Summary: Miss F complained about the Council’s handling of her and her son’s housing situation and storage of her belongings. The Council agreed it was at fault. It apologised and offered her a payment. We found its remedy was not enough to remedy the injustice it caused. The Council agreed to our recommendation of a higher payment to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty and costs its faults caused Miss F and her son.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss F, complained about the Council’s handling of her and her son’s housing situation. She said:
• it failed to give her enough information and respond to her when she had submitted her homeless application;
• its initial offer of interim accommodation was unsuitable for her and her son’s needs; and
• it failed to give her sufficient information about storage and retrieval of her belongings, and to respond to her requests to access to her belongings.
2. As a result, Miss F said she experienced distress and uncertainty, which caused her physical and emotional health to worsen. She also said she experienced inconvenience and had costs to buy essential household items.

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 my investigation, I have:
• considered Miss F’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Miss F and considered the information she provided; and
• considered the relevant law and guidance to the complaint.
6. Miss F 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

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for help from the Council:
• 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))
9. 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)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must tell the applicant about the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be given to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is the relief duty. The relief duty ends after 56 days. The Council can extend this by 15 days if it needs to make more inquiries to reach a decision. When a council decides this duty has ended, it must tell the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be:
• homeless;
• eligible; and
• in priority need.

it must provide interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

13. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation it arranges for 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 housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Council’s complaints policy

14. The Council’s Policy says it will respond to complaints under its stage one process with 20 working days. If it cannot do so, it will tell the complainant why and when it will respond.
15. If complainants are not satisfied with the Council’s response, they can escalate the complaint to its stage two process within 20 working days. The Council says it will respond to stage two complaints within 25 working days.

What happened

16. Miss F lived with her son in her sister’s Council flat for several years. They continued to live in the flat when her sister moved out.
17. In 2019 the Council found Miss F to be an unauthorised occupant as her sister was no longer living in the flat and served Miss F with a notice to quit.
18. In Spring 2022, a court considered the case and granted the Council a possession order of the flat.
19. Miss F made a homeless application to the Council but remained in the flat. The Council received her application and allocated a housing officer to her case. Over the following two months Miss F contacted the Housing Officer several times but said she did not receive any support or responses.
20. In Summer 2022 the Council sent Miss F an eviction notice and provided the date she had to leave the flat. Miss F continued to contact the Housing Officer but received no response.
21. Miss F then contacted the Council’s main housing mailbox to raise her concerns. The Council provided Miss F with some general eviction process information and said her Housing Officer would contact her within 10 days.
22. Miss F complained when the Housing Officer did not contact her as promised. She said she had not had any advice or support with her homeless application and her case had not been progressed.
23. The following day the Council’s Officer contacted Miss F and discussed her housing needs with her.
24. On the date set out in the eviction notice:
• the Council evicted Miss F and her son;
• an officer told her where Miss F where their belongings would be moved to and stored, including how she could get access to these; and
• the Council accepted it had a relief duty towards Miss F and her son and offered interim accommodation in a studio flat outside the Council’s area.
25. Miss F found the Studio flat to be unsuitable and refused it. She told the Council it only had a single bed and was too small to meet her and her sons needs. She also said it was far away from her friends and support network and was so far away a car would be needed for travel, which she did not have.
26. Miss F said she and her son had to stay on friend’s sofas for 10 days until the Council offered them another temporary accommodation flat, which she accepted and moved into.
27. Miss F said, as she had only been able to take some limited belongings with her when the eviction took place, she contacted the Council several times for access to her belongings.
28. The Council did not respond to Miss F’s requests for two weeks. It then told her she would have to pay a charge to access her belongings and a further charge would be applied when she collected all her belongings.
29. Miss F said she was able to access her belongings almost four weeks after her first request to do so.

Miss F’s complaint

30. Miss F complained to the Council about its handling of her and her son’s housing situation. She said:
• it failed to give her enough information and respond to her when she had submitted her homeless application;
• its initial offer of interim accommodation was unsuitable for her and her son’s needs; and
• it failed to give her sufficient information about storage and retrieval of her belongings, and to respond to her requests to access to her belongings.
31. She also said she felt discriminated against due to the way the Council had handled her case.
32. In response the Council partially upheld Miss F’s complaint. It said:
• it accepted it had failed to progress and respond to Miss F regarding her homeless application, which caused undue delay and was not acceptable. It apologised and explained this was due to problems such as staff sickness;
• it’s Officer had provided Miss F with some advice about where her belongings would be stored. However, it agreed it had not responded to her requests to get access to her belongings before these were taken away for storage or explained costs;
• two weeks later, an Officer had told Miss F there would be a charge to access her belongings in storage and when she would collect all her belongings. It then arranged for her to access two weeks later at no cost;
• it had not found it was a fault for offering Miss F the studio flat and it remained in contact with her and offered another accommodation 10 days later. It acknowledged the difficulties this caused, but explained due to the limited availability of properties, families may need to stay in studio flats or bed and breakfast for short period; and
• found it had not discriminated against Miss F, but agreed it had handled her case poorly, and apologised.
33. The Council offered Miss F £500 to acknowledge the impact and costs she had due to its poor handling of her housing situation. It also said it address the issues with the Housing officer and intended to provide training to its staff on to avoid unnecessary distress to other applicants to its service.
34. Miss F did not feel the Council’s remedy was enough compared with the distress she and her son experienced and the costs she had, but the Council did not change its view. Miss F asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
35. Miss F provided the Ombudsman with evidence of her contacts with the Council and her costs towards essentials during the four-week period when she could not get access to her belongings.

Analysis and findings

Council’s support following Miss F’s homeless application

36. The Council agreed its communication with Miss F in the months after her homeless application was poor and apologised. This was fault.
37. While the Council did not have a duty to secure accommodation to Miss F until she was evicted, it had a prevention duty to set out steps it would take and any steps it expected of Miss F in a personal housing plan. However, it was not until shortly before her eviction she received some information and advice about the process.
38. Miss F did therefore not receive appropriate and timely advice and support regarding the Council’s prevention duty, and the Council did not take any steps to prevent her homelessness. This was fault, which caused Miss F some distress and uncertainty over a two-month period.
39. I found the Council’s fault was unlikely to have resulted in Miss F being accommodated before her eviction date.

Council’s eviction and suitability of the studio flat

40. Miss F said the studio flat the Council offered as interim accommodation was not suitable for her and her son. She therefore refused the accommodation and had to stay with friends for 10 days until it offered her a suitable temporary accommodation.
41. I have considered Miss F’s pictures of the studio flat. This shows it was a small studio with a single bed, a narrow hall and kitchenette area, and a bathroom.
42. I acknowledge the Council’s reasons that there are limited interim accommodations available and homeless applicants would be expected to live is less suitable accommodations for a short period of time until more suitable temporary accommodation can be put in place.
43. However, I agree with Miss F. The studio flat was not suitable for her and her son to occupy. It was therefore at fault for placing her and her son in interim accommodation which could not meet their basic needs. This is because:
• there was no space to replace the single bed with a double bed, or to put another single bed in the studio. The accommodation therefore did not have enough bedspace for them; and
• the Council had the opportunity to identify interim accommodation for Miss F and her son in the months leading up to the eviction but failed to properly assess this and communicate with her. This was therefore a missed opportunity to properly understand their needs and locate potential interim accommodations.
44. Miss F told the Council the studio flat was unsuitable, but it took the Council 10 days to provide her with a suitable temporary accommodation. Miss F and her son therefore experienced distress and uncertainty due to not knowing where they could stay and whether the Council would provide suitable accommodation for them during this period.

Storage and access to Miss F’s belongings

45. The Council agreed it did not respond to Miss F’s requests to get access to her belongings, and when it did it told her it would charge her. This was fault.
46. This meant it took four weeks from Miss F’s first request to the Council until she had access to her belongings. The Council apologised and did not charge Miss F to access her belongings.
47. Miss F also said she had costs during the four-week period to purchase essentials such as bedding, towels, kitchen equipment and utensils.
48. I found the Council’s fault caused Miss F and her son further distress and she had costs to purchase essentials.

Complaints handling and discrimination

49. The Council responded to Miss F’s complaints on each occasion. Its initial response in Summer 2022 and its final response in late 2022 was both within the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy.
50. However, the Council’s stage two complaint response took a week longer than the 25 working days set out in its Policy. It did not tell Miss F its response would be delayed or the reasons why. This was fault. The Council apologised for the delay. I am satisfied the Council’s apology for the short delay was enough to remedy the uncertainty this caused Miss F.
51. While I have found the Council at fault for how it communicated with Miss F and caused undue delays, I have seen no evidence the Council discriminated against Miss F, or her son, based on a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. I have therefore not found the Council at fault on this matter.

Injustice

52. The Council offered Miss F £500 to acknowledge the distress its faults caused and the costs she had to purchase essential items.
53. However, I found the Council’s apology and offer was not enough to remedy the distress, uncertainty and costs Miss F and her son had as a result of the Council’s faults.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Miss F and her son, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. pay Miss F £850 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty the Council’s faults caused her and her son, including the costs she had to purchase essentials.
55. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2. provide evidence of its intended staff training on communication and early contact with homeless applicants to avoid undue delay in the homeless support and prevention process; and
3. review how it ensures accommodation offered under its relief duty is suitable to meet the space and bed needs of eligible homeless applicants and their family members.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. There was fault which caused an injustice. It is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman