Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly placed him in an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) and it did not take account of changes in his health when deciding his homelessness application. Mr X also complained about the way the Council initially responded to his complaint. We found the Council was at fault for the failure to check licensing at the HMO and for its initial complaint response. We did not find there was discrimination or that evidence of Mr X’s deterioration in health was ignored.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council placed him in an unlicensed House of Multiple Occupation after he presented as homeless. He complained the Council did not take account changes in his circumstances which affected the decision that he was not in Priority Need.
2. Mr X complained that the Council’s response to his complaint about the matter was different to that of another resident and he questioned whether this was due to discrimination, even if not deliberate.
3. Mr X says the situation has left him anxious and affected his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and his complaint to the Council. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
7. 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

The Relief Duty

8. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person that will be available for at least six months. The relief duty generally ends after 56 days. It may be extended. 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)

9. 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).

The Main Housing Duty

10. 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)

What Happened

11. Mr X presented to the Council as homeless in October 2022. The Council assessed Mr X’s circumstances and found he was eligible for assistance, and homeless. However, at the end of October it decided he was not in priority need. The Council explained to Mr X that it had a relief duty towards him, but as it found he was not in Priority Need, it had no duty to provide accommodation. The Council wrote to Mr X and explained its decisions. It explained Mr X could request a review of its decision.
12. The Council helped Mr X secure accommodation in a hostel in mid-November 2022.
13. In January 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X setting set out its view about whether Mr X had Priority Need. The Council explained that it was still of the view that Mr X was eligible for assistance and homeless, but that he was not in Priority Need. In the letter the Council noted Mr X had not mentioned any health issues at his homelessness assessment. The letter explained how the Council reached its decision and how Mr X could request a review.
14. I understand the Council extended its relief duty towards Mr X beyond 56 days and in May 2023 the Council offered Mr X a room in a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).
15. In July 2023 the Council says it became aware the HMO that it placed Mr X into was not licensed. The Council says, at that time, it spoke to the landlord and they stated they were in the process of obtaining a licence from the relevant local council. When it contacted the local council, it was told that this was not the case and the local council would not be granting a licence.
16. Mr X told us, at the time the Council offered Mr X a room in the HMO, he had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and his doctor had prescribed medication. He says this information was known to the Council. Mr X provided us with a letter from his doctor (dated November 2023) which stated Mr X had been diagnosed with depression on 23 November 2022.
17. However, the Council told us Mr X did not inform them of a change of circumstances with his health until November 2023, at around the time of the letter from his doctor. When changes to Mr X’s health were made known to the Council, it reassessed his application. On 1 February 2024, the Council accepted a full housing duty to Mr X.

Mr X’s complaint to the Council

18. Mr X complained to the Council on 3 October 2023 that the HMO he had been placed in was unlicensed. He stated he was aware a licence had been rejected twice and due to the reasons for this it was never likely to be granted. He complained the Council had failed to carry out proper checks about the property. Because the property was unlicensed and unsuitable, he believed this would make him homeless again.
19. The Council’s initial response to the complaint stated, when Mr X moved to the property the Council had been told by the landlord that he was in the process of applying for a licence, this had been fast-tracked and he assured them it would go through. The Council stated it used this landlord often, so it accepted his assurance.
20. The Council stated since then, it had understood the landlord was in the process of transferring the management of the property to the local council and this would make it exempt from requiring a HMO licence.
21. The Council confirmed the issue would not result in Mr X being made homeless and it was satisfied the relevant officer had carried out all appropriate checks at the time the offer of accommodation was made, with due diligence. The Council did not accept there had been any fault and Mr X’s complaint was not upheld.
22. Mr X asked the Council to escalate the complaint on 29 October. He also asked the Council to explain why its initial response to his complaint differed to its response to a complaint about the same issues, made by his friend, a white English resident at the same property. Mr X’s complaint was dismissed, whereas his friend’s complaint about the same matter was upheld.
23. The Council’s Feedback and Complaints Service reviewed Mr X’s complaint and issued a further response on 30 October. It re-stated that, because the landlord was known to the council, staff had believed he was a reputable and trusted landlord. As a result, the correct checks did not take place. The Council acknowledged that it was at fault for not asking to see the relevant HMO certification. The Council stated as a result of the issue coming to light and Mr X’s complaint, it had taken the following action:
• The specific officer involved had been spoken to, to ensure they were clear about the correct procedures to follow.
• Officers were to be briefed about the importance of carrying out the required checks for every tenancy, regardless of whether landlords are trusted/have been used previously.
24. The Council stated it appreciated Mr X bringing the matter to its attention and it stated it was sorry that the move had affected Mr X’s wellbeing. The Council assured Mr X it would not be using the landlord in future.

Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman

25. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. His complained to the Ombudsman that although the Council accepted it was at fault, it had not found him alternative suitable accommodation and its response had been contradictory at times.
26. Mr X also remained concerned about why the initial response to his complaint was different to that sent to another resident. He considered the Council treated him unfavourably and hadn’t explained this adequately.
27. Mr X complained that, by the time he was offered the HMO, his health needs had changed. He stated a council officer was aware of this and, as a result, he should have been found to have Priority Need sooner. If the Council had accepted a main duty to house him earlier, he would have had the right to review the suitability of the accommodation provided.
28. Mr X also stated the Council had not taken the action it agreed in its Stage Two complaint response. The Council stated it would stop using the landlord that owned the HMO concerned because he had given them incorrect information. He stated there were examples to show the Council was still using this landlord despite its comments to Mr X.

Was there fault

29. The Council’s Stage One response to Mr X’s complaint did not properly consider the issues he raised. It dismissed Mr X’s concerns that the HMO he was offered in May 2023 had not been properly checked. This was fault. However, this caused limited injustice to Mr X because the Council addressed this further at Stage Two of the complaint process when Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated.
30. The Council acknowledged that it was wrong that it did not carry out proper checks on the HMO in its Stage Two complaint response. It apologised to Mr X that this had happened and impacted him. The failure to properly check the HMO licensing was also fault.
31. I note Mr X considered the initial response to his complaint differed to that of a another resident who complained about the same issue as part of a separate complaint. He questioned if this was due to discrimination. While it is unclear why the initial response to the complaints differed, I have not found evidence to suggest this was due to discrimination.
32. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to take account of changes in his health. He stated he was diagnosed with depression in November 2022. He stated this was made known to the Council prior to May 2023. There is no evidence that Mr X provided details of his change of circumstances (the deterioration in his health) to the Council prior to his placement in the HMO in May 2023. As a result, I found there was no failure to take Mr X’s health into account. The Council’s January 2023 decision that Mr X did not have Priority Need also carried review and appeal rights. So, I note that Mr X could have sought a review of this decision if he considered it was flawed.
33. I note Mr X questions whether the Council has ceased using the landlord concerned, as it stated it would in his complaint correspondence. I note examples he provided suggesting the Council may still be placing people in his properties. As the placement of other individuals does not cause significant direct injustice to Mr X, I have not made formal recommendations about this. However, I have made the Council aware of this to enable it to review this and consider its position further.
34. As the Council has accepted a full duty to house Mr X will have the right to challenge the suitability of accommodation the Council provides under this duty. I also note the Council has provided an apology for upheld elements of his complaint when responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was fault by the Council. This did not lead to significant injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman