Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council supported him after he became homeless. There was fault in how the Council decided to reduce the funding it provided to protect Mr X’s possessions and how it delayed acting on his request for large print documents. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its decision about how much it should contribute to the storage of Mr X’s belongings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the support the Council provided while he was homeless in 2022 and 2023. He says the Council:
• did not provide the support for accessing housing which it agreed to when he was first homeless;
• provided him with unsuitable temporary accommodation and did not review this when he complained;
• wrongly ended its duty to arrange accommodation for him and changed the reasons it gave for deciding to do this;
• did not properly consider his individual circumstances, including his disabilities when making and reviewing its decisions;
• failed to protect his belongings and pay the storage costs associated with this;
• pursued him for rent arrears which he did not owe; and
• made it difficult to contact its housing team by not providing direct contact details or responding to messages.
2. As a result, Mr X says he has been left without suitable housing and he was caused significant distress, inconvenience and upset. He wants the Council to offer him a suitable property and properly recognise the impact its actions had on him.

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. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. 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

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have not investigated:
• whether the temporary accommodation the Council provided to Mr X was suitable;
• how the Council decided to end its duty to house Mr X under homelessness law; or
• whether the Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s personal circumstances when making or reviewing its decisions about the above points.
10. This is because Mr X had the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation and the Council’s decision to end its duties towards him. Mr X then had the right to appeal those decisions to the county court. We cannot investigate something which a person could appeal to the courts unless we decide it would have been unreasonable for them to do so. I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for Mr X to do this. Mr X demonstrated an ability to request a review, which he did about the Council’s decision to end his duty, and to take part in the legal process when the Council tried to evict him. Mr X also demonstrated the ability to seek advice about his housing situation.
11. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to property consider his personal circumstances when making or reviewing its decisions. This is because any failure to do so would have contributed to the Council’s decisions, which Mr X had the right to appeal against. I consider these matters are so closely linked to the eventual decisions that they cannot be investigated separately.
12. I have also not investigated how the Council later decided to take legal proceedings to evict Mr X. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the start of court action or what happened in court.
13. I have investigated the other parts of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided; and
• relevant law and guidance.
15. Mr X 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

Homelessness

16. 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)
17. 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. 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)
18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions by the Council, including:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
19. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
20. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation, or ending the duty if this is reviews, within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
21. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
22. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)
23. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Reasonable adjustments

24. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
25. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
26. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

What happened

27. There was extensive contact between the Council and Mr X during the period I have investigated. The following is not intended to be an exhaustive account of what happened. Instead, it is a summary of the key events which are relevant to my decision.
28. In 2021, Mr X rented his three-bedroom home from a private landlord. In late 2021 Mr X’s landlord gave him notice to leave the property. Mr X contacted the Council for help as he was due to become homeless.
29. In early 2022, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the Relief Duty and helped him register on its Choice Based Letting scheme. It also helped Mr X start bidding on properties.
30. In April 2022, after Mr X’s landlord confirmed it would be pursuing eviction through the courts, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the Main Duty. It updated his housing priority to Band A and said Mr X needed a one bedroom property, ground floor home. The Council continued to bid on properties on Mr X’s behalf.
31. While in his former home, Mr X had collected a large quantity of personal possessions. The Council advised Mr X he would not be able to bring all his belongings with him to any new home, since his former home was much larger than any social housing he would be eligible for. The Council arranged a skip for Mr X to dispose of some of his belongings. It also arranged for a storage unit which it said was for any essential belongings Mr X wanted to bring with him to his new home. The adult social care team for the county council also arranged help for Mr X to move his belongings to the storage unit.
32. In May 2022, the skip was collected by the hire company, which reported to the Council that it had not been filled as agreed. Based on this, the Council refused to pay for another skip for Mr X.
33. The Council began searching for suitable temporary accommodation for Mr X in June 2022, after his landlord told the Council it was expecting to evict Mr X at the end of the month. However, the Council did not manage to find suitable self-contained accommodation. So, when Mr X was evicted, it arranged for Mr X to move into bed and breakfast accommodation while it continued its search.
34. Shortly after moving into the bed and breakfast, Mr X raised concerns with the Council about the mattress in his room. The Council told Mr X it did not have any control over the mattress supplied by the accommodation provider. The issue with the mattress was later resolved by local health services providing Mr X with a pressure relieving overlay.
35. The Council identified a permanent property for Mr X in July 2022. However, after Mr X viewed the property the Council accepted it was not suitable, due to some accessibility problems.
36. In early August 2022, the Council identified new temporary accommodation for Mr X. Due to a maintenance problem, the move was delayed until late August. The day before the move was due to take place, Mr X asked the Council for large print copies of any documents required for the property.
37. The Council arranged a taxi to move Mr X between properties on the day of the move. However, the taxi company refused to transport Mr X and the belongings he had moved from his storage unit into his room at the bed and breakfast. The Council arranged another taxi for Mr X later the same day.
38. The day after the move, Mr X told the Council he was not happy with the new temporary accommodation. He told the Council the property was not clean and smelled, and that there were no towels, bedding or washing facilities in his room. The Council told Mr X it considered the property to be suitable and emailed him a letter confirming this. The letter included information about Mr X’s right to request a review of the Council’s decision. There is also evidence that Mr X’’s social worker from the county council also explained to Mr X about his rights to request a review.
39. Mr X went into hospital for a planned operation in September 2022. When he was ready to be discharged, an occupational therapist contacted the Council about Mr X’s room. They were concerned that the heater in Mr X’s room was not safe and that the bed in the room was loose. The Council said Mr X had not reported either issue to it, but it arranged for the heater and bed to be checked. This was completed within a few days, after which Mr X returned to the temporary accommodation.
40. Around the same time, the Council sent Mr X some large print copies of the documents related to the temporary accommodation. However, it could not produce some as large print, due to the type of documents.
41. In early October 2022, the Council emailed Mr X to tell him that it would no longer cover the full costs of the storage unit. It said, from November 2022, it would only pay half the costs and Mr X would need to pay the rest.
42. The Council identified what it believed to be a suitable permanent home for Mr X in early November 2022. It emailed Mr X to confirm that it considered this a suitable final offer under homelessness rules. It attached a letter confirming its final offer.
43. The Council said that Mr X did not respond it its emails about the offered property, or emails and phone calls from the housing association to arrange a viewing. Because of this, the Council informed Mr X, at the end of November 2022, that it had decided he had refused the final offer and so it was ending its duty to him. The Council hand delivered a large print copy of its letter to his room at the temporary accommodation a few days later. That letter included information about Mr X’s right to request a review and to appeal the Council’s decision.
44. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to end its homelessness duty in December 2022. At that time the Council noted that Mr X only wanted to communicate with the Council by telephone or in large print, not by email.
45. The Council met with Mr X about the review in late January 2023 and made its decision about the review in March 2023. In its review decision letter, which was in large print, the Council told Mr X it upheld its original decision and explained his rights to appeal its decision if he wanted to.
46. In February and April 2023, Mr X complained to the Council about both the temporary accommodation and how it had handled his homelessness application. The Council considered the complaints under its complaints procedure and sent Mr X its final response about the temporary accommodation in February 2023. In its letter to Mr X it said:
• it believed the accommodation was appropriately clean and suitable to be lived in;
• since the accommodation was self-contained, it expected Mr X to provide his own bed linen and towels;
• there had been repaid issues at the property, but it had responded to these promptly and repaired or replaced items where necessary;
• it had not provided large print documents at first when Mr X asked, but provided these later; and
• the Council had checked closed circuit television recordings at the property to check reports about Mr X placing his own belongings in communal areas and his claims about his mobility.
47. The Council sent its final response to Mr X’s complaint about his homelessness application in June 2023. In its final response the Council decided:
• it had properly considered Mr X’s circumstances when making its final offer and ending its duty to him;
• it had given Mr X ample notice of his responsibility to engage with the housing association to view and accept the property;
• the officer who made the original decisions should not have been used as a note-taker during the review meeting, but that this did not affect the outcome; and
• there were delays in the review process, but this was to allow the Council to provide Mr X with a copy of his case file and to meet with the officers involved.

My findings

48. As explained above, I have not investigated the suitability of the temporary accommodation the Council provided for Mr X, or how it made its decisions about the final offer or ending its duties to Mr X. Mr X had the right to appeal those decisions and, although he did not do this, I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for him to do so.
49. My findings about the other parts of Mr X’s complaint are set out below.

Support for accessing and finding accommodation

50. There is no evidence the Council agreed, when Mr X first approached it for help with his housing, that it would confirm all potential bids with Mr X before making them. There was also no duty on the Council to do this.
51. However, the evidence shows that Council both placed bids on Mr X’s behalf and, in many cases, checked with him before doing so. I do not consider there was any fault in how the Council supported Mr X to find suitable, permanent accommodation.
52. In any case, most of the properties the Council bid on for Mr X were not offered to him, as there were other people with higher priority than Mr X at the time. There is no evidence that any of the bids the Council made on Mr X’s behalf caused him any injustice.

Protection of Mr X’s belongings

53. The Council had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss or damage to Mr X’s possessions. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what steps the Council should take, that was the Council’s responsibility. Intstead, the Ombudsman must consider whether the Council made its decisions about this in the right way.
54. The Council explained to Mr X, from the beginning, that he would need to dispose of some of his many possessions when moving out of his former home. The Council believed Mr X understood this and agreed to arrange to help with disposal of some of Mr X’s belongings.
55. Council claimed Mr X did not tell is about problems using the skip until after it had been collected. It later gave this as a reason for not providing another skip before Mr X moved. However, the evidence shows Mr X told the Council, shortly after it arranged the skip, that he was having difficulty placing items into it. There is no evidence the Council considered whether the skip was suitable for Mr X’s needs at the time.
56. I consider the Council’s lack of action when it first knew about problems with the skip, and later claims that it did not know there were problems, was fault. However, on the balance of probabilities, I do not think this caused Mr X an injustice. I do not believe that, even if the Council had arranged a different, or second, skip, Mr X would likely have disposed of a significant amount of his belongings.
57. The Council arranged a large storage unit for Mr X and paid the full costs of this (over £2,000) between April and October 2022. In October 2022 the Council decided it would only pay half of the costs. However, it appears the Council made this decision arbitrarily and without giving clear reasons for its decision. It did not assess Mr X’s ability to afford to pay the difference or whether its decision would result in any subsequent loss of any of Mr X’s possessions. Therefore, I consider how the Council made that decision was fault. I cannot say what decision the Council would have made, had it made its decision properly. Therefore, the Council should review its decision about how much it would pay towards the storage of Mr X’s belongings, taking into account his ability to pay the difference and any other relevant facts.

Rent arrears

58. Mr X said the Council took him to court for rent arrears on his temporary accommodation. However, I have seen no evidence the Council pursued Mr X for rent arrears. The Council did ask Mr X to pay for some outstanding service charges. The Council said it started court action to evict Mr X from the temporary accommodation after it ended its duties towards him.
59. For the reasons explained at the beginning of this decision statement, I cannot investigate the Council’s decision to start court proceedings or how it conducted these.

Contact details for housing staff

60. The evidence shows Mr X had extensive contact with the Council’s housing team throughout 2022 and 2023. There is no evidence of instances where the Council failed to respond promptly to Mr X’s contacts within a reasonable time. The Council did not need to give Mr X direct contact telephone numbers for any of its staff and its refusal to do so was not fault.
61. In October 2022, the Council told Mr X that it would respond to non-urgent messages once a week by a named member of staff. Despite this, there is evidence of continued frequent contact between the Council and Mr X after this.

Reasonable adjustments

62. The evidence shows the Council did not properly respond to Mr X’s first requests for large print documents, when he was moving between temporary accommodation. In my view, this shows the Council failed to properly consider its duties under the Equality Act. This was fault which caused Mr X some avoidable frustration.
63. However, I do not consider this caused Mr X any further injustice. Mr X had the opportunity to ask Council staff about the documents at the time and the Council later provided Mr X with copies of many of the documents in large print. After the Council provided these documents in large print, there is no evidence Mr X raised any concerns about the content with the Council.
64. Following this, the Council sent most of its communications to Mr X in large print, including the important letters about the Council’s decisions about his homelessness. However, there were some instances of the Council sending Mr X documents in standard size text.

Repairs in temporary accommodation

65. Although I cannot investigate the suitability of the temporary accommodation the Council arranged for Mr X, I can still investigate how the Council responded to any repair issues during Mr X’s stay.
66. The evidence shows the Council responded promptly to concerns about repair issues in the property, after it was made aware of them. This included:
• heating in Mr X’s room;
• a broken toilet seat;
• kitchen appliances; and
• plumbing issues.
67. There were instances of delays with issues being reported to the Council, but the evidence shows this was not due to any delays on the Council’s part.

Homelessness review delays

68. The Council took longer than the eight weeks allowed by the regulations to complete its review of its decision to end its duty to Mr X. Instead, it took just over 13 weeks. The Council said this was because it had to meet with Mr X and later deliver a copy of Mr X’s case file to him. The review period also spanned the Christmas and New Year holidays.
69. While the Council took too long to complete the review, I am satisfied with the reasons it has given for the review taking longer than it should have done. In any case, I do not consider any review to have caused Mr X any injustice, since Mr X did not, in the end, appeal the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. Within one month of my decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for not properly considering its decision to change how much it would contribute towards his storage costs and delays in providing him with large print documents; and
• review its decision to reduce how much it would contribute towards the costs of storing Mr X’s possessions. The Council should properly assess what Mr X would have been able to pay and any other relevant facts, including the consequences of reducing its contributions.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
72. The Council has provided evidence that, since the events I have investigated, it has reviewed how it records requests for reasonable adjustments and has provided training on this to its housing staff. Therefore, I have not made further service improvement recommendations about this.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in how the Council decided to reduce the funding it provided to protect Mr X’s possessions and how it delayed acting on his request for large print documents. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and review its decision about how much it should contribute to the storage of Mr X’s belongings.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman