Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to verify a property offer and did not review the suitability of temporary accommodation. I have found fault by the Council because it failed to clarify whether Ms D was seeking a suitability review. The Council has agreed to pay redress to Ms D for this lost opportunity.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council incorrectly refused to verify an offer of social housing in 2024. She also complains the Council failed to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided in October 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have considered the 12 month period preceding the Council’s final complaints response to Ms D. I have looked at November 2023 through to November 2024. I have explained to Ms D that any new issues arising after November 2024 would need to be complained about to the Council before the Ombudsman can consider them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In November 2023 Ms D was in temporary accommodation and had rent arrears. The Council had previously asked for payment of the arrears or would seek eviction. At the start of March 2024 the Council evicted Ms D. Ms D subsequently advised the Council she would sort her own accommodation. On 23 April Ms D agreed with the Council to a payment plan to start paying off the rent arrears. A set amount would be paid every week.
7. In June the Council provided Ms D with interim accommodation after she asked it for homelessness assistance. On 19 June Ms D was the highest priority housing applicant bidding for a property under the Council’s Choice Based Lettings (CBL) scheme. In July Ms D asked the Council whether her property offer had been verified. On 9 July the Council noted the offer had not been verified because of the large amount of rent arrears previously accrued by Ms D. The Council says information about why the property was not offered to Ms D was available on the bidding website under ‘bidding feedback’. Also at the start of July Ms D complained to the Council about her bid not being verified. The Council replied on 20 September. It said Ms D had large rent arrears and had failed to adhere to a previous payment plan. Because the debt was so large the Council could not verify any property offers until the arrears fell below a set amount and Ms D did not miss any payment plan instalments. At the end of September Ms D stopped making weekly payment plan payments.
8. At the end of October the Council offered Ms D temporary accommodation. Ms D also made some additional payments towards her rent arrear debt. On 4 November Ms D told the Council she had accepted the tenancy but had concerns about the property. The Council replied that she had the right to request a suitability review within 21 days of accepting the tenancy. Ms D emailed the Council again on 14 November about the rent and affordability of her temporary accommodation. On 28 November the Council issued its final stage complaint response to Ms D. It said she could not currently receive offers of social housing via the CBL scheme because of her rent arrears. She would need to adhere to the payment plan.

What should have happened

9. The Council lets social housing primarily via its CBL scheme. It advertises properties on a website and applicants bid for them. The Council will usually shortlist applicants and offer the property to the applicant with the highest housing priority. The Council then verifies the applicant’s details to check they are eligible to receive a property offer. Under the Allocations Policy the Council can refuse to award a property to an applicant at verification stage if they have ‘substantial current and/ or former rent arrears’. The Council does have discretion and can consider whether to allow an offer for an applicant where there is a repayment plan in place which has been adhered to for six months.
10. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
11. When the Council provides temporary accommodation, it advises the applicant about the right to request a suitability review within 21 days of accepting the tenancy.

Was there fault by the Council

12. Ms D complains about the Council’s decision to not verify its housing offer in June 2024. The Allocations Policy sets out how the Council will refuse to verify a housing offer where an applicant has substantial rent arrears. It can consider exercising discretion if an applicant has adhered to a payment plan for six months. In this case Ms D had only been on a repayment plan for around two months in June. She had accrued a very high level of rent arrears. The evidence shows the Council considered her case in line with its policy. Because of the level of rent arrears and a repayment plan had not been in place and adhered to for six months the Council was entitled to decide it would not verify the property offer. I appreciate this will be disappointing for Ms D, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Ms D disagrees with the decision the Council made.
13. Ms D also complained the Council had not considered her request for a suitability review. It correctly advised her on 4 November that she could ask for a suitability review. Ms D then emailed the Council on 14 November stating she had concerns about the affordability of the accommodation. I cannot see the Council responded to that email. Affordability is a point on which an applicant can request a suitability review so I would have expected the Council to contact Ms D to check whether she wanted to pursue a suitability review or if there was other assistance she required. In view of this I consider there is fault by the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

14. The fault by the Council meant Ms D was not given an opportunity to have her concerns about affordability formally considered. Even if the Council was unclear what she wanted from the 14 November email it had a duty to clarify this with her and then provide the relevant service. I cannot say what the outcome of a suitability review would have been but fault by the Council means there was a missed opportunity.

Back to top

Action

15. The Has agreed to apologise to Ms D for the failure to pick up and respond to her November email. It will also pay £150 for the lost opportunity to assist Ms D at that stage.

Back to top

Decision

16. I find fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman