Summary: Miss F complains the Council moved her to new temporary accommodation but gave her a tenancy agreement that did not include service charges, which it now says she is liable for. We uphold the complaint, as the Council’s tenancy agreement did not include service charges. In its complaint response the Council offered a remedy. That is largely suitable, with the Council’s agreement to our recommendation to make Miss F any new offer of a tenancy via a new temporary accommodation decision. That would give Miss F the right of review on the suitability of the accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss F complains the Council offered her temporary accommodation but with a tenancy agreement that did not include some extra charges. She says she cannot afford the service charges the Council now wants to add.
2. Miss F also complains an officer told her the tenancy would change to a permanent one after six months, which has not happened. And that the flooring in the accommodation upsets her allergies.
3. As a remedy, Miss F wants the Council to honour its original tenancy agreement. And for it to convert her tenancy to a permanent one.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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)
7. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. Paragraph 5 sets out one of those restrictions. Having considered the contents of the complaints Miss F made to the Council, I have decided I will not at this time investigate the following complaints, as she did not raise them in her complaints to the Council:
• the advice she says the Council gave her about the tenancy changing to a permanent one;
• whether the property is suitable due to its flooring.
9. It is reasonable to expect Miss F to complain first to the Council about these issues. And they are separable from the issues we can consider.
10. I have also not investigated whether the property is suitable accommodation (on the grounds of cost) for Miss F’s family. Instead I have recommended the Council take action that would give Miss F a route to an alternative remedy (see paragraphs 6 & 15) to consider this issue. It is reasonable to expect her to use this alternative remedy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Miss F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

13. 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.
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
15. 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) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of key decisions, including about the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant. The law allows a council to accept a late review request, if there are reasons to do so. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

What happened

17. The information below is a summary of relevant events and does not include everything that happened during this period.
18. Miss F has two children. Since 2020 the Council has accepted her as a homeless applicant with a priority need. It has placed her in temporary accommodation since its decision.
19. In the autumn of 2024, the Council had to move Miss F from her temporary accommodation to new temporary accommodation. She signed a tenancy agreement which had a figure for the rental costs but not for service charges. Miss F was receiving housing benefit in her old accommodation, which met her rental costs there. The Council’s housing team contacted its benefits team asking it to transfer Miss F’s housing benefit claim to the new accommodation.
20. A few weeks after moving, the Council contacted Miss F to advise her she was in rent arrears. On further contact, the Council advised Miss F there was a service charge on the new property. This was to cover a proportion of the costs of communally provided heating and hot water. Housing benefit does not cover these types of service charges, meaning Miss F was liable for the costs.
21. Miss F complained about the arrears and the error with the tenancy agreement. The Council’s complaint responses accepted it had been at fault, because the tenancy agreement wrongly said there were no service charges on the property. It noted Miss F’s rent arrears were £556.52. Its response at stage two of its complaints procedure offered that, as a remedy, it would:
• clear her rent arrears, so reducing her balance to zero;
• issue a new tenancy agreement reflecting the correct rental amount and service charges;
• make a payment of £50 for her time and effort in complaining.
22. Miss F rejected this resolution and instead complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

23. The fault I find with this complaint is the Council offered Miss F a tenancy agreement that did not set out the full cost implications of moving to the property.
24. Where an Ombudsman’s investigation finds evidence of fault causing injustice our role is to seek redress by putting the complainant back into the position they would have been in if the fault had not occurred.
25. Here, without fault, it is likely the Council would have offered Miss F the same temporary accommodation, but with the service charges included in the tenancy agreement. If that had happened, Miss F would have had the option of asking for a review of its suitability, including on the grounds of affordability. But, by the time Miss F was aware there was an issue, the time limit for asking for a review had passed. (It would have been good practice if the Council then had advised Miss F she could ask for a late review of its decision, but it did not do so, so Miss F was not aware of that option.)
26. The Council’s complaint response, by offering to cancel the rent arrears, effectively offered Miss F the possibility of having a significant period in the property without service charges. That is a significant offer and a suitable one when compared to the fault.
27. The Council’s complaint response also proposed to ask Miss F to sign a revised tenancy agreement. Miss F says she has refused to do this, and the Council has not sent one to her. If the Council does decide in the future to issue Miss F with a revised tenancy agreement for the property, it should do so by making a fresh offer of temporary accommodation for the property. By doing so, this would allow Miss F the opportunity to request a review of the suitability of the property. This would remedy a key injustice.
28. Miss F wants the Council to offer her a permanent tenancy. But I cannot say the fault identified leads to a conclusion that that is a suitable remedy. This is because, if there had not been any fault, the Council would not have made such an offer.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council:
• offer again Miss F the remedy set out in its complaint response;
• if the Council decides to go ahead and send Miss F a new tenancy agreement for the property she is in, it should do so by making a new offer of temporary accommodation. That would give Miss F the right of review of the suitability, that was lost because of the fault.
30. The Council has agreed to my recommendation. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman