Summary: Ms G complained about the way the Council has dealt with her family’s housing issues. She says the Council did not help her properly when she needed help with disrepair at her private rented property. She says the Council also failed to support her family as it should have when she later contacted it about a homelessness application. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice to Ms G and to her family. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms G and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms G says she contacted the Council in January 2023 as her private rented property was in serious disrepair. She complains the Council did not deal with her request for help properly, which left her and her children in unsuitable accommodation.
2. Ms G says she later contacted the Council for support when she fell into rental arrears and her landlord issued an eviction notice. She complains the Council did not deal with her homelessness application as it should have.
3. Ms G says the Council left her and her children to live in a property in serious disrepair.
4. Ms G also complains about the way the Council has dealt with her complaint. She says the Council failed to communicate through her advocate as she had asked, delayed in providing its complaint response and used wording which seemed intended to put her off escalating her issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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. We usually look at issues which occurred within twelve months of a complainant contacting us about the issue. Ms G has complained about an issue which occurred seventeen months before she came to us. Given all of the circumstances Ms G was dealing with at the time, it is reasonable to apply our discretion to include this in our investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms G’s representative and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms G and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I have considered all comments provided before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Privately rented property disrepairs

Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:

• preventing homelessness;

• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

12. Eligibility for assistance normally depends on the immigration status of the person seeking assistance. Sections 185-186 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 (as amended) set out rules excluding certain “persons from abroad” and “persons subject to immigration control” from getting assistance under Part 7 of the statutory Code of Guidance on Homelessness (“the Code”).
13. An applicant who is refused homelessness assistance because a council decides they are ineligible can challenge the decision by using the section 202 review procedure.
14. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

15. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
16. Under the Housing Act 2004, if a Council considers that it would be appropriate for any residential premises in their district to be inspected with a view to determining whether any category 1 or 2 hazard exists on those premises, the proper officer must inspect those premises.
17. The Act defines category 1 hazards as including damp and mould at the property.
18. If a local housing authority consider that a category 1 hazard exists on any residential premises, they must take the appropriate enforcement action in relation to the hazard.
19. There are seven options as to appropriate enforcement actions, including serving an improvement notice.

The Council’s duties to prevent homelessness

20. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them [and anyone who lives with them/might reasonably be expected to live with them] to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
21. 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.
22. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

The prevention duty

23. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

24. 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)

The main housing duty

25. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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

26. Ms G contacted the Council in January 2023 as her private rented property was in severe disrepair and had damp and mould. Ms G’s immigration status meant she had no recourse to public funds.
27. The Council contacted Ms G’s estate agent landlord. It says the agent said they did not know about the extent of the disrepair but would look into it and deal with the issues. The Council closed the case on this basis.
28. The landlord did not take the action needed to make the property safe and eventually the ceiling caved in.
29. Ms G and her children remained in the property, but her partner moved out. Ms G’s partner stopped paying the rent, so it fell into arrears which led to the landlord issuing Ms G with an eviction notice in October 2023.
30. In November 2023, Ms G contacted the Council again to say she and her children were now facing homelessness as they were being evicted.
31. By this point, Ms G’s immigration status had changed. The Council considered her to be eligible and accepted it owed her the prevention duty.
32. The eviction notice expired at the end of November. The landlord referred the matter to a court and a possession order was granted.
33. In January 2024, the Council closed the case as it said it had asked Ms G to provide information, chased her to provide this in several different ways but had not received a response.
34. Ms G contacted the Council straight away to explain she had provided the information and had not had any contact from the Council. The Council refused to re-open the case until Ms G complained.
35. The Council then re-opened the case and accepted relief duty at the beginning of February when the possession order expired. The Council made an offer of interim accommodation the following day, which she accepted.
36. Ms G’s representative made a complaint to the Council about how it had handled her issues, asking the Council to ensure it communicated through him.
37. Four months later, the Council sent a stage one response directly to Ms G. The letter advised that although Ms G may ask for the matter to be escalated to stage two if she wished to, this was unlikely to result in a different conclusion.
38. The stage one response also confirmed the Council had accepted the main housing duty.

Analysis and findings

39. The Council has duties to a person who does not have recourse to public funds. It should provide information and advice, although it does not have to assess needs, provide temporary accommodation and secure long term accommodation. This duty is owed to every resident in the Council’s area.
40. The Council started to provide support under this limited duty. It contacted Ms G’s estate agent, and the agent said they would deal with the issues. The Council did not inspect the property itself or check that the landlord had fixed the problems.
41. Under the Housing Act 2004, the Council should have inspected the property as it was aware there was damp and mould there. Given the extent of disrepair at the property led to the ceiling caving in, months after Ms G contacted the Council, we can safely assume the extent of damp and mould at the property would mean there was a category 1 hazard at the property.
42. If the Council had inspected the property, on the balance of probability, it would have recognised action needed to be taken. Given the Council contacted the agent to ask that the issue be dealt with, it is fair to say that on the balance of probabilities the Council would consider an improvement notice to be the most fitting enforcement action as this would have formalised what it did in fact do.
43. The Council did not carry out an inspection. This is fault. Because of this, the Council missed an opportunity to ensure the disrepair at Ms G’s property was properly dealt with. This means it also missed an opportunity to prevent the ceiling caving in, which could have caused serious harm to Ms G and her children. This is an injustice.
44. When Ms G contacted the Council again at the beginning of November 2023, the Council accepted the Prevention duty as her immigration status had changed by this point and she was considered eligible for support under Homelessness guidance.
45. Ms G told the Council she had been served notice of eviction as she was in significant rent arrears as her partner had left and had stopped paying rent.
46. There is no record the Council explored Ms G’s affordability to decide whether she should remain in the property until the eviction notice expired. We would also expect the Council to have advised Ms G about debt and benefits advice which I cannot see was done. This is fault.
47. The Council was aware the eviction notice expired at the end of November 2023. Its notes do not show that any consideration was given as to whether Ms G was homeless from that point and whether it was suitable for her to continue to stay at the property. This is fault.
48. Ms G had accrued £10,000 in rental arrears, had told the Council there was damp and mould at the property, and the landlord had issued an eviction notice. Had the Council considered this when Ms G contacted it in November, it is likely it would have decided Ms G could not reasonably be expected to remain at the property. We can safely say that at this stage the Council should have accepted Ms G was in fact homeless and made an offer of interim accommodation. Failure to do so is fault.
49. Ms G and her children have been caused an injustice as they were left to remain in the property until February 2024, three months longer than they should have.
50. While Ms G remained at the property, the Council asked her to provide information and then closed its file on the basis it couldn’t contact her. The Council has since accepted that it made one phone call to try to reach her before closing its file. It accepts that this is not its usual policy and that reasonable attempts should have been made to contact Ms G before such action was taken. This is fault.
51. At the same time, Ms G received notice that a possession order had been granted which would expire at the beginning of February. Ms G contacted the Council to explain she had provided the information requested from her and asked that her case be reopened.
52. The Council initially declined to do this. The Council has caused avoidable added distress to Ms G at what was a difficult time already. This is an injustice.
53. The Council re-opened the case and accepted relief duty when the possession order expired. It made an offer of interim accommodation the following day.
54. Ms G complained about the way the Council had dealt with her requests for help through a representative and asked that it respond through the representative.
55. The Council responded to the complaint four months later, and sent its response directly to Ms G. Within its response the Council told Ms G she could escalate the complaint for a stage two review however this was unlikely to result in a different conclusion.
56. The Council’s complaint policy states it will respond to complaints in full within 15 working days. It failed to do this and this is fault. The Council accept this wording about escalating the complaint should not have been included in its response.
57. The Council provided a stage two response three months later, which again is outside the timeframes of its own complaints policy.
58. Leaving Ms G without a response to her complaint, failing to communicate through her representative as she had asked and telling her that escalating the complaint was unlikely to make any difference would inevitably add to the distress the Council had already caused to her. This is further injustice.
59. Ms G has suffered repeated failings by the Council. The Council’s failings when she contacted it in January 2023 left her and her children at risk of serious harm. Ms G and her children remained in a home with damp and mould and lived through the ceiling caving in.
60. The Council repeatedly let Ms G down when it was clear she and her children were in vulnerable circumstances. The Council failed to give her advice which may have helped her to improve her circumstances, it failed to move her from an unsuitable property for three months. It then went on to add to this by failing to deal with her complaint properly too.
61. The Council has apologised for some faults identified and has said it has issued reminders to relevant staff for these. I recommended it make a further apology for Ms G, make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused and that it take some further action to make service improvements.
62. The payment to Ms G is based on a symbolic payment of £1000 for the distress caused by the Council’s failure to help her and her children when she contacted it in early 2023. The sum reflects the serious injustice of remaining in a property which left her and her children at risk of harm.
63. I have added a payment of £350 per month for three months of remaining in an unsuitable property once the Council knew her immigration status had changed.
64. I have also recommended a payment of £250 for the added time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor complaints handling.

Back to top

Agreed action

65. Within one month of the decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms G. 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 a payment of £2,300 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to Ms G;
66. Within three months of the decision, the Council will:
• review its process when contacted for support by anyone who does not have recourse to public funds, and provide training on this to all relevant staff;
• review its process of considering homelessness applications where there are affordability issues, and provide training to all relevant staff;
• remind all relevant staff of its complaints handling process.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

68. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman