Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s lack of support with her homelessness after she fled domestic abuse. The Council was at fault. It did not make proper enquiries about her situation, nor assess whether the private rented property she later found was affordable, nor send her a formal letter ending its housing duty after the tenancy started. It was also at fault for not communicating properly about the financial support it could provide and a delay in providing it. It should apologise, pay Miss X £1,800 to remedy the period she was in unsuitable accommodation, and take action to prevent recurrence.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her housing case after she fled domestic abuse. In particular, the Council:
• Initially refused to assist her and advised her to return to the home where she had suffered domestic abuse;
• After reopening the case, placed her in accommodation that was unsuitable because it was not affordable;
• Failed to pay the deposit and first month’s rent in advance on the accommodation as it said it would;
• Failed to send her a written decision when it ended its duty, which meant she was denied the chance to appeal;
• Failed to assist her after her landlord start the process to evict her due to rent arrears; and
• Failed to respond to her communications.
2. As a result of these failings, rent arrears have accrued and her landlord has served a notice to quit, causing worry and stress. In addition, Miss X has suffered distress and anxiety as a result of the lack of support and the Council’s poor communication.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. The Council has considered three homelessness applications for Miss X. Miss X requested a review of its decision about the first application, and the Council reversed its original decision. This means Miss X therefore did not get the opportunity to appeal to the county court. Therefore, I have investigated the complaint about that application. In relation to the second application, the Council did not send Miss X a written decision, with information about her review and appeal rights. Therefore, Miss X did not have the opportunity to ask for a review or to appeal that decision, and I have investigated her complaint about that application.
7. 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)
8. Miss X asked for a review of the Councils decision on the first application in October 2020, and it reversed its decision in November 2020. She complained to us in January 2022, which is more than 12 months later. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate the events from September 2020 onwards because I recognise this was a stressful period for Miss X during which her focus was on resolving her housing situation and there was no undue delay in complaining to us. I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence available to make a robust decision and provide a worthwhile remedy.
9. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
10. If we are satisfied with a council’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

11. I considered:
• the information provided by Miss X and the Council;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
12. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on two draft decisions and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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. Under section 184 of the 1996 Act, if a housing authority has reason to believe a person applying to the authority for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, the authority must make such enquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself whether they are eligible for assistance. If so, it must identify what duty it owes and provide them with a decision in writing.
15. A person will be homeless if it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation (Section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996).
16. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance:
• 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.

Personalised housing plan (PHP)

17. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). PHPs should be kept under review. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11)

Interim or emergency accommodation

18. Section 188(1) of the 1996 Act says if the Council thinks someone may be homeless and in priority need, it must, if the person asks for it, provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application.  Examples of priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• people with serious health problems;
• some elderly people.

Domestic abuse

19. At September 2020, the Homelessness Code of Guidance said:
• Domestic violence or abuse is “domestic” in nature if the perpetrator is a person who is associated with the victim. It is not limited to physical violence or confined to instances within the home.
• Domestic abuse can include psychological abuse, for example, intimidation and threatening to harm children or take them away, and emotional abuse, for example, swearing or undermining a person’s confidence or independence.
• It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence or other violence against the applicant or someone who normally lives with them. The term “violence” here should be understood to include physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour, and any other form of abuse which directly or indirectly may cause harm.

Ending the housing duty

20. In order to end the duty councils will usually make an offer of suitable permanent accommodation. This can be private rented accommodation. The accommodation must be suitable for the applicant and their household. Suitability includes being affordable for them.

Review and appeal rights

21. Most housing decisions should be confirmed in writing, and applicants have the right to ask for a review of the decision. If the person is unhappy with the outcome of a review, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.

What happened

22. Miss X contacted the Council in early September 2020, after fleeing domestic abuse in another council’s area with her children. (I will call this Council B). She said it was not the first time she had fled domestic abuse from the family member concerned and had spent some time in a refuge following previous abuse.
23. The Council was satisfied she was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need, and it therefore owed her a duty to assist her to relieve her homelessness (the relief duty). It issued a personalised housing plan (PHP) in which it advised her to look for private rented accommodation and provided information and advice about how to find such accommodation.
24. Miss X did not ask for emergency accommodation because she was staying with a family member and was able to continue to do so in the short term.
25. The Council made enquiries, including contacting Council B and the police in Council B’s area. Its enquiries focussed on the specific incident that led Miss X to leave Council B’s area.
26. After considering the information it received, the Council wrote to her on 24 September 2020 to say it did not owe her a housing duty. It said:
• she was not homeless because she had accommodation in Council B’s area that she was entitled to occupy and was available to her; and
• her housing officer at Council B would assist her to make the property safe if there were concerns.
27. Miss X instructed a solicitor, who asked the Council to review its decision. She also made some enquiries of her own with the police, housing and social services in Council B’s area. Her solicitor sent their responses, with additional background information, to the Council to consider when reviewing its decision.
28. Miss X also made a formal complaint. The Council responded in October 2020. It did not uphold her complaint. It said her housing officer had been in regular contact with her, and their manager responded when she raised concerns. It had decided it did not owe her a duty and closed its case. It noted Miss X had asked for a review of that decision, which was being considered.
29. The Council issued a review decision in late November 2020, which overturned the original decision. The reviewer:
• noted the housing officer had not made enquiries about all relevant aspects of her situation and had not considered all relevant parts of the law;
• considered the additional information provided; and
• concluded Miss X was homeless because it was unreasonable for her to continue to live in her former home.
30. On the same day, the Council agreed to arrange emergency accommodation for Miss X and her children.
31. The Council reallocated the case to the original housing officer, which Miss X raised concerns about. The Council said the housing officer was familiar with the background and they had spoken to their manager about the reasons the original decision was overturned so there was no need to reassign the case.
32. The Council again advised Miss X to look for private rented accommodation. It said:
• she should look for properties where the rent was no higher than the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) as the maximum housing benefit she could claim was the LHA for the area the property was in; and
• it would pay the deposit and one month’s rent in advance.
33. Miss X identified a property in Council C’s area and the landlord’s agent contacted the Council. The Council told them it would be paying the deposit and one month’s rent in advance, provided the property was affordable and the rent was within the LHA rate. The Council’s normal policy is to make it clear that it must confirm the tenancy was affordable, and that it would provide assistance with the deposit and rent in advance, before the applicant accepts the property. It accepts there was a misunderstanding about that in this case, which was partly due to a lack of clarity in its communications. Miss X signed the tenancy and moved in with her children.
34. The Council accepted there was no record it had checked whether the property was affordable. When it later did so, it identified the rent was £30 per week more than the LHA. It advised Miss X to apply to Council C for a discretionary housing payment (DHP) to cover the shortfall. Council C awarded this in February 2021 for the period from the start of the tenancy to the end of March 2021. Due to problems Council C was experiencing, payment was not made immediately. Miss X made a further application for DHP in September 2021 but had not had a decision on this by March 2022.
35. Between January and March 2021, Miss X pursued the Council for the deposit and one month’s rent in advance. Council records show it asked for additional information from her, which she provided in mid January 2021. In mid February Miss X asked for an update, at which point the relevant manager was asked to approve the payment. Miss X emailed the Council again on 3 March but it did not respond. On 22 April, the records state the manager noted Miss X had not contacted the Council about the payment for some time and closed the case.
36. In August 2021, after Miss X had not been able to contact the housing officer despite several attempts from March 2021 onwards, a family support worker made enquiries and discovered the case was closed.
37. In September 2021, Miss X complained again. The Council accepted the property was not suitable because it was not affordable for her. It said this should have been assessed before she moved into the property. It also accepted that no final decision was sent when the case was closed the second time. It apologised for its “poor service”.
38. Miss X remained unhappy and the Council considered the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. By this point, Council C had told Miss X that the property did not have appropriate planning consent, and her landlord had issued a Notice to Quit as a result of the rent arrears that had built up.
39. The Council accepted a fresh homelessness application. It said she was homeless because her current accommodation was not affordable for her and that it owed her a relief duty. It reviewed her housing situation and issued an updated PHP. It gave Miss X advice about LHA rates and where she could afford to rent in London as well as general advice about avoiding the benefit cap and finding private rented accommodation.
40. The Council responded to the stage 2 complaint in January 2022. It said “overall” it upheld the complaint. In particular, it said:
• it agreed the homelessness application had not been handled correctly and communication had been poor;
• no formal decision was issued when it ended its duty to assist her, which meant she had no chance to ask for a review of the decision to close the case;
• £3174.30 of the rent arrears was due to its non-payment of the deposit and one month’s rent in advance, although a further £2,210.85 had accrued because Miss X had not paid sufficient rent, despite receiving benefits, including a DHP from council C;
• the lack of planning consent for the property meant there was a strong likelihood the landlord’s claim for rent arrears would be thrown out by the courts. However, if the court did grant a possession order it would consider paying the £3174.30 directly to the landlord.
41. It apologised and offered to pay Miss X £300 for its errors, the distress these caused and her time and trouble pursuing the matter. Miss X refused the payment and complained to us.
42. In March 2022 Miss X moved into private rented accommodation and the Council discharged its relief duty on that basis.

My findings

43. The Council initially accepted a homelessness application and confirmed it owed a relief duty. It did not need to provide emergency accommodation because Miss X was able to stay with a family member for a short period. There was not fault at this stage.
44. It was clear from the information Miss X provided at the outset that the domestic abuse was not confined to the incident that led her to flee Council B’s area and the Council should not therefore have confined its enquiries to that incident. On review, the reviewing officer concluded the housing officer had not considered all relevant aspects of the case nor all relevant tests required by the law. This was fault but the injustice caused by that fault was remedied by the overturning of the original decision at the review stage.
45. Shortly after the review decision, Miss X found a private rented property that she considered suitable as the rent was within the LHA rate for the area. The Council accepts it failed to assess whether the property was affordable and that was fault. It also accepts there was confusion over whether it would pay the deposit and first month’s rent in advance, which was further fault. There was then a delay in considering Miss X’s application for support with the deposit and first month’s rent in advance between mid January, when Miss X provided confirmation Council C would pay a DHP, and April 2021, when the Council decided not to assist on the mistaken basis that Miss X had not been pursuing it. This was further fault.
46. The failure to assist with the deposit and a month’s rent in advance meant that Miss X was in arrears with her rent from the very start of the tenancy. In addition, since the property was not affordable and she has not received a DHP to cover the shortfall since March 2021, the arrears increased over time, resulting in her landlord starting the process to evict her. This meant she became homeless again and faced the upheaval of a further move with her children. On balance, if she had known the property was not affordable, she would not have moved there and would not have accrued rent arrears.
47. The Council also failed to write to Miss X to formally end the relief duty after she moved into the private rented accommodation. This fault meant she missed the chance to ask for a review of its decision.
48. The Council offered to pay Miss X £300 for the injustice caused by the above faults, which she did not accept. I am not satisfied this was sufficient for the injustice caused.
49. In my first draft decision, I recommended a payment based on the period from December 2020 when Miss X first accepted the tenancy. In light of the Council’s comments I accept that Miss X received DHPs from Council C until March 2021, which meant the property was affordable, and therefore remedied any injustice between December 2020 and March 2021. Miss X has not had a decision from Council C in respect of her later claim and suffered the anxiety and uncertainty of being in a tenancy that was not affordable from March 2021 onwards. The arrears that resulted led directly to her being threatened with eviction.
50. The Council accepted a further homelessness application in November 2021, following which it gave appropriate advice about where Miss X could afford to rent and about action she could take to avoid being affected by a benefit cap. It issued a fresh PHP, which it kept under review. It ended its duty in March 2022 after Miss X moved into suitable privately rented accommodation. There was no fault in the way it handled the homelessness application from November 2021 onwards.

Back to top

Agreed actions

51. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will apologise to Miss X for its failure to:
• make appropriate enquiries about her circumstances initially;
• assess whether the private rented property she had identified was affordable for her;
• the inadequacies in its communication about assisting with the deposit and one month’s rent in advance, and its later delay in dealing with the application for that support;
• its failure to send a formal decision letter ending its relief duty in early 2021.
52. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• pay Miss X £1,800 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by these faults. This is based on £150 per month for the 12 months (to March 2022) when she was in unsuitable accommodation and is in line with our guidance on remedies.
• It should also write to her to confirm that, if the landlord succeeds in their claim for rent arrears, it will pay the deposit and one month’s rent arrears amounting to £3174.30 within one month of her providing evidence to that effect and pay any shortfall in rent not covered by DHP payments by Council C within one month of receiving information to confirm the amount of the shortfall.
53. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
• Remind relevant staff of its Homeless Prevention Fund process and, in particular, the need to clearly advise applicants they must not enter any binding agreements or pay any money without confirmation the Council will pay the deposit and any rent in advance; and
• Remind relevant staff of the need to ensure that appropriate checks are carried out before ending the relief duty, including checking that private rented accommodation is affordable, and the need to ensure that the decision to end the duty is confirmed in writing, including information about review and appeal rights.
54. It will provide us with evidence it has taken these actions within this timeframe.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have remedied that injustice and recommended action to prevent recurrence of the faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman