Summary: Ms X says the Council did not deal with her housing properly. The Council did not inform Ms X of her rent properly or complete affordability assessments. Ms X suffered accrued rent arrears, financial loss and avoidable distress. The Council should pay Ms X £300 for avoidable distress, repay her £2760 payments, reduce her rent account balance to zero and provide guidance to staff.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains the Council did not deal properly with her housing because it did not consider the affordability of the temporary accommodation it provided and it delayed telling her how much she would have to pay for the accommodation.
2. Ms X says as a result she was unable to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation and she was forced to accrue significant financial arrears.

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. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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.
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 spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered documents she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
7. Ms 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

Law, guidance and policies

8. 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.
9. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).

What happened?

10. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
11. In October 2023, Ms X was homeless and provided with temporary accommodation by the Council of a 1 bedroom property.
12. The Council charged Ms X the relevant Local Housing Allowance (LHS) rate amounting to £184.10 per week.
13. In February 2024 the rent amount increased to £455 per week.
14. In April 2024 the rent amount further increased to £525 per week.
15. The Council refused to provide Ms X with permanent 2 bedroom accommodation because she had accrued significant rent arrears from the temporary accommodation.
16. Ms X complained to the Council. The Council did not uphold her complaint

Analysis

17. During my investigation, the Council has accepted fault and offered a financial remedy of £1,896.30 for a period of 7 weeks between February to March 2024. The payment is the difference in the rental charge between £184.10 and £455 for the 7 weeks that this amount was charged.
18. The Council accepts that Ms X was not informed of the rent increase in February 2024 and that no affordability assessments were carried out. I agree with the Council this is fault.
19. I have reviewed Housing Benefit award letters which show that Ms X’s income was less than the difference between the rent and her Housing Benefit. On the balance of probabilities the temporary accommodation was unaffordable for Ms X and therefore unsuitable.
20. If the Council had carried out affordability assessments it should have provided alternative suitable accommodation for Ms X.
21. Housing Benefit letters show that Ms X’s Housing Benefit would have fully covered her continued rent at the LHA rate.
22. Although the Council has offered a proposed remedy for February to March, this does not take into account the period April to September where Ms X has been charged rent for accommodation which is unsuitable.
23. I do not consider the Council’s proposed remedy to be appropriate. Ms X should not have had to make any payments towards her rent and should not have any outstanding amounts on her rent account.
24. Ms X was refused permanent accommodation for a period of time due to the rent arrears which she should not have accrued. Ms X suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty during this time.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Ms X for the fault found. 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.
• Pay Ms X £300 in respect of avoidable distress and uncertainty.
• Repay Ms X £2,760, in respect of rent payments made.
• Reduce Ms X’s rent account balance to zero.
• Provide guidance to staff to ensure that affordability assessments are made when allocating temporary accommodation.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Ms X. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman