Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to handle her homelessness application properly. I have found the Council to be at fault because it did not process her review request. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and reduce the amount she already owes the Council. It will also take action to ensure reviews requests are not missed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty when she was offered an unsuitable property. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience. She also incurred removal costs that the Council is expecting her to pay, despite knowing she has mental health issues and a low income.
2. Ms X says she is now living in unsuitable accommodation she felt compelled to accept because the Council removed the homelessness duty unfairly. This, together with the Council debt repayment demands had led to a significant decline in her mental health.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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. I considered the information provided by Ms X. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
6. I considered the relevant law and policy.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

Homelessness

8. 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.
9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the “Relief Duty”. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the certain decisions, including giving notice to bring the Relief Duty to an end.

Choice based lettings

11. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme (Homefinder) which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

12. I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
13. In February 2022, Ms X, after a long running dispute with her landlord, was given 14 days’ notice to leave her home. She asked the Council for help finding somewhere else to live. The made both a homelessness application and successfully applied to join the housing register with priority need due to mental health issues.
14. In April 2022, the Council decided Ms X was owed the Relief Duty.
15. In June 2022, Miss X successfully placed a bid through Homefinder on Property A. However, she did so without having seen the interior. When she saw photographs and reflected on its location, she decided it was unsuitable and asked to withdraw her bid.
16. In response, the Council ended its Relief Duty because Ms X had refused an offer of suitable accommodation. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision.
17. In August 2022 August, Ms X successfully bid on Property B. The Council was told she was happy with the property but was struggling with the cost of removals and advance of the rent.
18. In response, the Council agreed to:

• pay her rent in advance; and
• pay half of her removal costs by the company of her choice. The other half would be repayable to Council by affordable monthly installments. Ms X would be required to sign an agreement and submit recent bank statements. The agreement explained the full cost of removals would be repayable if bank statements were not provided.

19. In October 2022, once she had moved into Property B, Ms X asked the Council for more time to settle the removal costs because the cost of moving had put a strain on her finances. Mindful of Ms X’s delicate mental health, the Council agreed to put a hold on repayments for two months.
20. In December 2022, the Council asked Ms X for a copy of her bank statements so a repayment plan could be put in place, for some point in the future.
21. Ms X told the Council she could not pay yet and that it already had her bank statements from her earlier applications. She said she was struggling with her mental health and asked the Council to wait until March. Miss X offered to pay £10 per month.
22. The Council said it would consider this request once Ms X had provided her bank statements. Ms X failed to do so and so in late January 2022, the Council sent an invoice for the full cost of the removal (£775).

The complaint

23. Miss X complained in March 2023. She said the Council:

• failed to take account of her mental health throughout the process;
• failed to provide a response to her request for a review of its decision to end the Relief Duty and the suitability of property A;
• failed to provide support she would have been entitled to had the Council not discharged its homelessness duty, including help with carpets, storage, and removals; and
• was unfairly asking her to repay half of the removal costs.

24. Ms X also explained she was forced to accept Property B because she felt compelled to so without the protection and support she was entitled to by homelessness legislation.
25. In response, the Council said:

• it failed to provide a response to her review request. An apology was given for this mistake;
• in any event, her review request was superseded by her acceptance of Property B and so she was not disadvantaged by this error;
• Ms X had received the support she was entitled to, regardless of whether she was a still covered by the homelessness legislation, including with rent and removal costs;
• having carried out a belated review of the suitability of property A, the Council agreed it was unsuitable. The Council had not properly considered the location of Property A; and
• the Council would continue with debt recovery action for the unpaid removal costs.

26. Dissatisfied with this outcome and the Council’s failure to write of the debt for the removal costs, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

27. I have considered Ms X’s separate areas of complaint below.

Failure to process review request

28. The Council has accepted it failed to process Ms X’s review request. In response to my enquiries, it says it became distracted by issues raised by Property B. This was fault. I must now consider what injustice, if any, arose from this fault.
29. The Council argues Miss X was not disadvantaged. Ms X disputes this and says she felt compelled to accept Property B because of her impending eviction.
30. At the time the Relief Duty was withdrawn, Ms X was still able to occupy her former property because her landlord had not sought an order for eviction. The Council did not therefore have to provide interim accommodation at this time. So, I agree with the Council. Ms X was not disadvantaged by this decision in terms of having somewhere to live.
31. Although Ms X now says she felt under pressure to accept Property B, there are no contemporaneous records to support this. Without this, I am unable to make an evidence-based assessment as to whether this was the case or not. The only records I do have are:

• a note from Ms X’s advice worker stating she was happy with Property B, her only concerns was about the removal and storage costs; and
• a far more recent email from Ms X (after she had been in residence for over six months) in which she speaks very positively about both her landlord and the property.

32. It is simply too speculative to say, that Ms X would not have accepted Property B had the Council not withdrawn its homelessness duty. From the evidence I have seen, Ms X’s dissatisfaction current with Property B seems to focus on the more recent anti-social behaviour of her neighbours, rather than the property itself.
33. However, I accept the Council’s initial decision on unsuitability and subsequent failure to process her appeal, has left uncertainty about whether her housing situation may have been better or more support could have been provided, had the Council handled her case properly. I also accept the incorrect decision and removal of the homelessness duty will have will have caused Ms X some considerable distress and put her under some considerable pressure.
34. Both this distress and uncertainty are injustices that arose directly because of fault by the Council. This injustice requires a remedy (below)

Failure to properly acknowledge Ms X’s mental health

35. I found no evidence to support Ms X’s view that that Council ignored or was unsympathetic to her mental health issues. To the contrary, the case records I have seen demonstrate several examples where the Council acted sympathetically and patiently. For example, by its agreement to postpose repayment for the removal costs and allow Ms X to use her own removal company rather than the Council’s contractor. I am satisfied there was no fault by the Council here.

Recovery of removal charges

36. I have considered the Council’s financial assistance programme for homeless persons. This states (insofar as is relevant to this complaint):

• Three months worth of bank statements must be provided.
• Where assistance is given repayment plan should be agreed where a person has more than £50 per month disposable income.
• 50% of storage/removal costs will be recharged.

37. Despite Ms X not being covered by the homelessness legislation, the Council still applied this policy to her situation. All recipients are obliged to provide the Council with up-to-date bank statements. I can see no reason for Ms X to be treated differently. The Council has a responsibility to the public purse to ensure applicants meet its criteria for support. The case records clearly show the only reason the Council charged Ms X the full removal cost was her refusal to provide bank statements.
38. Overall, I have found no fault with the Council’s approach to the removal costs. It acted in accordance with its own policy and used its discretion to allow Ms X to choose a more convenient company. Nor do I criticise the Council for its actions when Ms X failed to provide bank statements. Her obligation to do so was explained from the start. The Council was entitled to recharge Ms X the full cost of the removals, in the absence of recent bank statements.

Storage costs

39. Ms X says the Council would have helped with her storage costs had she been rehoused under the homelessness legislation. This would only have been the case had Ms X moved into temporary accommodation. For the reasons stated above, the acceptance of Property B makes this possibility too speculative. As Ms X secured permanent accommodation and downsized considerably from her former three-bedroom home, I would not have expected the Council to fund long term storage costs.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise to Ms X for failing to process her review request;
2. Reduce the amount owed by Ms X for outstanding removal costs by £250 in acknowledgement of the distress and uncertainty she suffered as a result of this fault.
3. Take action to ensure processes are in place to ensure review requests are not missed in future.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed to action my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman