Summary: The complainant says she went to the Council when her family was homeless. The officer gave her incorrect advice and forced them into private rented accommodation. The result is they are living in accommodation they cannot afford. This has affected the complainant’s mental health. Our decision is there was no fault in the Council’s offer of accommodation. But there was some fault in the Council’s complaint handling, so we have upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mrs C) says she went to the Council when her family was homeless. The Council officer made assumptions about her future. He advised they had no choice but to accept a private rented flat and if they did not, the Council would provide no further help. The Council then gave them incorrect advice about moving away from the flat. The result is they are living in accommodation they cannot afford. This has affected Mrs C’s mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. One of the restrictions is about how far back we will normally investigate (see paragraph 3). With Mrs C’s complaint the issues she complains about began more than 12 months before her complaint to the Ombudsman. But Mrs C was waiting for some actions after the Council’s response to her 2023 complaint. It is understandable that, after that complaint, she waited for the Council to carry out some of the promised actions before she complained again. This is a reasonable ground why she did not complain earlier. So I have considered the whole period Mrs C complains about.
8. Another restriction is around not usually investigating a complaint when there is an alternative remedy. Many homelessness decisions carry a right of review, including as a second stage to a court. There were key decisions around the suitability of housing the Council offered to Mrs C that carried such alternative remedies.
9. In response to my draft decision, Mrs C said she did not receive the letter the Council has in its files which advised her of her rights to challenge the Council’s decision. This is a conflict in evidence which I cannot resolve, even on the balance of probabilities. But it does bring a degree of doubt into whether Mrs C was aware of her review rights. So I have used my discretion to consider this part of the complaint in more detail.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs C;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mrs C;
• sent my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness

11. 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.

Assessments and personalised housing plans

12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

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)
14. Suitable accommodation can include accommodation in the private rented sector. To be suitable a property must be (amongst other things) in a reasonable physical condition.

Decision letters

15. After completing enquiries, 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, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Review rights

16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Housing Allocations - the published scheme

17. 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))
18. The Council’s allocation scheme has a banding system with emergency, gold, silver and bronze bands. Its silver band includes, amongst other circumstances, those living in overcrowded accommodation and homeless applicants.
19. The Council’s gold band includes applicants who have an urgent medical need to move. The policy says this band is for applicants who are: “…completely housebound; or at risk of injury or relapse; or unable to live independently”. And that moving the applicant is the only way to resolve the problem.

What happened

Background

20. Mrs C was living with her husband and young child at her parents’ house. They had made an application to the Council’s housing register and had been accepted onto the register with a silver banding due to overcrowding.

Mrs C tells the Council she is threatened with homelessness

21. In May 2022 Mrs C contacted the Council advising her parents had asked her family to leave the property. The Council accepted it had a prevention duty to her and wrote to her about this.
22. A few days later the Council placed Mrs C and her family in a hotel as interim accommodation and accepted it had a relief duty to the family.
23. The Council changed Mrs C’s eligibility to its housing register to being on the grounds of homelessness (as they were no longer overcrowded). Their banding remained unchanged. Mrs C thought they should qualify for the highest, gold, banding. She provided medical evidence in support of this, but the Council did not change its decision.
24. In their assessment of Mrs C’s circumstances, one of the issues the Council’s officer raised with Mrs C was about money in her bank account. She advised it was a wedding gift, so not for spending. The officer sought advice from the Council’s Equalities Manager and later reported back that a local religious leader did not agree with Mrs C’s view that she could not spend the money.
25. In early June Mrs C and her husband viewed a private rented sector property. The Council’s records say Mrs C and her family were happy with the property and wanted to proceed with the tenancy as soon as possible. They moved in shortly after. Mrs C says the reality was they were not happy, but the Council’s officer had threatened to end its assistance if they did not accept.
26. On 24 June the Council wrote to Mrs C advising of its decision to end its relief duty as the Council had been able to help her find accommodation. It advised her of her rights to request a review of the decision. The Council has sent me a copy of that letter. In response to my draft decision, Mrs C said she did not receive the letter.
27. On 29 June 2022 Mrs C contacted the Council complaining how dirty the flat was. The officer advised deep cleaning was in their tenancy agreement, so they should discuss the issue directly with the landlord.

Mrs C’s 2023 complaint

28. In April 2023 Mrs C complained about how the Council had dealt with their housing situation:
• the officer had refused to change their banding on the housing register;
• they were pressurised into accepting a private rented sector property, which meant they were now struggling with their living costs.
29. In May Mrs C’s landlord increased their rent. The Council’s officer completed an income and expenditure form with them. This showed Mrs C’s family had a monthly deficit of £500.
30. The Council’s complaint response:
• advised its 2022 offer of Mrs C’s accommodation was a reasonable offer, considering its size, location and rent. The Council could not have identified some issues with the property Mrs C later reported;
• advised the Council was right to make enquiries about Mrs C’s wedding gift. But it could have been handled with greater sensitivity. The officer said he would contact local religious leaders to better understand the difficulties and barriers families may experience when facing homelessness;
• accepted the family was in 2023 threatened with homelessness as a result of their then financial position;
• set out an action plan, which included accepting a new prevention duty.
31. The Council took a new application from Mrs C for its housing register and awarded Mrs C a silver priority based on a local connection.
32. In August 2023 the Council officer closed Mrs C’s case and recorded it as ‘advice only’. The officer did not confirm this in writing.

Mrs C’s 2024 complaint

33. In June 2024 Mrs C raised further concerns about the affordability of the property they were living in. A Council housing officer visited them and completed a new assessment, including a new income and expenditure form. The Council accepted the property was by then unaffordable, so the Council owed Mrs C a prevention duty. The Council set out several action points. It wrote to Mrs C advising her of this and her right to review the situation.
34. Mrs C complained to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries, the Council advised:
• the officer who sent the 2023 complaint response had not followed the correct process as he had not sought authorisation from a manager;
• it had reviewed the 2023 assessment and its view was the reviewing officer had wrongly then said the Council owed Mrs C’s family a prevention duty. Its review did not agree with the 2023 officer’s assessment that the property was unaffordable to Mrs C’s family;
• it apologised for a lack of communications since May 2023;
• while it accepted its fault in 2023, its view was these faults had not affected Mrs C and her family’s housing situation;
• it accepted that by 2024 the property was unaffordable to Mrs C and her family, due to a rent increase and change in the family’s income. So the Council owed them a prevention duty;
• it had not completed its review of the equalities impacts of the financial resources issues raised in Mrs C’s complaint.
35. In response to my draft decision, the Council sent me a copy of its review of its Private Rented Financial Assistance Scheme Policy. It undertook this review in response to the issue raised by Mrs C’s complaint. It decided it did not need to make any changes to its Policy.

Analysis

The suitability of the property

36. As noted above, Mrs C’s response to my draft decision does bring some doubt about whether she was aware of her review rights. So I have decided to consider further the events around the Council’s offer of the tenancy Mrs C and her family moved to.
37. But, having investigated, I cannot uphold Mrs C’s complaint about this issue. Councils are allowed to discharge their duties by offering private rented sector accommodation. For a property to be suitable as accommodation under homelessness law, the property need not be ideal or even desirable in every respect. A property can have drawbacks and still be suitable. It must be in a ‘reasonable’ physical condition.
38. The Council’s records note Mrs C and her family were happy with the property when they first moved. In her response to my draft decision, Mrs C says this was not the case. But I do not have the evidence to show Mrs C contemporaneously raising concerns about the property. So I cannot uphold this part of Mrs C’s complaint.
39. Mrs C says the Council should have done more to investigate the property’s future affordability. I cannot agree. It is not reasonable to expect a council to predict what a landlord would do about rent increases. Or to make any predictions about a family’s future income.
40. I see no fault in how the Council discharged its relief duty by offering Mrs C the private rented sector property.

The Council’s housing register

41. With the banding issue I have not seen anything to indicate fault by the Council in the way it has prioritised the application. I acknowledge the evidence Mrs C sent the Council which supported her view the property was unsuitable. But she and her family already had a silver banding.
42. Looking at the Council’s banding scheme (see paragraph 19), on the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely Mrs C’s family circumstances would have fitted into any of categories that qualify for a gold banding on medical reasons. So I do not uphold this part of Mrs C’s complaint.

The responses to Mrs C’s complaints

43. The Council has already found that:
• while its officer was entitled to make enquiries into Mrs C’s and her family’s circumstances, there was fault as this could have been done with more sensitivity;
• it was at fault in the way it dealt with Mrs C’s 2023 complaint. The Council now disagrees with its 2023 assessment of the family’s means and therefore whether it then owed Mrs C a duty. It had also then given Mrs C a list of actions it would undertake, some of which it did not fulfil;
• its officer closed the family’s file without any notification;
• it was poor in its communications with the family between May 2023 and June 2024.
44. I agree with the Council’s assessment of fault. I also agree those faults were unlikely to have had an effect on Mrs C and her family’s housing situation. But the distress and raised expectations the 2023 events likely caused is an injustice that demands its own symbolic remedy.
45. In response to my draft decision, the Council has sent me the evidence it has completed the review that it said it would carry out, so I have removed this from my list of outstanding actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. I recommended that, within one month of my final decision, the Council:
• write to Mrs C apologising for the faults I have identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
• make Mrs C a symbolic payment of £150 in recognition of the distress likely caused by the identified fault.
47. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. There was fault by the Council, so I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed with my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman