Summary: Miss G complains about the Council’s actions after she was the victim of fraud. She says the Council should have allowed her to stay in a property as interim accommodation, as the landlords were happy with that arrangement. But the Council tried to move her to interim accommodation further away from her children’s schools and only gave her short notice. We do not uphold this complaint, as the Council was entitled to make the decisions it did. So they are not ones the Ombudsman can criticise.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Miss G) complains about the Council’s action after she was the victim of fraud. My summary of her complaint is as follows.
• The housing association that owned the property where Miss G was living said it was happy for her to stay in the property if the Council agreed. But the Council at first blocked the housing association from allocating her the property.
• The Council then tried to move her. Miss G says this interim accommodation was unsuitable. She says the Council placed weight on an irrelevant factor (the distance from where she used to live) but did not consider relevant factors, like the effect such a move would have on her children, two of whom have additional needs. It also only gave her short notice of the move.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss G;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Miss G;
• sent my draft decision to Miss G and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness law

5. 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.
6. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

The prevention duty

7. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation, so that it 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

8. 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)

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, whilst it assesses their application. (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.

What happened

Background

11. Miss G has children, some of whom have additional needs. She receives disability benefits.
12. In September 2023 the Council took a homeless application from Miss G when she was threatened with homelessness from the private rented sector (PRS) accommodation where she and her family lived. The Council accepted it had a prevention duty towards Miss G.
13. In early November Miss G found a PRS property on a social media site. This property was in an area a few miles from where she was living. She signed a tenancy agreement, independently of the Council. Two days later Miss G had a needs assessment appointment. At the beginning of December, the Council wrote to Miss G, ending its prevention duty as she had found her own accommodation.

The illegal sublet

14. Later in December, a housing association advised the Council the property Miss G had moved to had been illegally sub-let; from the tenant it had let it to on behalf of the Council. The housing association asked if it might be able to regularise the tenancy. The Council’s response was it could not be seen to collude with a fraudulent arrangement (although it accepted Miss G was a victim of the fraud). The housing association began possession proceedings against its tenant.
15. At the end of December 2023 the Council notified Miss G it had accepted a relief duty towards her, as she was threatened with homelessness. It had requested interim accommodation for Miss G to move to in the new year. The housing officer referred Miss G to the Council’s support service.
16. The Council found Miss G interim accommodation around four miles away from where she was living. Its suitability review noted it was the closest available property. It noted Miss G’s children were at schools where they were living, and Miss G’s mother (who was her carer) also lived there. Its view was the four miles between the two properties would not be an impediment on Miss G’s mother’s caring role.
17. At the beginning of January 2024, the housing association asked the Council if it would consider it providing Miss G with an excluded licence on the Council’s behalf. The Council’s response advised it did not want to do that, as it “muddie[d] the water about what our intentions are. We have made an offer of alternative accommodation and are in the midst of trying to persuade her to take it.”
18. Miss G had complained to a local councillor. The Council’s managers responded to the councillor to advise:

• “In order to regain control of the property … [the housing association] must end the original tenancy [ie that of the housing association’s tenant] … as, legally, this is still in place as we speak.”
• The housing association had applied for a possession order. Ther possession order was straightforward as the tenant had abandoned the property.
• The possession order would return control of the property to housing association. It would end all parties rights to remain in the property.
• The Council was also concerned about potential reputational damage if it was not seen to act promptly on unlawful subletting and potential fraud.
• The Council had made Miss G an offer of interim accommodation. That property was much closer to the Borough than many others the Council had recently made.

19. Miss G refused the offer of accommodation the Council had made. So it issued her a formal notice it was ending its duty to provide her with alternative accommodation.
20. Miss G complained. The Council’s complaint response advised whether Miss G could remain in the property was a separate matter to her homelessness application. The housing association, not the Council, was considering whether she could remain in the property. It would not make her a further offer of interim accommodation. But it would take reasonable steps to help her secure accommodation.
21. In mid-February, a manager in the Council’s housing support services wrote to a senior officer in the team that had been dealing with the matter. Support services advised it had concerns the uncertainty was affecting Miss G. That service noted the Council quickly needed to decide Miss G’s homelessness application, to allow her to make informed decisions for her family.
22. At the beginning of March the Council accepted it had a main housing duty towards Miss G and her family.
23. In mid-March the Council emailed the housing association and Miss G to advise:
• It was now hopeful that it would be able to allow Miss G to remain in the property.
• The fact that it had recently accepted a full homelessness duty towards Miss G opened more possibilities.
• It could not grant Miss G the tenancy until the courts had ended the original tenant’s tenancy. A hearing was scheduled for later in the month.
24. Internally the Council noted “[i]t was a very unusual situation from a legal perspective so we had to proceed cautiously and not over promise.”
25. Following the court granting the housing association possession of the property, the Council then offered the tenancy to Miss G.

Analysis

26. I can well understand Miss G’s frustration in the Council’s delay in deciding she could stay in her property. It was undoubtedly a time of uncertainty for her. But my role is not to ask whether the Council could have done things better, or whether I agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, the Ombudsman looks at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in the Council’s decision making, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
27. Here the Council initially said it wanted Miss G to move to alternative interim accommodation. I accept the housing association was content for Miss G to stay. But the Council has given cogent reasons why, at that time, it did not want Miss G to stay.
28. The Council says it changed its position on Miss G staying at the property after it decided it owed her a full homelessness duty. I accept this was a relevant change of circumstances. It allowed the Council to offer Miss G the property as a permanent offer of accommodation, presumably on a discretionary basis. I accept this was a change from its earlier position. But it is not fault for a council to change its mind after a relevant change. And the change benefitted Miss G.
29. I am satisfied the Council considered the suitability of the interim accommodation it offered Miss G. I acknowledge it was not as convenient as the property she was in. But given the shortage of housing in London and the south-east, it was not an unreasonable distance from Miss G’s school or her support network.

Back to top

Final decision

30. My decision is there was no fault by the Council so I am ending my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman