Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council has managed her housing and homelessness application. She said she was provided with a property which was not affordable; the Council failed to provide her with the right help and support; the Council’s communication had been poor, and she was not able to bid on suitable properties. We find the Council was at fault for a delay in responding to a request. This caused significant stress to Ms X. To address this injustice caused by fault the Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about how the Council has managed her housing and homelessness application. She said:
• she was provided with a property which was not affordable;
• the Council failed to provide her with the right help and support;
• the Council’s communication has been poor; and
• she was not able to bid on suitable properties.
2. Ms X said this has had a significant impact on her mental health and caused her 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. I spoke with Ms X about her complaint. I considered all the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my revised draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. 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.
8. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
9. 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 notify the applicant of 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 provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. The homelessness (suitability of accommodation) order 1996 states councils must consider whether the accommodation is affordable for them. Councils will need to consider whether the applicant can afford the housing costs without being deprived of basic essentials. This refers to things such as food, clothing, heating, transport and other essentials specific to their circumstances.

The main housing duty

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

The prevention duty

12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants 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)

The relief duty

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

14. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their 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)
16. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Households with pets

17. Councils will need to be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly elderly people and rough sleepers who may rely on pets for companionship. Although it will not always be possible to make provision for pets, the Secretary of State recommends that councils give consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet.

Housing allocations

18. 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))
19. The Council uses a banding based system to allocate accommodation. In assessing housing need the Council will give reasonable preference to those applicants who fall into the defined categories. Band D refers to cases that have a need to move and fall into a reasonable preference but have had their priority reduced due to one of the following reasons:
• cases not owed a full homeless duty under sections 193 (2) or 195 (2) of part VII housing Act 1996 (as amended);
• rent arrears;
• applicants that have worsened their own circumstances, but fall within a reasonable preference group older people over the age of 60.

What did happen?

20. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
21. The Council completed a homeless assessment interview with Ms X in October 2022. This was because Ms X had made it aware she could no longer afford the rent at her private property and said she would be evicted.
22. The Council issued a letter to Ms X in the same month. It said it had accepted duty under S195 to prevent homelessness.
23. The Council spoke with Ms X’s landlord who said if rent arrears were cleared, Ms X could stay in the property and the rent would be decreased. But Ms X said more arrears had built up over October and November 2022. This was because Ms X found another property which later fell through.
24. The Council spoke with Ms X in December 2022. It said her landlord had agreed to reduce the rent if all rent arrears were cleared. A discretionary housing payment had been agreed to pay this.
25. The Council told Ms X it considered the rent to be affordable. She was advised to prioritise the rent payment going forward. Ms X rang the Council in December 2022 to update the affordability assessment. The Councils notes stated this included non-priority bills.
26. The Council updated the affordability assessment in February 2023. This included the newly agreed rent. But it said Ms X had stated she could not afford it.
27. In February 2023 the Council told Ms X as she had said she could not afford ongoing rent, it had not made any extra payments to the landlord. It said clearing the balance of the arrears was only on the understanding that a new tenancy would be provided. Ms X was advised to continue paying rent while at the property and to provide the Council with updates about the eviction.
28. Ms X complained to the Council the following month. She said she was being evicted and her housing officer did not listen or take her seriously. She said the housing officer had made decisions on what she could or could not afford without contacting her. She said the possession order ends the 8 May 2023 and had not been told of what help she should receive.
29. The Council responded the following day and said Ms X’s complaint had been sent to the relevant team. It also said a possession order had been granted for 8 May 2023 and that Ms X’s legal right was to remain at the property until a bailiff warrant was executed. It said Ms X would need to continue to search for accommodation and enquire with storage companies. The Council also said it now had to review Ms X’s medical information.
30. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint and said:
• The housing officer completed a full housing assessment to find out the best way forward in supporting her;
• Ms X had said she could afford the increase in rent which led to arrears;
• the housing officer advised Ms X where a property is believed to be both affordable and suitable they would always try to save the current tenancy;
• the housing officer contacted the landlord to negotiate a stay;
• in the meantime, Ms X found an alternative property in November 2022 which later fell through that month;
• because Ms X putting money towards the new property, she did not pay for the accommodation between October and November 2022;
• Ms X had been awarded with banding on its housing register;
• it did not think it was in Ms X’s best interests to reassign the case; and
• the housing officer has issued Ms X with a personal housing plan (PHP).
31. Ms X disputed the Councils response and said the property was not affordable. She said the Council had not kept her up to date with any updates in her case. She said she could not bid on properties.
32. In April 2023, the notes stated it considered the property to be affordable. The Council said this was based on two affordability assessments. One included non-priority items and one did not. But it said the landlord had now withdrawn their offer.
33. In the same month the Council told Ms X there was no longer the option of preventing homelessness by continuing the current tenancy. It said it would look to end the prevention duty and accept the relief duty. It said it also had reason to believe Ms X was in priority need and said it would be looking to offer interim accommodation. It said it had evidence Ms X lived with her daughter. But if there was further evidence of other household members, Ms X could provide this. It also said it was not always possible to rehome pets but said it would make efforts to. The Council also advised Ms X that if the offer of interim accommodation was refused, the Council could discharge its duty.
34. The Council provided Ms X with an offer of interim accommodation in the same month which was a two-bed property which did not allow pets. Ms X refused this and said it was unsuitable. She said:
• the property was outside her GP catchment area;
• she is unwell and not able to move into temporary accommodation and then again into permanent accommodation. She does not have the finances to arrange storage;
• there was nowhere for her pets to go;
• she suffered previous abuse from someone who lives in the area.
35. In response the Council said:
• it enquired with the GP who said any booked appointments would not be cancelled. Patients are not took off the list until 30 days after the GP requests it if someone has moved outside the area;
• when homelessness is imminent it is highly unlikely that someone would move from their address to permanent accommodation. The property offered was unfurnished, so Ms X could have taken her items there;
• pets are not allowed in interim accommodation but the team made efforts to arrange this;
• Ms X had not provided any evidence to suggest she was at risk of abuse or violence in the area.
36. The Council ended the prevention duty in May 2023 and accepted the relief duty. A personal housing plan (PHP) was issued which stated Ms X was to continue to look for properties. It also said the Council would issue the S184 notice.
37. The Council requested a search of accommodation where pets are accepted.
38. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage two of its complaints process. It said:
• Ms X was made aware of the progression of her case;
• the property would have been affordable ongoing;
• has no evidence to suggest the housing officer behaved in any manner other than professional;
• apologised for wrongly advising her at stage one that band D had been awarded. It said this was due to it awaiting further information. But said band D had now been awarded. It agreed to offer a payment of £25.
39. Ms X told the Council she has a son who is court ordered to stay with at times and a son who sometimes stays with her when he is not at university. The Council asked her to provide evidence.
40. The Council updated the PHP in the same month. It said Ms X was to keep the Council updated of any changes, attend any viewings for properties she was nominated for, look for properties in the private sector and begin saving any disposable income for fees not covered by the Council. The PHP states the Council would;
• put forward any suitable private rented sector (PRS) scheme properties;
• if Ms X finds a property in the private sector, the Council would liaise with the PRS team to arrange an inspection and provide financial help;
• issue the S184 notice outlining the Councils duty to Ms X; and
• provide Ms X with a list of letting agents.
41. Ms X provided the Council with her eviction notice set for 20 June 2023. She also asked for a new housing officer. She said the Council failed to respond to all her questions and stated she can only bid on properties unsuitable to her. She also said there was nowhere else for her pets to go.
42. In response the Council said:
• it agreed there had been a breakdown in the relationship between Ms X and the housing officer and agreed to reassign the case;
• it reviewed emails and considered all points raised by Ms X to have been answered;
• there were no limits on Ms X’s ability to bid. But there was a shortage of social housing and general needs accommodation would be advertised shortly;
• recognised the court order about Ms X’s son. But said it cannot provide a home for someone who has a main address elsewhere; and
• the Council is limited to what areas are available and recommended a pet fostering service or contacting dogs trust.
43. Ms X enquired about the next steps. The Council said it had asked its team to source interim accommodation. It said it had also contacted the PRS team to see if any private properties were available.
44. On 19 June 2023 the Council told Ms X she had been assessed as a 2-bed need. It said it had assessed her income and said she had disposable income to pay for storage. It also said it had offered financial help regarding the fostering of pets which it said Ms X had declined. It also sent Ms X a link for financial support via the household support fund. It said Ms X would be advised of the address for the temporary accommodation the following day. This was because a client was vacating the property. But said it did not accept pets.
45. Ms X contacted the Council the following day for an update. Two offers of interim accommodation were later provided to Ms X. But she declined it. The Council reoffered the properties to Ms on the same day.
46. The Council issued a letter to Ms X on 20 June 2023. It said its S188 interim accommodation duty had ended as Ms X had refused suitable accommodation. But Ms X said she could not live in the same area as someone who had previously abused her. She said her and her daughter were now living in her car.
47. Ms X contacted the Council two days later. She asked about one property previously offered. She said she could now get someone to look after her pets. The Council also said it had explained to Ms X on the phone about its decision to discharge its duty and gave her the opportunity to reconsider.
48. The Council said it would continue to owe relief duty and said the PRS team was looking to see what was available.
49. In June 2023 the Council wrote to Ms X. It said she was eligible for assistance, homeless or threatened with homelessness but said it did not consider her to have priority need. The letter details all the information the Council considered before making this decision. This includes information about the previous abuse Ms X suffered, medical letters and the relevant guidance.
50. The Council issued Ms X with a letter in July 2023 stating the relief duty had ended. In the same month the Council received new medical information and agreed to provide Ms X with accommodation which was offered in the same month.

Back to top

Analysis

51. Ms X said her previous property in 2022 was not affordable. The Council completed a full housing assessment interview with Ms X. This included three affordability assessments. The first affordability assessment relied on was in line with the guidance which states councils will need to consider whether the applicant can afford the housing costs without being deprived of basic essentials. This refers to things such as food, clothing, heating, transport. I therefore cannot question it.
52. In February 2023, one affordability assessment included what the Council considered to be non-priority debts (car payments, loans). The other did not include this. The Councils notes in April 2023 stated it considered the property to be affordable under both assessments. That is a decision the Council is entitled to take. There is no fault in how it reached that decision. In April 2023, the Council said on review of the fact the landlord had withdrawn from negotiation, it could no longer prevent eviction. It accepted the relief duty with reason to believe Ms X was in priority need and offered her interim accommodation.
53. The Council provided Ms X with three offers of interim accommodation which Ms X said were all unsuitable. After the first offer in April 2023 the Council evidenced how it considered this to be suitable and this is detailed in paragraph 35. The other two offers were made in June 2023 and the Council later ended its S188 interim accommodation duty as it said Ms X had refused suitable accommodation. It said this was explained to Ms X on the phone and she was given another chance to reconsider the offers made.
54. It then issued a letter to Ms X stating while she was eligible for assistance, homeless or threatened with homelessness it did not consider her to have priority need. Within this letter the Council has evidenced it considered all the relevant information provided by Ms X about why she didn’t consider it to be suitable, medical information and the relevant guidance. Therefore, the Council has clearly evidenced how it considered the properties to be suitable. That is a decision it is entitled to make. When there is no fault in the Council’s decision-making process, I cannot question it.
55. Ms X did contact the Council two days after it had made its offer to reconsider one of the properties. As stated in paragraph 45 Ms X was given a chance to reconsider the offers made on 20 June 2023. She was also advised what would happen if she refused properties the Council considered to be suitable. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council.
56. Ms X said she first complained to the Council in December 2022. We have seen no evidence of this. The Council said it has no record of any complaints from Ms X around this time. From the evidence seen Ms X complained in March 2023. The Council responded in the same month.
57. Ms X said the Councils communication has been poor. She also said she had not been offered the right help or support. From the evidence seen the Council did respond to issues raised by Ms X. It also advised her of what its duties were and how it expected to meet these. But on the day of Ms X’s eviction in June 2023 Ms X had to chase the Council for an update on details of the interim accommodation. This is fault and caused significant stress to Ms X.
58. Ms X also said she could not bid on suitable properties. At stage one of the Councils complaints process it stated Ms X had been awarded banding on its housing register. At stage two it recognised that it had told her this in error. It was awaiting further information but confirmed Ms X had now been placed in band D. It offered her a payment of £25 and apologised. I consider this to be a suitable remedy.
59. Ms X then made the Council aware she could not bid on properties suitable to her. Ms X said she was categorised wrong. In response the Council said there were no limits on Ms X’s ability to bid. She was in band D. It said there was a shortage of social housing and general needs accommodation would be advertised shortly. Therefore the Council has evidenced it explained to Ms X the reasons why she could not view suitable properties. Ms X confirmed she can now bid on suitable properties. I have seen no evidence to suggest Ms X was categorised wrong. This is in line with the Council’s policy.
60. Guidance states although it will not always be possible to make provision for pets, the Secretary of State recommends that councils consider this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet. In this case the Council requested a search of accommodation where pets are accepted. The notes also state Ms X was provided with details of temporary fostering and rehoming services. This evidences the Council did take this into consideration. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

61. To address the injustice caused by fault, within one month of my final decision the Council has agreed to;
• apologise to Ms X for the faults identified in this statement;
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

63. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The above agreed actions provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman