Summary: Mr B says the Council pressurised him and his family to leave their temporary accommodation when there were no grounds to do so, allowed its agent to harass his family, failed to act on a change of circumstances form and delayed considering his complaint. The Council failed to properly consider the case before cancelling Mr B’s temporary accommodation, failed to consider Mr B’s case properly before deciding not to add a family member on to his housing register application and delayed considering the complaint. An apology and payment to Mr B, reconsideration of his request to add a family member onto his application and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• pressurised him and his family to leave their temporary accommodation when there were no grounds to do so;
• allowed one of its agents to harass his family;
• unreasonably refused to consider adding his mother onto his housing register application; and
• delayed considering his complaint.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions caused his family significant distress.

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 Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B and the organisation 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

What should have happened

The homelessness code of guidance

7. This says where an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need for accommodation, the housing authority has a duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is commonly known as 'the main housing duty'.
8. The homelessness code of guidance lists ways in which the main housing duty will end. That includes if the applicant:
• (a)ceases to be eligible for assistance;
• (b)becomes homeless intentionally from accommodation made available to them under section 193;
• (c)voluntarily ceases to occupy as their principal home the accommodation made available under section 193.

The Council’s allocations policy

9. Paragraph 5.3.2 of the Council’s allocations policy says normally only the applicant, the applicant’s permanent partner (if any) and their children will be considered as part of the same household. Other relatives and siblings, and any other adult included as part of an application, will be expected to make their own separate housing applications.
10. Paragraph 5.3.4 of the allocations policy provides a list of those who will be accepted as part of the applicant’s household. That includes:
• persons accepted as household members of the applicant for the purposes of a homeless application where the Council has accepted and retains the full housing duty towards the applicant;
• a dependent relative who has joined the applicant’s household because they are no longer able to live independently due to medical reasons (subject to a medical assessment and appropriate medical recommendation from the Council’s independent medical adviser, or a recommendation from adult services or mental health services).

What happened

11. The Council housed Mr B and his family in temporary accommodation under its homeless duties in 2017. At that point the household consisted of Mr B and his wife, Mr B’s mother and Mr B’s children. The accommodation was provided on a nightly let basis.
12. In January 2021 the Council emailed Mr B to ask him to complete an accommodation needs form so the Council had accurate and up-to-date information. The Council asked Mr B to complete the form by 29 January. The Council asked Mr B to complete the form again in November 2021 and May 2022. On none of those occasions did the Council tell Mr B there was any consequence to not completing the form.
13. The Council carried out an occupancy check at the temporary accommodation on 16 September. Mr B was not present as he was at work and the officer arranged to return on 22 September. The Council completed the occupancy check on 22 September when Mr B was present.
14. Another Council officer emailed Mr B to tell him he needed to complete an up-to-date accommodation needs form and asked for a call back or reply to the email. The email did not say there were any consequences for not replying.
15. On 3 October the Council cancelled the temporary accommodation as there had been no contact about the accommodation needs form. The Council told the agent for the property on 17 October. Over the next three days the agent for the property repeatedly checked with the Council to see whether it had extended the temporary accommodation as Mr B was still living there. On each occasion the Council told the agent it had cancelled the temporary accommodation.
16. On 19 October the agent asked the Council again whether it should proceed with the eviction. The Council told the agent to proceed. At that point Mr B had left the country temporarily to collect his unwell mother. So, when the agent visited only Mr B’s children were present. The agent attended over the following days.
17. The agent attended to evict Mr B and his family on 24 October but contacted the Council later that day to tell it the property had not been abandoned. The agent again asked the Council whether the eviction still stood. Mr B’s solicitor also contacted the Council. The Council reinstated the temporary accommodation the following day and sent Mr B an accommodation needs form to complete. Mr B completed the accommodation needs form on 28 November.
18. On 24 October Mr B asked the Council to add his mother to the application as she had moved into the house on 22 October. He also asked for one of his daughters to be removed from the application as she had left the property. Mr B chased the Council about that on 14 December and 17 January 2023 as he had not received a response.
19. On 17 January 2023 the Council asked Mr B where his mother had lived before she moved into his property and asked for details of her housing history for the previous five years. The Council suggested Mr B support his mother to apply for sheltered accommodation due to overcrowding at the property.
20. Mr B provided the Council with the requested information and explained why his mother was now living with him. When Mr B did not receive a response he contacted his local Councillor and then put in a complaint on 14 February.
21. The Council responded to the complaint on 17 March. The Council explained it had ended the placement because Mr B had not completed the accommodation needs form and had not contacted the Council. The Council accepted the manner in which the agent approached Mr B’s family was not as it should have been and said it would raise that issue with the agent at its contract meeting. The Council explained it had previously said it could not include Mr B’s mother as part of his household and she should make her own arrangements, perhaps by applying for sheltered housing.
22. Mr B was not happy with the Council’s response and asked to take his complaint to stage two on 22 March. The Council sent Mr B a holding letter on 23 May due to delays dealing with complaints and responded to the complaint on 13 July. The Council apologised for the delay but did not change the findings on the complaint.

Analysis

23. Mr B says the Council unreasonably pressurised him and his family to leave his temporary accommodation when there were no grounds to do so. Mr B says the agent, acting on behalf of the Council, gave him no time to move out of the property and therefore the Council failed to follow the right legal process.
24. It is not my role to say which legal regime applies to ending Mr B’s occupation of the temporary accommodation. That is about legal interpretation and is a matter for the courts rather than the Ombudsman. However, I can consider whether there was any fault in the way the Council decided to end the temporary accommodation and how the Council’s agent went about the eviction attempt.
25. I set out in paragraph 8 what the homelessness code of guidance says about temporary accommodation and how it can be ended. In its response to my enquiry and its response to Mr B’s complaint the Council said it cancelled his temporary accommodation because Mr B had failed to complete the accommodation needs form despite repeated requests to do so.
26. I am concerned about the Council’s approach here. First, failure to complete the accommodation needs form is not listed in the homelessness code of guidance as one of the reasons the Council can terminate a person’s temporary accommodation. Nor is there any evidence in the Council’s communications with Mr B before the eviction was attempted to suggest it told him if he did not complete the accommodation needs form the Council would cancel his temporary accommodation. In those circumstances I consider the Council’s decision to cancel the temporary accommodation fault.
27. That clearly caused Mr B and his family a significant injustice as they were then faced with repeated visits from the agent attempting to evict them. That should not have happened based on Mr B’s failure to complete the accommodation needs form, particularly when the Council had not told Mr B it would consider evicting him if he did not complete the form. I consider if the Council had told Mr B there were any implications from failing to complete the form it is likely he would have completed it, given this is what he did in November 2022.
28. The Council has accepted, after viewing video evidence from Mr B’s doorbell camera, the agent acted inappropriately by continually returning to the property and putting the family under pressure to leave. The documentary evidence I have seen though satisfies me the agent took those actions only because the Council confirmed it had cancelled the temporary accommodation. As I said in the previous paragraph, there is no evidence the Council had any powers to end the provision of temporary accommodation to Mr B. I therefore consider the Council at fault here. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Mr B and arrange training for its officers on the circumstances in which temporary accommodation can be cancelled. I also recommended the Council pay Mr B £500 to reflect what was clearly considerable distress he and his family experienced at being faced with eviction when they had not done anything wrong. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
29. Mr B says the Council failed to amend his housing register application to include his mother. In response the Council says its allocations policy makes clear it will normally expect other relatives to make their own separate housing application. The Council says though Mr B could request a review of the decision not to include his mother on the housing register application The Council says Mr B would then need to provide evidence of residence for the last five years and medical evidence to show why his mother needs to live with the family.
30. I am concerned about the Council’s approach here. I refer to the relevant section of the Council’s allocations policy in paragraph 9. As the Council has noted, this makes clear normally only the applicant, their partner and children will be considered as part of the same household. However, the use of the word ‘normally’ means the Council has some discretion.
31. The section of the Council’s allocations policy quoted in paragraph 10 also makes clear there are circumstances when another person can be accepted as part of the applicant’s household. That includes where a person has been accepted as a household member for the purposes of the homeless application and where a dependent relative has joined the applicant’s household because they can no longer live independently due to medical reasons. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council considered those points when deciding not to include Mr B’s mother on his housing register application.
32. I am concerned about that because Mr B’s mother was included in Mr B’s household in 2017 when the Council accepted a housing duty as the family were homeless. I am also satisfied Mr B had provided the Council with medical evidence for his mother to explain why she needed to live with the family. Despite Mr B asking the Council to include his mother on his housing register application in October 2022 I have seen no evidence the Council responded to that until January 2023. That is fault. I have also seen no evidence to suggest the Council considered Mr B’s circumstances in accordance with the Council’s allocations policy, as referred to in paragraph 10. That is also fault.
33. I note the Council now says Mr B has the right to request a review of its decision not to include his mother on his housing register application. While I am not satisfied the Council considered Mr B’s case properly I am also not satisfied the Council explained to Mr B the full reasons for its decision or offered him the opportunity to seek a review. That is also fault.
34. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Mr B and arrange for a review to decide whether it is appropriate to include Mr B’s mother on his housing register application after completing a medical assessment and referring the case to the Council’s medical adviser, should it consider that appropriate. In making its decision the Council should ensure it takes into account all the information Mr B has provided. I also recommended the Council send a reminder to officers about the discretion the Council has when deciding whether to add a family member on to an applicant’s housing register application. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
35. The Council accepts it delayed responding to Mr B’s complaint at stage two as it did not respond to the complaint within 25 working days. That is fault. I consider the apology the Council has already offered a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress and upset he and his family experienced due to the faults identified in this decision; and
• pay Mr B £500;
• send a memo to officers dealing with housing register applications to remind them of the discretion available in the Council’s allocations policy when considering whether to add a family member on to an applicant’s housing register application.
37. Within two months of my decision the Council should:
• reconsider whether to include Mr B’s mother on his housing register application and then write to Mr B to tell him its decision; and
• carry out a training session for officers dealing with homeless applicants in temporary accommodation on the circumstances in which the Council can cancel the provision of temporary accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman