Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application and about various matters relating to the interim accommodation it provided. The Council was at fault for a significant delay in deciding her homelessness application, a failure to review whether the interim accommodation was suitable and poor communication in relation to repairs. The faults caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty, although she has potentially benefitted from the delay in making the homelessness decision. The Council should apologise and make a modest payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the suitability of the interim accommodation the Council provided after she became homeless. She said the property was too small, repairs were not carried out promptly, resulting in her being without hot water for three weeks, and the shower does not work properly.
2. Miss X also complained the Council failed to issue a decision on whether it accepted a main housing duty, after the 56 days of the relief duty ended, and failed to decide whether to accept her housing register application.
3. Miss X says she suffers from anxiety and depression, which is aggravated by the housing conditions. She suffers back pain because she works from home and there is no room for a desk so she has been working on the bed for more than a year. She also said housing management team staff were rude, causing her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. 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

9. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided, and spoke to her about her complaint;
• the information the Council provided in response to our enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
10. Miss 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe them the “relief duty”. This lasts for 56 days and requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for them that will be available for at least six months.
13. After this period, the council should decide whether it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
14. Where the council has not made a decision about whether the applicant is in priority need or intentionally homeless, the relief duty does not end automatically after 56 days. It will continue until the council has served a notice to end it. It may decide to extend the relief duty beyond 56 days, for example, taking into account the applicant’s needs and the risk of them sleeping rough (the Code, para 14.20).

Storage of belongings

15. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Interim accommodation

16. If the council has reason to believe the applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation for them whilst it makes its inquiries. Examples of priority need are those with dependant children and those vulnerable as a result of serious health problems.
17. If the council accepts the main housing duty, this becomes a duty to provide temporary accommodation. Otherwise, the interim accommodation duty continues until the council decides the applicant is not in priority need.
18. Interim and temporary accommodation must be suitable for the applicant. The Code says the space and arrangement of the accommodation will be key factors in determining suitability. The Homeless (Suitability of Accommodation (England)) Order 2012 says councils must take into account the significance of any disruption which would be caused by the location of the accommodation to the applicant’s employment.
19. The Code says accommodation may be suitable for a short period but may not necessarily be suitable for a longer time period.

Housing register

20. The demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas, particularly in large cities like London. To manage the demand, councils 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. Some councils hold a housing register that records the details of those applicants waiting for housing.
21. This Council’s allocations policy uses four bands to prioritise applicants. Band 3 is for those with a medium need to move and includes those with priority because they are homeless. The Council says applicants in band 3 typically wait at least two years before being rehoused. The allocations policy disqualifies those who have rent arrears with the Council or one of its partner landlords: the rent account balance must be zero before any offer of accommodation will be made.

What happened

22. In this decision, I refer to two councils. The subject of the complaint is the London Borough of Lewisham, which I will refer to as this Council. When Miss X first became homeless, she approached another council, Council A. Council A referred Miss X to this Council in December 2020. Whilst this Council considered whether to accept the referral, Council A provided interim accommodation for Miss X.
23. This Council accepted the referral in early February 2021. It accepted a relief duty and wrote to Miss X to confirm this. This Council initially assisted her to identify private rented accommodation she could move to, but this was not successful due to Miss X’s financial position. Miss X continued to live in the interim accommodation Council A provided whilst this Council was exploring private rented accommodation. In March 2021 Council A gave Miss X notice to leave the interim accommodation it had provided, and this Council provided alternative interim accommodation from early April 2021 when Council A’s notice expired.

Suitability of interim accommodation

24. Miss X accepted the interim accommodation this Council offered, which was a furnished room in a property with a shared bathroom and kitchen. However, she said it was too small for a desk, which she needed as she worked from home due to COVID-19 restrictions which required those who could work from home to do so. She asked for self contained accommodation to accommodate working from home and the equipment needed to do so. The Council advised her this was not justified based on the information it had. It would need to get a medical adviser’s opinion, but it currently considered the accommodation was suitable. I have seen no record to show the Council sought a medical adviser’s opinion.
25. In her formal complaint in August 2021, Miss X said she was forced to work on the bed. In its response in October 2021, the Council said that now COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted, it would need information from her employer to confirm she did need to continue working from home. In its stage 2 complaint response in November 2021, the Council asked if she was working from home and, if so, to provide confirmation her employer had asked her to do so full-time, in which case it would “look at provision for essential working arrangements”. It is unclear whether Miss X provided information from her employer. I understand that in recent months she has worked at home three days each week and in an office on two days. It is unclear whether she was required to do this or chose to do so.
26. In its stage 3 response in January 2002, it said it would review whether the accommodation was suitable and would compensate Miss X if it found it was not. I have seen no evidence the Council considered the suitability of the interim accommodation following the complaint response.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that having a desk was not an essential requirement for temporary accommodation, and therefore the accommodation was deemed suitable. It said it reviewed the suitability of the accommodation in April 2021 and that its records showed Miss X:
• had no mobility issues;
• was in employment and has equipment set up to work from home, although she reported she could not fit all her belongings into the room;
• said she did not feel safe in the accommodation and that it was not affordable.

The Council accepted that it should have reviewed the suitability of the interim accommodation, given Miss X said it was not affordable and she did not feel safe.

28. The Council also said the organisation that manages the interim accommodation provided to Miss X, company B, had offered her alternative accommodation in September 2021 to address the repair issues she raised. I have seen no record to confirm this.

Storage of belongings

29. Miss X had previously been in unfurnished accommodation but the interim accommodation this Council provided was furnished. Miss X says she was told she could not replace the furniture in the interim accommodation with her own but was not offered any assistance to store it. Initially she asked friends to keep the items but, given the length of time she has been in interim accommodation, she told me she has now had to dispose of the furniture.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had no records to show what advice, if any, was given about the storage of belongings.

Failure to carry out repairs

31. Miss X raised concerns about cooking appliances not working properly in August 2021. The Council raised this with company B and responded to Miss X in October 2021. It said company B had not been aware of any issues but had since visited the property and resolved them.
32. Around the same time, Miss X raised concerns about having no hot water. The Council said a new water heater was ordered and installed as soon as it was received. It acknowledged Miss X was without hot water for three weeks. In its stage 3 response dated January 2022 it agreed to refund 5% of the rent for that period, which it would credit to Miss X’s rent account. Miss X was not satisfied with that reduction.
33. In its response to my enquiries, the Council provided an extract from its refunds policy, which states that rent can be refunded at the rate of 5% for the period the water heating is inoperable.
34. Miss X also complained the shower wasn’t working properly as the hot water only lasted five to ten minutes. In January 2022 she told the Council that company B initially said it would install an electric hot water system over the bath but later decided not to do so because no one else in the property was complaining.
35. In its stage 3 complaint response in January 2022, the Council said it would ask company B to carry out a full service of the boiler or shower (depending on how the shower got its hot water) and make any necessary repairs or adjustments. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the property:
• was fully electric and did not have a boiler; and
• has a water tank that provides a certain amount of hot water throughout the day. The original tank was replaced with a larger one in 2021 to increase the hot water allocation.
36. In November 2021, Miss X reported an attempted break-in. She said the police advised her they could not assist as there was no camera or proper security in the building. She told the Council she was worried her work equipment might be stolen and that she did not feel safe in the accommodation. The records show company B told the Council:
• the bolt securing the lock had worked loose but this had not been reported;
• repairs to the bolt and other minor repairs had been carried out, and the door was repainted; and
• it confirmed to the Council the door was secure.
37. Miss X also complained about a broken wardrobe and a broken bed. The Council said company B advised it the wardrobe was broken due to being overloaded. Since the damaged was caused by Miss X, the wardrobe was not replaced.
38. Miss X said the bed originally provided in April 2021 was broken and the Council replaced it. Miss X said the new bed also broke and she was told by company B it would not be replaced because it blamed her for breaking it. When I spoke to her in August 2022, she said she had been sleeping and working on a mattress on the floor for several months. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed the bed had been replaced in April but provided no further information and no supporting records to show how the further replacement was considered.
39. Recently, Miss X complained the dryer had broken. She said she was initially told by company B that this would be replaced but was later told it would not be replaced because it was a luxury item. The Council has confirmed it is not being replaced for this reason.

Delay in making its housing decision

40. The Council accepted a relief duty in February 2021. This would normally run for 56 days, which would be June 2021. By that stage a council would usually have completed its enquiries and be in a position to decide whether it owed the applicant the main housing duty. The Council had not yet made its decision when Miss X complained to us in April 2022.
41. In its stage 2 complaint response in November 2021 the Council acknowledged the decision had not been made, which it said was due to the caseworker being off sick. It said the case would be reallocated. In the stage 3 complaint response in January 2022 it upheld the complaint about delay in making its decision on whether it owed a main housing duty and said it would make the decision without delay. It noted Miss X should have been in band 3 on the Council’s housing register and able to bid for social housing whilst the Council reached its decision on whether it owed a main duty. However, it said she had not missed out on an offer of social housing because the average waiting time for a one bedroom property in the appropriate band (band 3) is two years.
42. The stage 3 response also noted that if the Council accepted a main housing duty, the interim accommodation would become temporary accommodation, and there is a statutory right of review on the suitability of temporary accommodation. Therefore, the delay in making that decision had potentially delayed the availability of that right of review.
43. In response to my enquiries about the reasons for the long delay in making its decision, the Council said the caseworker had referred the case to a manager for a decision in January 2022. On reviewing the file, the manager found there was no evidence to suggest Miss X was in priority need. Therefore, the case was returned to the caseworker for further enquiries, including requesting additional medical information. There was a delay in carrying out those enquiries due to the caseworker’s unexpected absence from work.
44. The Council issued a decision on 23 September 2022. Its decision was that Miss X was homeless, and eligible for assistance but not in priority need. As a result, it decided it did not owe her the main housing duty. In its decision letter it set out its reasons for concluding she was not in priority need and explained she could ask for a review of its decision within 21 days.

My findings

Suitability of interim accommodation

45. Miss X told the Council at the outset that the interim accommodation was unsuitable because there was insufficient space for a desk and chair, and she was working from home. Relevant guidance says councils should consider the space provided, and also whether the location would disrupt employment. At the time, COVID-19 restrictions meant those who were able to work at home were required to do so. In the circumstances, whatever its normal approach, the Council should have considered whether the requirement to work from home made the accommodation unsuitable. I have seen no record to show it properly considered this when it offered the interim accommodation in early April 2021 which was fault.
46. Later in April 2021, Miss X said the interim accommodation was not affordable and she did not feel safe there. The Council accepts it should have reviewed the suitability of the interim accommodation in light of that. It did not do so. That was fault.
47. In its stage 3 complaint response in January 2022, it said it would review whether the accommodation was suitable and would compensate Miss X if it found it was not. I have seen no evidence to show it did so. That was further fault.
48. Based on the records seen, I cannot say, even on balance, whether the Council would have decided the interim accommodation was unsuitable, if it had properly considered this in April 2021 or following the complaint response in January 2022. Miss X is left with some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different but for that fault.

Storage of belongings

49. Councils are under a duty to assist homeless applicants to protect their belongings if there is a risk they will be lost or damaged and can make a reasonable charge for storing them.
50. In this case, I have seen no written evidence to show what Miss X told the Council or company B about any belongings that needed protecting when it offered furnished accommodation in April 2021, nor has the Council any record of the advice it gave her, if any, nor the advice company B gave on its behalf, around that time. The failure to keep a proper record to show how it considered its duty to protect belongings was fault.
51. However, I cannot say that a duty to protect Miss X’s furniture arose in April 2021, since it appears she was able to make arrangements to store them with friends at that time. Nor is it clear that Miss X would have agreed to pay a charge for the Council to arrange storage for her. The duty to protect belongings is a continuing duty but I have seen no record to show Miss X told the Council at any point after April 2021 that her belongings were at risk. There is insufficient evidence for me to make any further findings about this aspect of the complaint.

Failure to carry out repairs

52. The Council accepted Miss X was without hot water for three weeks in 2021. It has issued a credit note for 5% of the rent for that period, which is in line with its policy.
53. In relation to the cooking appliances, shower and damage to the door, I find the Council took appropriate action to address these issues and there was no undue delay in doing so.
54. In relation to the wardrobe and bed, the Council was entitled to decline to replace those items if it considered they were damaged by Miss X.
55. In relation to the dryer, the Council was entitled to decide this was a luxury item and it did not need to replace it.
56. That said, I find on balance, the Council or company B acting on its behalf, at various points gave Miss X unclear information or said it would take action, which it later decided not to. The poor communication in relation to the various disrepair issues was fault. This caused frustration for Miss X.

Delay in making its housing decision

57. The Council should have made a decision about whether it owed a main housing duty in June 2021. It did not do so until September 2022. This was despite acknowledging a decision was overdue in complaint responses in October and again in November 2021 and committing to make the decision “without further delay” in its stage 3 response in January 2022. The very significant delay in making its decision was fault. This caused uncertainty for Miss X. In considering a remedy for this I note the Council provided interim accommodation for her throughout this period, which might have ended if it had made its decision sooner, and that the rent for this accommodation is in arrears.
58. The Council has now decided it does not owe Miss X a housing duty because it has concluded she is not in priority need. Miss X has the right to ask for a review of that decision if she is unhappy with it and it is reasonable for her to exercise that right.
59. As a result of this decision, Miss X will not be eligible to join the housing register, although she may not have been eligible for an offer of social housing in any case due to her rent arrears.
60. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that in view of the delay it would make an offer of private rented accommodation to Miss X even though it has not duty to do so.

Complaints handling

61. The Council has responded to complaints from Miss X at all three stages of its complaint process. At each stage it has responded to the issues raised and there was no undue delay in responding.

Back to top

Agreeed action

62. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to review the suitability of her interim accommodation, its failure to record what advice was given about securing her belongings, the poor communication in relation to repairs and a significant delay in deciding her homelessness application; and
2. pay her £200 for the uncertainty caused by the failure to review the suitability of the interim accommodation and the poor (and inconsistent) communication about repairs. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council should not offset this against Miss X’s rent arrears, in line with our guidance on remedies.
63. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will review its processes to ensure that:
• it decides homelessness applications without undue delay;
• has a system for identifying when cases need reallocating at an early stage, for example, due to unexpected absences of caseworkers, and reallocates without delay; and
• keeps proper records of all key information, including any advice given about securing belongings.

Back to top

Final decision

64. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman