Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. There was no fault in how the Council offered, and ended its duty to arrange, interim accommodation, gave Miss X advice about its housing allocation scheme or communicated with her. There was fault in how the Council first decided Miss X was not homeless. The resulting delay caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. The Council also agreed to remind its staff to properly consider affordability in homelessness cases.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the support the Council provided after she and her children became homeless in April 2022. She said the Council:
1. offered her unsuitable interim accommodation;
2. unreasonably ended its duty to provide interim accommodation after she refused to stay there;
3. wrongly referred her to a different council for support;
4. wrongly refused to allow her to join its housing register; and
5. officers were rude to and looked down on her.
2. As a result, she said she and her children are currently homeless, without a place to stay and were caused distress. She wanted the Council to apologise for the temporary accommodation it provided and the way it treated her, and allow her to bid on social housing.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated parts a), b), d) and e) of Miss X’s complaint.
4. The final section of this statement explains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

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. 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)
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)
8. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
9. 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

10. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided, including a copy of Miss X’s homelessness file; and
• relevant law and guidance.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

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. 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. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ case. This is called the prevention duty (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, a council must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for them. This is called the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. When deciding whether someone is homeless, if a council decides that someone has accommodation which they have a legal right to occupy, it must also consider whether it is reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation. When deciding whether it is reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation, councils must consider the affordability of the accommodation. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.23 and 6.28)
17. 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)
18. 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 Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
19. When considering suitability of interim accommodation, Councils must consider:
• the space and arrangement of the accommodation;
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation;
• location, including ease of access to employment, schools and specialist health care; and
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability.
20. Where a council decides that a homeless applicant is owed the relief duty, does not have a ‘local connection’ with its area but does have such a connection with another council’s area, they can refer the applicant’s case to that other council to meet the duty.
21. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including to refer their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met and whether those conditions are met.
22. After completing a review, a council must advise the applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Housing allocations

23. Every local housing authority 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
24. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
25. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
26. The Council’s allocations scheme says that to qualify to join the scheme applicants must have a local connection to its area. The scheme says someone has a local connection if they:
• have lived in the Council’s area continuously for at least the last five years;
• are in regular, continuous paid employment in the Council’s area and have been for at least six months;
• they have an immediate family member (parents, guardians, adult children or siblings) who have lived in the Council’s area for at least five years;
• are owed the main housing duty by the Council; or
• there are other special circumstances agreed with senior Council managers.

What happened

27. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless in mid-March 2022. At the time of her application, Miss X had two children (2 and less than 1 years old) and was pregnant. Although she had a private tenancy, she said she could not afford the rent as her partner was no longer living with her. Miss X said her landlord had been contacting her about her rent arrears and had threatened to evict her. Miss X had been temporarily living with her mother for several weeks but her mother had asked Miss X to leave.
28. On the day Miss X contacted the Council, it tried to prevent her homelessness by speaking to her mother to negotiate more time for Miss X to stay. However, this was not possible, so the Council allocated Miss X’s case to a housing officer for a homelessness assessment.
29. The housing officer contacted Miss X three days later, after the weekend. The Council confirmed with Miss X’s landlord that they had sent Miss X notice to end her tenancy because of rent arrears and that they intended to evict her.
30. The Council told Miss X that she still had a legal right to stay in the property until her landlord took the matter to court and arranged for the court to evict her. It advised Miss X to return to the property until she was evicted. Although the Council did not make a formal decision at the time, the Council’s records suggest it viewed Miss X as ‘threatened with homelessness’ rather than ‘homeless’.
31. Around a week later, as part of its inquiries, the Council came to the view that Miss X did not have a local connection with its area. Miss X had only lived in the Council’s area for several months, and her mother (her other close family in the area) had lived in the area for just over a year. Based on this, the Council advised Miss X that when she became homeless it would refer her to Authority B, where she did have a local connection. The Council’s records suggest it encouraged Miss X to apply directly to Authority B for help with housing and that Miss X agreed to withdraw her application to the Council.
32. Around a week later, Miss X contacted the Council again and told it Authority B had refused to accept her homelessness application and told her to contact the Council. The Council reassigned Miss X’s case to a housing officer who made further inquiries.
33. Miss X gave the Council evidence that her landlord had started possession proceedings. Again, the Council advised Miss X to return to the property and wait for official documents from the courts. It also told Miss X that she did not have a local connection to its area both under homelessness law and under its housing allocation scheme, so she would not be eligible to join the scheme.
34. The Council continued its inquiries, including contacting Miss X’s landlord and asking Miss X for more information about her finances.
35. Around two weeks later, in late April 2022, Miss X told the Council her landlord had given her notice that they would change the locks. The Council officially decided it owed Miss X the prevention duty. It gave her advice about finding alternative accommodation and also agreed to help her with a deposit for private rented housing. As part of its decision, the Council decided Miss X could afford to pay up to £795 a month in rent.
36. A week later, Miss X told the Council her landlord had changed the locks and she had nowhere to stay, so was homeless. The Council told Miss X it still intended to refer her to Authority B for the relief duty. However, a housing manager authorised interim accommodation for Miss X in the meantime.
37. In the late afternoon, the Council offered Miss X a family room in specialist accommodation operated by a local care agency. The Council said the room it offered had a single bed, bunkbeds, a fridge and other essentials. From the information the Council provided, it also seems the accommodation had on-site staff. The Council told Miss X it believed the accommodation was suitable and it would not make other offers.
38. Miss X visited the property but decided not to stay there. She said she felt the accommodation was not suitable because there was no cot for her youngest child to sleep, she did not feel safe in the property and she saw used needles on the floors. A relative of Miss X offered her somewhere else to stay that night.
39. The following day, the Council contacted the care provider about the property. The property manager told the Council they had inspected the room themselves before Miss X arrived, that it was clean and tidy and there was no evidence of drug use.
40. Following a call from Miss X’s relative, the Council referred Miss X to the children’s services department of the county council since it was concerned that Miss X’s children would otherwise have nowhere to stay.
41. A day later, after Miss X told the Council she had found somewhere else to stay temporarily and would not return to the interim accommodation, the Council wrote to Miss X to tell her it had ended its duty to provide interim accommodation.
42. Over the next few weeks, the Council resolved a dispute between it and Authority B about where Miss X had a local connection. Ultimately, Authority B accepted Miss X’s case in mid-June 2022.

My findings

a) Interim accommodation

43. It is not our role to decide if the interim accommodation the Council arranged was suitable; that was the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.
44. The Council arranged a family room in a managed property operated by a local care provider. Although it was outside of the Council’s immediate area, it had good transport links and Miss X was able to travel to the accommodation. The Council also said the room was inspected by the manager of the accommodation and was clean and tidy before Miss X viewed it.
45. The evidence suggests the Council considered the relevant factors when deciding that the interim accommodation was suitable. The Council was also entitled to take into account the urgency with which it needed to arrange accommodation for Miss X and that the accommodation would likely only be needed for a short period of time before it referred Miss X to Authority B.
46. Neither the law nor statutory guidance refer to any requirements for councils to provide furniture (such as beds or cots for children) when arranging interim or temporary accommodation. The courts have previously found that unfurnished accommodation can be ‘suitable’ interim or temporary accommodation. Therefore, I cannot say the Council was at fault for failing to ensure there was appropriate furniture (including a cot) available when Miss X first attended the interim accommodation.
47. I am satisfied the Council considered all the relevant factors when deciding if the accommodation it offered was suitable and so there was no fault. Since there was no fault in how the Council made its decision, I cannot question its professional judgement that the accommodation was suitable.

b) Ending its interim accommodation

48. The courts have also found that if someone refuses an offer of suitable interim accommodation, a council does not have to keep the offer open or make any further offers.
49. After Miss X told the Council she believed the interim accommodation was not suitable, the Council investigated her concerns. When Miss X then told the Council she would not stay at the accommodation it arranged, it wrote to her to end the duty.
50. Since the Council decided properly that the accommodation was suitable, and checked on Miss X’s concerns, I am satisfied it was entitled to rely on her clear rejection of the offer to end its duty to arrange interim accommodation.

c) Referral to Authority B

51. For the reasons given at the end of this statement, I have not investigated how the Council decided to refer Miss X to Authority B to meet the relief duty.

d) Eligibility to join the housing register

52. Miss X did not apply to join the Council’s housing register, so the Council never made a formal decision that she was not eligible.
53. However, Miss X says she did not apply because the Council told her that she would not be eligible. Therefore, I have considered whether this advice the Council gave Miss X accurately reflected its allocation scheme.
54. At the time the Council told Miss X she would not be eligible to join the scheme, it had established that Miss X had lived in its area for only several months, and Miss X’s mother had lived in the area for just over a year.
55. Based on this information, Miss X would not be eligible under the Council’s allocation scheme. I am satisfied that the Council based its advice on the information it had about Miss X’s circumstances at the time and therefore there was no fault in the advice it gave.

e) Conduct of staff towards Miss X

56. I have seen no evidence that Council staff were rude or ‘looked down’ on Miss X. The written communications the Council sent to Miss X were professional.
57. I cannot comment on the way Council staff spoke to Miss X by telephone, since the Council does not keep recordings of calls to its housing team.

Failure to consider affordability

58. The evidence the Council provided showed it did not properly consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X to remain in her former home when it advised her to. Although Miss X did not complain about this, I have still considered how the Council made its first decision that Miss X was not homeless.
59. The Council knew shortly after Miss X first contacted it that her landlord intended to evict her. Although Miss X had the right to continue to occupy the property until she was evicted, the Council should have considered whether it was reasonable for her to continue to do so. Part of this consideration should have been about whether the property was affordable. However, there is no evidence the Council considered this before deciding that Miss X was only threatened with homelessness. This failure was fault.
60. When the Council later considered affordability of future properties, the Council decided Miss X could afford £795 a month in rent. The rent for Miss X’s former home was over £400 a month more than this.
61. I am satisfied that, had the Council properly considered whether her former home was affordable, it would have decided that it was not. It is therefore likely the Council would have decided Miss X was homeless around six weeks earlier than it did.
62. When the Council did decide that Miss X was homeless in early May 2022, Miss X had lost access to her former home and her possessions she still had there. If the Council had decided Miss X was homeless sooner, she would still have had access to her possessions and the Council would have had more time to arrange suitable interim accommodation for Miss X. While I cannot say Miss X would have accepted other interim accommodation, I am satisfied there is a remaining uncertainty about what would have happened.
63. I am also satisfied the referral of Miss X’s case to Authority B would have been finalised around six weeks sooner. This was an unnecessary delay which caused Miss X avoidable distress.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for failing to properly consider the affordability of her former home when assessing her homelessness; and
• pay her £200 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and distress this caused.
65. Within three months of my final decision the Council will remind its housing advice staff that they should consider whether it is reasonable for people to continue to occupy property they are entitled to, including the affordability of the property.

Back to top

Final decision

66. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault in how the Council offered and ended its duty to arrange interim accommodation, gave Miss X advice about its housing allocation scheme or communicated with her. There was fault in how the Council first decided Miss X was not homeless. The resulting delay caused Miss X avoidable distress and uncertainty for which the Council should apologise and pay a financial remedy. The Council should also remind its staff to properly consider affordability.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

67. I have not investigated how the Council decided to refer Miss X to another council after it decided she was homeless. Miss X had the right to appeal this decision to the county court.
68. We cannot consider complaints about matters someone can appeal to the courts about, unless we decide it would be unreasonable to expect them to go to court.
69. Since Miss X had already taken court action against her landlord and legal aid is available for homelessness court cases, I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for Miss X to appeal the Council decision in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman