the reason the visit arranged for 22 October 2020 was not successful, it seems the Council then failed to follow this up or take further action.
35. While I note the Council’s point that officers cannot be expected to keep rebooking visits if the tenant fails to keep appointments, I am not persuaded the Council acted appropriately by just stopping action. Only one visit had been missed without explanation. It seems to me that the Council should have contacted Ms X to say that it would not be taking further action unless she contacted it again. I consider the Council was at fault for closing the case without notifying Ms X of this decision. I consider this caused Ms X some uncertainty.
36. Ms X says that after getting the independent surveyor’s report detailing the disrepair issues at the property, a copy was sent to the Council and it took no action. Ms X has not been able to provide any evidence to show when and to whom the report was sent. The Council says it has no record of receiving the report. In the absence of evidence on this point, I am unable to take a view.
37. Ms X was in contact with the Council in July 2020 when she made a formal complaint to it. Ms X says she was not satisfied with the response as she did not consider it addressed the issues she had raised. The Council did not address the issue of no further contact following the non-visit on 22 October 2020. However, a visit was finally made on 1 October 2021 and following this, action has been taken in respect of infestation and disrepair.
38. I consider there was delay by the Council in taking action to address the disrepair and pest infestation issues. This is fault. The problems regarding visits would have been avoided if the Council had continued with the inspection on 27 August 2020. If an inspection had taken place on that date the Council would have evidence of the state of the property at that time. While I cannot say what action, if any, the Council would have taken following an inspection in August 2020, I do consider the delays caused frustration and uncertainty.
39. Ms X says she contacted the Council in April 2021 and then made a formal complaint in May 2021.
40. It would be good administrative action for the Council to keep notes of its compliance visits, so that it is clear how it has decided the landlord has brought the property to the required standard. Ms X says there is still an infestation at the property and we would expect the Council to address this with her.
41. Ms X says the Council should not have offered the property as it is unsuitable. The law allows Ms X to challenge this by way of a review. Ms X asked the Council to review the decision, but the Council decided that her request was too late, being outside the 21-day time limit. It is open to the Council to refuse a late review and I cannot criticise its decision to do so.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms X as a result of the faults identified the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Provide a written apology of Ms X;
• Pay Ms X £1,750 to recognise the delay of seven months in dealing with her homelessness application and review. This is based on a payment of £250 per month as Ms X and her family were not in settled accommodation during this time;
• Pay Ms X £150 to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused by the failed inspection visit and delay in taking action regarding repairs;
• Remind staff of the importance of keeping to timescales when making homelessness decisions; and
• Review procedures within Regulatory Services in respect of when to close cases and how to notify tenants.

• The Councill will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation as a suitable remedy is proposed. There was fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman