Summary: The Council was at fault, because a management agent acting on its behalf gave the complainant the wrong key for a property it had allocated to him. However, the Council has addressed this issue appropriately. The Council was also at fault because it attempted to contact the complainant with an incorrect email address, but this did not cause an injustice. There is no fault in the other elements of this complaint.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr B.
2. Mr B complains:

• the Council allocated temporary accommodation to Mr B which was not suitable because of its location, because of potential conflict with neighbours, and because it was damp and mouldy;
• the letting agent responsible for the property originally gave him the wrong keys, meaning he was then forced to sleep rough for several nights until this could be rectified;
• the property was unaffordable with his income from benefits; and
• the Council refused his request for a section 202 review.

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. 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. I reviewed the Council’s correspondence with Mr B and other parties, and sought the Council’s clarification on several points.

Back to top

What I found

5. The following will provide a brief overview of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive chronology.
6. Mr B was homeless and had been sleeping rough. On 15 December 2023, the Council offered him, and Mr B accepted, emergency accommodation at a property I will refer to as Property 1. The Council also arranged an interview with Mr B to complete a homelessness application on 18 December.
7. A housing officer contacted Mr B on 18 December to complete the application, but at this point he told her the property management agent had given him the wrong key for Property 1, and that he had therefore been sleeping rough again. The officer immediately emailed the Council’s temporary accommodation team to resolve this.
8. On 18 December, Mr B submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He said his net income was insufficient to pay the rent for Property 1, although he had accepted the property out of fear the Council would discharge its homelessness duty toward him if he did not.
9. Mr B also complained about being given the wrong key, and said that, as it had been a Saturday when he realised this, he was unable to contact the managing agent. This meant he had had to sleep rough for two further nights. Further to this, Mr B said he had noticed his neighbours being visited by a carer and issued medicine. Mr B complained it was not appropriate for him to live near people who are prescribed medicine, because this is a trigger for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
10. On 19 December the housing officer spoke to Mr B again, who said he had now collected the correct key. She then sent an email to Mr B to confirm this in writing, and to advise he would likely to be entitled full housing benefit for the property, meaning his rent would be paid for him. However, the officer unknowingly entered Mr B’s email address incorrectly and so he did not receive this message.
11. On 3 January 2024, the Council says it was informed by the management agent that it had inspected Property 1 and found it to be empty. The Council attempted to call Mr B on the same day, and again on 5 January, but he did not answer. On 11 January, the Council emailed Mr B to ask where he was staying, but again sent this to the wrong email address.
12. The Council also replied to Mr B’s stage 1 complaint on 11 January, but sent it to the correct email address. The Council said:

• Mr B would likely qualify for full housing benefit, and in her email of 19 December the housing officer had told him she would assist him in completing his application;
• it acknowledged Mr B’s concerns about the neighbours but had no control over this, and could not guarantee he would not have neighbours with similar vulnerabilities in any other temporary accommodation; and
• it had arranged accommodation at Property 1 on 15 December, with the expectation he would move in the same day. The management agency had provided him with contact details for its emergency out-of-hours service. However, it apologised for the inconvenience he had suffered and offered him £100 in recognition of this.

13. On 18 January, the Council sent Mr B his personalised housing plan (PHP) to sign, again to the correct email address. Mr B signed and returned the plan.
14. On 2 February, the Council emailed Mr B to follow up on its previous questions to him, but once again used the wrong email address.
15. Mr B also escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 2 February. He acknowledged the Council’s response but reiterated his points about the rent and neighbours. Mr B said he had made it clear he would not be able to collect the key for the flat until 16 December, and said it was due to the “incompetence” of the Council that he had been forced to sleep rough a further two nights.
16. Mr B also said the Council had not addressed his concerns about mould in Property 1, which he said had triggered a flare-up in his eczema and asthma.
17. Mr B complained the Council’s offer of £100 was inadequate and asked for it to be reconsidered. He also asked the Council to undertake an urgent section 202 review of the suitability of the accommodation.
18. On 16 February, having realised its error with his email address, the Council emailed Mr B again to ask where he had been staying. Mr B then contacted the Council the same day, and sent a follow-up email on 19 February, in which he explained he had been staying on and off at Property 1, but felt unable to remain there full-time. This was because of the ‘price discrepancy’, mould in the flat, and his concerns over the “unpredictability of multiple individuals including [himself]”.
19. The Council responded to Mr B’s stage 2 complaint on 1 March. It explained housing officers could not make a decision on his housing benefit claim, but could assist him with it. However, as the Council believed Mr B was not resident at the property it had been re-allocated to another person; and for this reason Mr B had not been charged any rent. The Council repeated it could not control who Mr B’s neighbours were, but offered to refer him to a support service which might be able to assist him.
20. The Council said Mr B had explained he had collected the key for Property 1 on 15 December, but the management agent had told him he could not occupy the property then because “the electricity was on emergency”. The Council also noted Mr B had now said he could not collect the key until 16 December.
21. However, the Council said the agent had reported it had not received any complaint about access from Mr B and a “new key was not provided”; nor had the Council’s out-of-hours service received any contact from Mr B. The Council said Mr B had told the housing officer on 18 December about the problem with the key, and that this had finally been resolved on 19 December.
22. The Council explained the agreement Mr B had signed was to occupy the flat from 15 December, and that one its requirements was that he not be absent from the flat without prior notification to the Council.
23. The Council acknowledged Mr B’s concerns about mould in the flat, but said it had told him he needed to report this to the management agent. The Council also explained Mr B could not request a section 202 review because Property 1 was emergency accommodation. It said it would not revise its previous offer of compensation.

Back to top

Legislative background

24. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
25. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
26. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
27. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
28. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Back to top

Analysis

29. I will address each point of Mr B’s complaint in turn.

The Council allocated temporary accommodation to Mr B which was not suitable because of its location, because of potential conflict with neighbours, and because it was damp and mouldy

30. Although I note Mr B raised the issue of Property 1’s location in his correspondence with the Council, this did not form part of his formal complaint to the Council. I therefore cannot consider it as part of this investigation.
31. I consider the Council has adequately addressed Mr B’s concerns about problems with the neighbours at Property 1. As it has explained, it cannot control whom he lives next to and any other accommodation he offered may present a similar issue. I do not consider this represents any fault by the Council.
32. I also consider the Council has adequately addressed Mr B’s concerns about mould in the flat. Although the Council bears ultimate responsibility for the quality of any accommodation it arranges under its homelessness duties, it is the management agent which is immediately responsible for any day-to-day problems, and it is reasonable for the Council to expect Mr B to have contacted the agent in the first instance.
33. I find no fault in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

The letting agent responsible for the property originally gave him the wrong keys, meaning he was then forced to sleep rough for several nights until this could be rectified

34. It is not disputed the agent originally gave Mr B the wrong key for Property 1 on 16 December, which meant he could not access it that day. This problem was not resolved until 18/19 December, when Mr B collected the correct key from the agent.
35. I agree the Council is at fault for this. But it was not directly responsible for the error, and I note the Council addressed it immediately once Mr B informed it of the problem on 18 December, which is commendable. However, the management agent was acting on the Council’s behalf in this matter, and so, as I have explained, the Council bears ultimate responsibility for its actions and omissions.
36. But, with regard to the injustice this caused, I consider there is merit in the Council’s observations. First, the Council offered Mr B the property on 15 December, which was a Friday, with the expectation he would collect the key and occupy the property on the same day. Had he done so, it appears likely Mr B would have identified that he had the wrong key while the agent was still available.
37. I understand Mr B says he could not collect the key until the following day; but, given he was sleeping rough and this was emergency accommodation, I consider it reasonable to expect him to have prioritised collecting the key and moving in.
38. Second, the Council says the agent gave Mr B details for its emergency out-of-hours service, but Mr B did not try to contact the agent over the weekend. The Council also says Mr B did not contact its own out-of-hours service. Again, it appears likely this would have allowed Mr B to resolve the problem with the key on the Saturday, without having to sleep rough again.
39. Separately, even once he had access to the property, Mr B has told me he chose to continue sleeping rough on some nights, and only stayed at the property to avoid the Council discharging its duty towards him. This, as I understand it, was because of his concerns about the mould and neighbours.
40. I have explained in the previous section I do not consider there to be fault by the Council with regard to these issues. This being so, I am not persuaded it was necessary for Mr B to sleep rough to avoid them.
41. Taking this all together, I consider the Council was at fault for the problem with the key, and I agree, as the Council has said, this caused Mr B some inconvenience. But had Mr B collected the key on the date he was supposed to, or used the agent or Council’s out-of-hours services, then on balance I am satisfied he would have been able to address this issue without sleeping rough again. And the fact Mr B chose to continue sleeping rough anyway, even when he did not need to, is a further mitigating factor here.
42. For these reasons, I consider the Council’s offer of £100 to represent an adequate remedy.
43. I find fault causing injustice, but which the Council has already remedied, in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

Property 1 was unaffordable with Mr B’s income from benefits

44. The Council explained to Mr B that he would likely have qualified for full housing benefit for Property 1, and that his housing officer would support him in making the application for this. However, because it re-allocated the property when it found Mr B was not living there, he was not charged any rent.
45. I do not consider there is any fault by the Council in this. While I understand Mr B’s concerns, it appears anyone his in position would likely have faced the same problem when being allocated emergency accommodation. The Council expected Mr B to apply for housing benefit, and while I cannot say what the outcome of this would have been, I cannot reasonably speculate Mr B would have been left unable to pay his rent.
46. I do have one criticism for the Council here though, which is that its initial response to Mr B’s concern about the rent was in the housing officer’s email of 19 December, which she sent to the wrong address. Mr B therefore did not receive this email, or two further emails the housing officer sent in January and February to ask Mr B where he was living.
47. This is fault; but equally I am satisfied it was inconsequential. While it would have been better if Mr B had received these emails, there is no suggestion any material consequence arose because of it.
48. I find fault, which did not cause injustice, in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

The Council refused Mr B’s request for a section 202 review

49. I consider there is the potential for some confusion here.
50. As I have explained in the previous section, there are broadly two types of accommodation that councils can offer under their homelessness duties. These are ‘interim accommodation’, which a council must offer to a qualifying household while it considers their application; and ‘temporary accommodation’, which a council must offer to a household once it has accepted the full housing duty for them. Households placed in temporary accommodation can request a review of its suitability under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, but interim accommodation does not carry any similar right.
51. Property 1 was emergency accommodation, which the Council placed Mr B in immediately because he was sleeping rough. Although he had not yet made a homelessness application when the Council offered him the property, it was, in effect, interim accommodation. The Council is therefore correct to say it did not carry a right of review.
52. However, I am conscious the Council has consistently referred to the Property 1 as ‘temporary accommodation’. It would be understandable, therefore, that a person might wrongly believe it carried a right of review under s202, as Mr B did.
53. On balance I do not consider this issue to be so significant that it amounts to fault, but I would ask the Council to note this, as it may wish to consider clarifying the language it uses to describe this type of accommodation.
54. I find no fault in this element of Mr B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

55. Subject to further comments by Mr B and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice, but which the Council has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman