Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision the complainant has accrued rent arrears for a temporary accommodation property. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss L.
2. Miss L complains the Council:

• offered her temporary accommodation in a neighbouring council area, despite being aware this property was unsuitable;
• says she has accrued nearly £11,000 in rent arrears, because she held the keys for both this and another property at the same time; and
• has not addressed disrepair in the property.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated the second point of Miss L’s complaint, about her accrual of arrears by simultaneously holding the keys for two properties.
8. I have not investigated the first point of Miss L’s complaint, about the suitability of the offered property. This is because Miss L, having sought a suitability review by the Council, appealed to court about its decision. We are prevented by law from investigating anything which has been put to a court, and so this point falls outside our jurisdiction.
9. I have also not investigated the third point of Miss L’s complaint. This is because it did not form part of her formal complaint to the Council, and is therefore premature for investigation by us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss L and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Homelessness

12. 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)
13. 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. 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)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
15. Applicants can appeal to the county court if they consider a council’s decision on a review is flawed on a point of law.

Miss L’s complaint

16. What follows is a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive chronology, setting out everything that happened.
17. Miss L was living in temporary accommodation provided by the Council under its homelessness duties. I will refer to this accommodation as Property 1. Property 1 was not in the Council’s area, but in a neighbouring borough.
18. In 2023 the Council received information from the police that Miss L and her family were at risk of targeted crime in the Council’s area and the neighbouring borough.
19. On 15 November 2023, the Council offered Miss L an alternative property, to which I will refer as Property 2. Property 2 was in a different borough, further away from the area of risk. Later the same day Miss L contacted the Council to say Property 2 was not suitable due to its location, and how this affected her family commitments.
20. Miss L submitted a formal request for review the following day, in which she described in greater detail the need for her to remain in her current area, to help maintain support networks.
21. On 4 December Miss L wrote to the Council to confirm she was no longer with her partner, and that he should not be included on her application as a joint tenant. The Council replied the same day and asked Miss L to accept the offer of Property 2.
22. On 11 December Miss L wrote to the Council to say she had visited Property 2 and reiterated it was not suitable. This was because of its location, risk to her children because of its position on the fourth floor, and because of anti-social behaviour in the area. Miss L sent several further messages to a similar effect over the following days.
23. The Council arranged for a removals service to move Miss L’s belongings to Property 2 on 20 December.
24. On 12 January, the Council emailed Miss L to ask if she had moved to Property 2. She replied on 17 January to say she had partially moved, but remained at Property 1. Miss L also said the perpetrators of the threat to her family had now been imprisoned and so there was no longer a risk. The Council noted the police had referred to a significant risk in their letter to the police, and said it would continue to review the suitability of Property 2.
25. On 18 January the Council warned Miss L she was liable for the rent on both properties, because she held the keys to both.
26. On 6 February the Council completed its suitability review for Property 2, and decided it was suitable for Miss L and her family. Miss L subsequently appealed to the county court about the Council’s decision on the review.
27. In July the Council served Miss L with a notice to vacate Property 1. Shortly after this Miss L successfully bid on a property through the Council’s allocation scheme, but her bid was then cancelled because she had accrued approximately £11,000 of rent arrears on Property 2. In response, Miss L said her solicitor had advised her she did not need to move into Property 2 until the court had decided her appeal.
28. On 16 July Miss L moved to Property 2.
29. On 12 September Miss L submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. She said:

• she considered it unnecessary for her to move away from Property 1, and doing had had an impact on her support network;
• she had appealed against the Council’s review decision, and had been legally allowed to remain in Property 1 while this was pending;
• a council officer had added £10,000 arrears to her account just as she won a bid for a permanent property;
• her solicitor had advised her to remain in Property 1 while the appeal was pending;
• it was unlawful for to be made responsible for rent on two properties at the same time;
• she had now won her appeal and the court had said it had been unlawful for the Council to move her to a property without hot water; and
• she had a long journey to take her daughter to school, and Property 2 had been broken into while she was out.

30. The Council responded on 15 October. It said:

• it had offered Miss L a property which adhered to its assessment of her needs;
• a council officer referred to by Miss L had acted professionally and did not abuse her position;
• the Council had not received information to show the risk to Miss L and her family had diminished, and it could not support her remaining in the area;
• the Council could evict Miss L despite the ongoing court proceedings;
• Miss L was charged for rent on both properties because she held keys for both;
• the Council would not consider Miss L for permanent accommodation while the rent arrears remained.

31. Miss L then made an undated stage 2 complaint to the Council. She reiterated the law allowed her to remain in Property 1 pending her appeal to the court. Miss L said she should not be liable for the arrears because her rent was paid through housing benefit and not directly, and that she could not legally be liable for two temporary accommodation properties at the same time.
32. The Council responded on 9 December. It quoted from the letter it had sent to Miss L in November 2023, offering Property 2, which explained she could request a suitability review after moving in, and strongly advising her to move to the property.
33. The Council said Miss L had chosen to remain at Property 1 while holding the keys for both properties, and was therefore liable for both sets of rent during the relevant period. It rejected Miss L’s claim this was unlawful.

Back to top

Analysis

34. At the beginning of my investigation, Miss L told me that, when the Council offered her Property 2, she had responded that it was unsuitable because it was entirely inaccessible. This was because the property contained internal steps, which her partner could not use because he was physically disabled.
35. I have reviewed Miss L’s correspondence with the Council from this period. Miss L told the Council, on several occasions, the property was not suitable because of its location, and the impact of this on her support network. But her correspondence made no reference at all to her partner’s mobility problems; in fact, Miss L made clear to the Council she was no longer in a relationship with her partner at that time.
36. I have also reviewed the court’s judgement on Miss L’s appeal. She raised four grounds about the way the Council had considered the review (and the court subsequently upheld the appeal on two of those grounds); but, again, none of her grounds made any reference to problems with accessibility, and were all instead related to the property’s location. Similarly, there is no reference to accessibility in either Miss L’s stage 1 and 2 complaints to the Council, nor in her complaint to the Ombudsman.
37. I am therefore satisfied Miss L did not, as she has said, tell the Council she could not move to Property 2 because it presented accessibility issues.
38. As I have explained, I cannot investigate whether Property 2 was actually suitable, because this was considered by the court.
39. However, it is correct for the Council to have told Miss L that she was entitled to request a review after moving to Property 2, and to recommend she do so. I also accept the Council’s point that it was Miss L’s own decision to remain in Property 1, despite having both sets of keys.
40. Miss L has implied she was unaware she was accruing rent arrears on Property 2 until July 2024, when the Council withdrew her successful bid on a permanent property because of this.
41. But, recording a conversation between a council officer and Miss L on 18 January 2024, the Council’s case notes say:

“I [council officer] had asked her [Miss L] is she currently living in the property [Property 2] and she stated that she is not and that she is still living at the previous temporary accommodation [Property 1]. I then advised her that she will be liable for both rents as the keys have not been returned.”

42. Again, therefore, I am satisfied the Council duly warned Miss L of the consequences of retaining the keys to both properties.
43. Miss L says her solicitor advised her she could remain in Property 1 pending her appeal to the court, and that it was unlawful for her to be charged rent on two separate temporary accommodation properties at the same time.
44. When a person appeals against a council decision to discharge (‘end’) its homelessness duty, under some circumstances the law say the council should continue to provide temporary accommodation to that person, pending the outcome of the appeal. I believe this may be what Miss L is referring to here.
45. Miss L’s appeal, however, was not about whether the Council should continue to provide accommodation to her – it was simply about whether the Council had properly reviewed its decision that Property 2 was suitable. The fact Miss L was appealing against this decision did not protect her from eviction from Property 1 in the meantime, so this element of the law is not relevant here.
46. And, even putting this to one side, this element of the law does not prevent an applicant from being charged rent for a second property if they hold both keys. I am also unfamiliar with any other law which says a person cannot be charged rent on two separate temporary accommodation properties at the same time.
47. Miss L has also said she was told the outcome of her appeal would decide whether she was liable for both sets of rent – in short, if her appeal was upheld, then she would not be liable for rent on Property 2.
48. If this were the case, then we would not be able to investigate Miss L’s complaint at all, because the ‘arrears’ element would also be something considered by the court. However, there is nothing in the appeal judgement which covers this point – again, the court’s purpose was simply to decide whether the Council had properly considered Miss L’s suitability review. That the court quashed the Council’s decision does not mean she was not liable for the rent after she accepted the property.
49. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions, in the course of performing their duties. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant evidence, or not properly explained the reason it has made a decision. We call this ‘fault’, and, where we find it, we can consider the consequence of the fault and ask the council to address this.
50. But we do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decisions, and we cannot make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf. If a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if a complainant feels strongly that its decision is wrong. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because someone disagrees with what a council has done.
51. In this case, while I acknowledge the difficult circumstances faced by Miss L, I am satisfied the Council has acted properly throughout, and this being so, I have no grounds to find fault or uphold Miss L’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman