Summary: Mr C complained about the Council’s removal of his car in 2020 and how it dealt with his concerns about disrepair and a rodent infestation in his Council flat. We found the Council was not at fault when it removed and destroyed Mr C’s car. It was at fault for its failure to consider Mr C’s eligibility under homelessness and its Housing Allocations Scheme. The Council should apologise and make payment to Mr C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complained about the following issues:
• he was being bullied and harassed by his landlord and another estate resident;
• the Council wrongly removed his car and has unreasonably failed to return it;
• he wrongly received Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) for his car;
• he cannot use his home because his landlord failed to deal with disrepair and a rodent infestation at the property; and
• the Council failed to address his concerns about the suitability of his accommodation and provide him enough support.
2. As a result, Mr C said he experienced distress and uncertainty as he had to live in his van for almost two years. He also said he had a loss of his vehicle, and furniture and belongings damaged by rodents.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

3. I have investigated Mr C’s complaints about the Council’s role in removing his car and how it considered his concerns about the suitability of his accommodation in its role as a Local Authority.
4. I have not investigated Mr C’s complaints regarding:
• bullying by his landlord and another resident. Nor his landlords handling of disrepair and the rodent infestation. This is because these matters relate to the Council’s role as a landlord; and
• PCN’s issued by the Council as we have logged a separate complaint regarding this issue.

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 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)
7. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
8. 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)
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. As part of my investigation, I have considered:
• Mr C’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
• the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• the relevant law and policy to the complaint.
11. Mr C 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 policy

Abandoned vehicle Policy (the Policy)

12. The Council’s Policy sets out its responsibility and the process it will follow to remove abandoned vehicles within its area.
13. When the Council becomes aware of a potentially abandoned vehicle, its officers will assess whether a vehicle is to be treated as abandoned. Its considerations include:
• whether there is a current registered keeper and whether the vehicle is taxed;
• its condition and whether body parts are missing, and whether it appears to not be drivable for any reason;
• if number plates are missing or not affixed to the vehicle;
• how long it had been stationary;
• what is inside the vehicle; and
• information received from neighbours.
14. If the Council believes the vehicle is abandoned, its officer is required to arrange for it to be removed. It matters not whether the vehicle is actually abandoned.
15. The Council is not required to give notice to remove vehicles located on council land if it believes it is abandoned. It may remove such vehicles immediately.
16. If the Council finds an abandoned vehicle is only fit to be destroyed or it has no number plates or Vehicle Identification Number. It can destroy the vehicle it has removed without notice immediately.

Homelessness

17. 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.
18. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]
19. 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)
20. If councils are satisfied applicants are 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’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
21. A council will apply four tests to decide what, if any, duty it owes to a homeless applicant.
22. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:
• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.);
• not intentionally homeless.
23. There are no statutory time limits for completing inquiries. However, the Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends that councils aim to complete their inquiries within 33 working days.
24. 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)
25. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing allocations

26. All Local Housing Authorities are required to have a published allocation scheme which sets out how they assess and prioritise applications for housing.
27. An allocations scheme must give 'reasonable preference’ to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s Housing Allocations Scheme (the Scheme)

28. The Council’s Scheme says it only applies to allocation of accommodation, which includes offering an existing council or housing association tenant a ‘transfer’ where the tenant has requested it (including Council management transfers) and they have a reasonable preference for housing.
29. If an existing council tenant has applied to the Council to move to alternative accommodation urgently, and the application has been approved as a management transfer, it will place the application in Band 1. It will then only make one offer of accommodation to the tenant.
30. The Council will assess applications to see if an applicant qualifies for ‘reasonable preference for housing’. This includes applicants living in unsanitary or otherwise unsatisfactory housing, where there is at least one verified category 1 hazard that cannot be resolved by the landlord within 6 months and where the condition of the accommodation has at least an on-going moderate effect on the applicant’s health or a member of their household.

Council’s Complaints Policy

31. The Council’s Complaints Policy sets out a two stage complaints process, which says it will respond:
• to stage one complaints within 20 working days; and
• if a complainant remains dissatisfied, to stage two complaints within 20 working days. In circumstances where a complaint is complicated it may take longer to resolve, but the officer responsible for the investigation will keep the complainant updated on its progress.

What happened

Removal of Mr C’s car

32. Mr C lived in a ground floor two-bedroom council flat for several years. He had two vehicles parked in the estate car park.
33. In 2020 the Council received reports from other residents about an abandoned vehicle parked in the estate. Its Abandoned Vehicles Team inspected the vehicle and found it with no registration plates and in a damaged unroadworthy condition.
34. The Council arranged for its removals contractor to remove the car, but the contractor did not tell the Council when it removed the car.
35. Shortly after, Mr C contacted the Council to find out if it had removed his car. He provided the registration and description of the car. The Council told Mr C it did not have his car, so he reported the car stolen to the Police.
36. The Police contacted the Council. At this time, the Council was aware it had Mr C’s car and explained why it had removed it to the Police.
37. The Council then told Mr C it had removed his car. It explained this was because it was unroadworthy and it believed he had removed the registration plates intentionally to avoid parking enforcement action.
38. In Autumn 2022, Mr C complained to the Council about its removal of his car.
39. In response the Council agreed it had wrongly told Mr C it did not have his car when he contacted it, and apologised. However, it explained its decision to remove the car was appropriate as it found the car to be abandoned and shared photographic evidence of its condition. The Council said as a gesture of goodwill it would remove the storage fee, but Mr C had to pay the removal and recovery fee and the Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN). It told Mr C he had two weeks to do so, or the car would be destroyed.
40. Mr C disagreed with the Council’s view his car was abandoned and said he wanted the car returned at no costs. He also complained about the behaviour of the Council officer he spoke with.
41. The Council did not change its view. It shared its Policy on abandoned vehicles with Mr C, and explained it had the right to seize and dispose of vehicles without providing the owner the opportunity to reclaim it. It had no phone records of Mr C’s conversation with its officer, so it could not make a finding on the officer’s behaviour. The Council told Mr C he had a further two weeks to reclaim his car and pay the fees.
42. In late 2022 Mr C asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint about the Council’s removal of his car as part of his other complaints.
43. In response to my enquiries the Council confirmed Mr C’s car was destroyed in late 2020 as it did not receive any further responses from him.

The conditions and suitability of Mr C’s accommodation

44. Mr C said he told the Council about rodents in his council property in Summer 2021. The Council has no record of this.
45. Mr C reported the issue again in Autumn 2021. He also said he was staying in his car as it was not suitable to stay in his council flat due to the rodents and the condition of the flat. The Council passed on to the officer responsible for Mr C’s tenancy.
46. When no further action was taken by the Council, Mr C asked the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) to investigate his concerns.
47. In Spring 2022, Mr C told the Council the rodent issues had not been resolved despite traps placed by pest control.
48. The Council’s tenancy officer and manager visited Mr C. They witnessed several dead rodents on traps in his home and arranged for pest control to visit again.
49. In Summer 2022 pest control had visited two further times. The Council said its tenancy officer had arranged for a deep clean of Mr C’s flat and for its contractor to attend to do repairs.
50. Mr C complained to the Council as his landlord about issues relating to parking, estate gates, anti-social behaviour within the estate, the behaviour of an officer, and its handling of the rodent infestation. He also said his flat was not suitable for habitation.
51. In response the Council responded to each of Mr C’s concerns. It explained there were no rodents when he moved into the property. It said his failure to report the issue, the lack of cleanliness within his property and not being home for pest control appointments had made matters worse. It was satisfied the steps its Tenancy Team had taken to address the issues, and reminded Mr C about his duties as a council tenant.
52. Mr C was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint to its stage two process. He also raised the issue about the Council removing his car in 2020 again.
53. In Autumn 2022 bushes outside Mr C’s flat were cut by the Council’s contractor, where a rodent nest was found. Potential rodent entry points to his flat were sealed off. A further bush was removed the following month.
54. When Mr C had not received a response to his complaint escalation, he instructed a solicitor who sent the Council an Early Notification letter regarding intended legal action. Mr C also asked the Housing Ombudsman Service to get involved.
55. In late 2022, Mr C also asked the LGSCO to consider his complaint.
56. The Council provided its final complaint response in late 2022. This included its:
• response as a landlord regarding anti-social behaviour, service of a Notice Seeking Possession in Summer 2022, Mr C’s request for parking permits, and estate gate issues;
• finding it had caused a delay from September 2021 in actioning Mr C’s reported rodent issues, and its delay in removing bushes and scrubs. Although, it found Mr C’s lack of tidiness had not helped, it accepted it could not say the rodents would not have been there but for this;
• view the removal of Mr C’s car had been responded to in 2020;
• complaints handling had been poorly handled as it had failed to respond to his complaints as it should have done for a year, which included after the Housing Ombudsman became involved.
57. The Council apologised to Mr C and offered a goodwill payment of £300. It decanted Mr C to a temporary accommodation shortly after, so it could complete the works necessary on his council flat.
58. In response to our enquiries the Council said:
• it would consider a claim for disrepair under the Disrepair Protocol, if a claim is made;
• Mr C was a secure tenant with the council. It did therefore not consider him homeless and pest control was treating the rodent infestation at his property;
• it considered a management transfer, but this was not approved due to ongoing anti-social behaviour concerns involving Mr C and other residents, which later resulted in the Council issuing him a Notice Seeking possession; and
• it had since made Mr C an offer of temporary accommodation outside its Allocation Scheme, a temporary Essential Repairs Decant, which he accepted in late 2022.

Analysis and findings

59. Mr C’s complaints includes the Council’s handling of the removal of his car in 2020 and the impact of the conditions of his accommodation since Autumn 2021. His complaint is therefore late.
60. However, I have decided to exercise my discretion to consider Mr C’s complaints. This is because Mr C shared appropriate reasons why it took him so long to bring his concerns to our attention, and due to the length of time it took the Council to action and respond to his concerns about his accommodation.

The Council’s removal and destruction of Mr C’s car

61. The Council agrees it removed Mr C’s car in 2020 as it found it to be abandoned based on its condition, engine items inside the car and lack of registration plates. I found the Council acted in line with its policy as the photographic evidence showed the condition of the car.
62. The Council accepted it wrongly told Mr C it did not have his car when he contacted it. This was fault. It apologised and offered to remove the storage costs of the car. I found this to be a suitable remedy to address the uncertainty this had caused Mr C.
63. The Council’s Policy allows it to destroy a car parked on Council owned land which appears abandoned to it if it has no registration plates. In this case, the Council gave Mr C 14 days to pay the required fees and collect his car. It also gave Mr C a further 14 days after its final complaint response to do so. I found the Council acted in line with its policy and it was entitled to destroy Mr C’s car. The Council was therefore not at fault.

Concerns about Mr C’s accommodation and the Council’s support

64. The key parts of Mr C’s complaint regarding his accommodation relates to the Council’s handling of the disrepair and rodents within his flat. I cannot consider the Council’s handling of these concerns as it dealt with these under its role as a registered social landlord. I understand Mr C has already brought these concerns to the Housing Ombudsman Services’ attention.
65. However, I have considered whether the Council should have provided Mr C with more advice and support under homelessness and its Housing Allocations Scheme.
66. Mr C told the Council he could not live in his council flat in September 2021 due to the rodent infestation and as a result he was sleeping in his car. The Council said it did not consider Mr C for eligibility under homelessness legislation as he had a secure tenancy with the Council.
67. I understand the Council’s reasons for not considering Mr C for homelessness as it would normally address rodent infestations and disrepair through its role as Mr C’s landlord. However, I found the Council to be at fault. This is because it is irrelevant whether Mr C held a secure tenancy or not, the Council should have made proper considerations as to whether the rodent infestation, and/or disrepair, meant Mr C’s property was not suitable for his continued occupation as he claimed.
68. I cannot say what the Council’s decision would have been. However, I am satisfied, on balance, Mr C’s flat was not suitable for his occupation from September 2021 until he was decanted in December 2022. In reaching my view I am conscious:
• Mr C reported rodents in his flat to the Council in Summer and Autumn 2021;
• the bushes outside Mr C’s flat were found to have a rodent nest, were overgrown and there were access points into Mr C’s flat;
• the Council accepted, although Mr C may not have kept his flat tidy and clean, it could not say if the rodents would still have been present;
• the expert surveyors report found Mr C’s flat to be unsuitable for human habitation in Autumn 2022, which was after the Council had arranged for pest control, a cleaning of his flat, and some repair work had taken place; and
• it appears highly likely the disrepair and rodents existed at the time Mr C reported it to the Council, and it should have taken steps to resolve his concerns.
69. The Council had different options available to it to support Mr C since September 2021 to ensure he was not living in his uninhabitable council flat, or as Mr C chose, in his car. However, it was not until December 2022 the Council decanted him and provided a suitable temporary accommodation.
70. The Council said it considered a management transfer but decided not to proceed with this due to ongoing anti-social behaviour concerns between Mr C and other residents. As the Council considered a management transfer in line with its Policy, it reached a decision it was entitled to make, and I cannot therefore criticise the merits of its decision.
71. However, the Council did not advice or offer Mr C to be considered as homelessness and add him to the Council’s housing register. This was fault, which based on insanitary and unsatisfactory housing conditions, would have given him reasonable preference on its Allocations Scheme and it would have had a duty to provide him with interim accommodation.
72. In addition, even if Mr C was found not to have reasonable preference, the Council’s Allocation’s Scheme also said an application should be registered as he was a social housing tenant who needed to move to allow for repair works to go ahead. He should therefore also have been advised about this and been given the opportunity to apply.
73. I cannot say whether it was more suitable for Mr C to stay in his uninhabitable council flat or his car, however, I am satisfied Mr C experienced distress and uncertainty as he had to wait a year from when he reported his flat was unsuitable or uninhabitable before the Council offered interim accommodation to him.

Complaints handling

74. I found no fault in how the Council responded to Mr C’s 2020 complaint regarding the removal of his vehicle. This is because it provided its response as set out in its Complaints Policy.
75. Mr C told the Council about concerns relating to his flat in Autumn 2021 and raised his stage one complaint to it in late 2021. I found the Council at fault for causing delays in is handling of Mr C’s complaint. This is because:
• while some communication did take place, the Council did not provide its stage one complaint response to Mr C until Summer 2022, which was eight months after he initially made his complaint; and
• when Mr C asked the Council to escalate his complaint to its stage two process in Summer 2022. Although some communication took place, the Council did not provide its final complaint response until late 2022, which was over four months later.
76. I am satisfied the delay caused Mr C distress and uncertainty, and it delayed his right to progress his concerns to the Housing Ombudsman Service and the LGSCO.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:

1. apologise in writing to Mr C, and pay him £250 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty its failure to properly consider whether Mr C’s accommodation was uninhabitable in September 2021 and provide appropriate advice and support;
2. pay Mr C £3,250 to acknowledge its failures deprived Mr C of having suitable accommodation he was entitled to for a period of 13 months and the impact this had on him;
3. pay Mr C a further £300 for the unnecessary time and trouble he had to get the Council to respond to his concerns, the distress he experienced as a result, and the delay this caused to his ability to bring his concerns to the Ombudsman’s attention.

78. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:

3. remind its staff of the Council’s duty to provide advice and support to residents approaching its services regarding homelessness and access to the Council’s Housing Register. This includes properly considering eligibility for housing assistance for complainants who may already hold a tenancy, but believe the accommodation is unsuitable due to disrepair or rodent infestations.
4. remind its complaints handling staff to respond to complaints in line with the timescales set out in the Council’s Complaints Policy. Including ensuring complainants are informed about delays in providing its responses and the reasons for such delays.

79. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

80. There was fault which caused and injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, it is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman