Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Miss B’s housing problems. It properly considered her circumstances. There was no fault in how the Council decided her house was not dangerous, or in how it ended her entitlement to interim accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss B and her partner, Mr Y complain about how the Council handled their housing problems. In particular they say the Council:
• Did not properly assess whether their home was habitable when they asked for help in 2019;
• Did not take into account that they cannot afford the mortgage, to address the arrears or to fund the repairs and refurbishment needed;
• Terminated the interim accommodation and did not wait until they had the money to pay for the removal of their belongings from storage to their home. This meant that Miss B had to get a social fund loan;
• Did not alter its position when the boiler was decommissioned in July 2020, leaving the family without heating or hot water to date;
• Did not carry out any of the work, or help with advice or grants to allow them to do this; and
• Refused to enter them onto the housing register as it says they are adequately housed.
2. Ms B and Mr Y say as a result of the Council’s failings, the family are living in an uninhabitable house with no heating gs hot water.

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. 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

5. I considered the information provided by Miss B and Mr Y and discussed the issues with them. I considered the information provided by them and by the Council, including case file documents, correspondence, house inspection reports and photographs. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties have had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

The law and policy

6. 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.
7. A person is to be considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
8. The Code says there is no simple test of reasonableness and authorities should judge each application on the facts of the case (Code 6.23). But in determining reasonableness, authorities may have regard to general housing circumstances in the area. Therefore, authorities may consider it reasonable for an applicant to be housed in relatively poor conditions if that is the norm locally. For this reason, statutory overcrowding or unfitness are not guarantees that it is unreasonable to occupy in terms of the Act, although they would be relevant factors for the authority to consider. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraph 6.23)
9. The Code says that affordability of accommodation must be considered in all cases. The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 requires the authority to consider the affordability of the accommodation for the applicant. In particular, authorities must take account of the costs of the accommodation, and the applicant’s financial resources and other reasonable living expenses. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraph 6.23)
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. The Council’s housing allocation scheme says, ‘people who are homeowners…will not qualify for the housing register’. (Bedford Borough Allocation Scheme)

What happened

13. Miss B lives with her partner, Mr Y and her three children, a teenager in higher education, a school age child and a baby. Miss B owns her home with her ex-husband with whom she has no direct contact. She works, but Mr Y does not, and they are on means tested benefits.
14. The house is in disrepair. A potential buyer’s survey in July 2019 says the roof is a major concern and there is structural damage and leaking due to neglect, with water under the felt of the flat roof, and damp in the property. The survey also says that the electrics are unlikely to meet today’s standards, and the staircase moves.
15. Miss B and Mr Y approached the Council for help, wanting to be rehoused. The Council interviewed the couple in August 2019. The Council advised Miss B that the disrepair at the property was unlikely to mean it would class them as homeless. The Council took details of the family income and expenditure and advised that they should review how they were dividing the income between them, if Miss B was to afford the mortgage. The Council also told Miss B that if she sold the house and rented privately, it may be able to help her with rent in advance and a deposit.
16. The Council considered the survey and its Environmental Health team visited the house. The Council’s file notes show that it did not access the roof to do a full survey but otherwise, could not add to the private survey that it had on file. The notes show that it explained to Miss B that the repairs were her responsibility. It said that even if the Council rehoused her it would be because the house was dangerous, and then only while the repairs were ongoing. Miss B told the officer she did not want the house to be repaired and she could not afford the repairs or to take legal action to require her ex-husband to sell the house. She wanted the Council to rehouse her.
17. Miss B and Mr Y made a homeless application. They were supported by a housing advocate who said that it was not reasonable for them to live in the house as it was in such a poor state. The advocate also said Miss B had complex debt problems and would be referred for specialist help. The Council asked the family for various documents, including details of their income and expenditure.
18. Bad weather was predicted and so the Council offered the family some emergency accommodation which they refused. The Council made a referral to social services to safeguard the welfare of the children.
19. The Council’s building control team then visited the house to assess whether the disrepair meant it was dangerous. The Council’s notes say the officer viewed every room and the staircase and noticed a number of cracks at high level to the ceiling and adjacent to the windows. In the stairway, plaster was coming away from the walls. The Council decided the property was not unsafe or imminently dangerous, based on the visits by environmental health and building control. It wrote to Miss B to tell her that she should take steps to stop further deterioration, and to warn that if the house did deteriorate such that it became dangerous, the Council could take court action or do works to recover the costs from her.
20. The Council decided then that the family were homeless and it owed them a duty to secure housing. The Council agreed a Personal Housing Plan with Miss B and Mr Y. This said that they could stay in interim accommodation while the Council considered whether the family could return to the house. The Plan says the Council will let them know if they decide a further survey is necessary. Miss B put their main belongings into storage arranged by the Council. The Council’s case notes say the Council made it clear at the time the family moved to the interim accommodation, that it may consider moving them back to Miss B’s house if it was safe.
21. The Plan also says Miss B will get two valuations of the house and noted she was paying the mortgage and they were not at risk of eviction. The Council was awaiting a quote from a builder to clarify the remedial work required and would establish what Miss B’s ex-husband intended to do about the property. At that stage, the Council also made another referral to social services. This includes that the Council might find the family are not homeless and will be required to move back to the property which has no heating or hot water.
22. However, the file correspondence between the Council’s housing, environmental health and building control teams show it reconsidered whether a full survey was necessary, and decided it was not.
23. The Council decided that this meant the family could live in Miss B’s house and its duty to help with their housing had ended. It wrote to Miss B on 1 November 2019 to confirm this. The Council told Miss B she would need to move out of the interim accommodation by 4 November.
24. Miss B asked the Council to review its decision. Their housing advocate wrote in support of the review. He said the Council had not considered whether the family could afford to stay in the home because they could not afford the repairs, or whether it was a risk to their health.
25. Miss B asked the Council for more time to move from the emergency accommodation as she would need to arrange a removal van to take the furniture out of storage. The Council allowed a further two weeks and referred Miss B for a social fund loan to cover the cost of the removal. Miss B said she had no choice but to accept this, but if the Council had given her a further week she would have been able to avoid getting the loan. She used the loan to arrange the return of furniture. Miss B and Mr Y complained the storage centre’s removal staff piled all the furniture up in one room and damaged items. The Council told them that this was a matter it would have to resolve with the storage company and it had not instructed them to do that.
26. By this time Mr Y had made a formal complaint to the Council. He complained about the unprofessional conduct of the housing assistance officer that had interviewed them in August. He also said the building control officer had only taken two or three photographs and within five minutes had made up her mind. Mr Y said he disagreed with the Council’s decision that they can return to the house and wanted to stay in the emergency accommodation while the Council reconsidered this. He complained that the Council had made a referral to social services, and also said that Social Services do not want them to return to the house as it is uninhabitable. The Council’s final response to Mr Y’s complaint was made on 29 November 2019. This says:
• The interview notes do not support that the housing officer was unprofessional, and the questions she asked about their finances were necessary and relevant.
• The Council had a legal duty to alert social services as there were concerns about the welfare of children. The referral was appropriate because Mr Y had said the house was not safe but had also refused emergency accommodation.
• The Council has investigated whether the house was unsafe and found that it was not, but that it did need significant repair work. This meant they had no entitlement to emergency accommodation and the Council was correct to ask them to leave.
• The Council gave them adequate time to move back to the property. If the removal company or the charity that also helped them damaged belongings, then Mr Y should raise the matter with them.
• The Council will liaise with social services, but Mr Y should contact them directly if he needs assistance.
27. The Council was progressing the review request but Miss B then withdrew this. She told the Council she had only made the request to ensure that she could stay in emergency accommodation for longer but they had been forced to leave.
28. The Council had no further contact with the family until November 2020. Mr Y told it the boiler had been condemned in July 2020 and they had no heating or hot water. The Council made a referral to Social Services the same day. It told Mr Y that he may be able to get financial help from energy trusts to replace or repair the boiler.
29. The Council said that to be found homeless now, the Council would need to see that there had been a material change in their circumstances. The Council’s building control visited the house but again concluded that although the house was in a state of disrepair and had deteriorated, it was not dangerous and the Council could not take any action. The case notes show the Council also liaised with Social Services who advised that while the house was in a poor condition, they did not have actual safety concerns.
30. The Council advised them that they were not eligible to be added to the housing register because Miss B owned their home.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss B and her family?

31. The family is in a very difficult situation. They are on a low income, in a house that all parties agree is in a poor condition, and which Miss B jointly owns with an ex-partner with whom she has no contact. However, overall, there was no fault by the Council.
32. The decision that it was reasonable for the family to live there, is for the Council’s homelessness officer to make, and the conclusions of the environmental health and building control teams are factors to take into account. The Council also took into account that Miss B could access help with the boiler from her energy company and had help to do so; they still had an electric shower for hot water and washing and electric heaters; and that Social Services although supportive of a move, had no immediate safety concerns about the house. The Council properly considered all the relevant circumstances when it decided the poor condition of the home did not make it unreasonable for the family to live there.
33. The Council also had to consider the affordability of the accommodation. The Council properly considered Miss B and Mr Y’s financial situation in terms of being able to afford the mortgage, and made suggestions to improve this. The Council arranged for her energy company to cover the cost of the boiler and understood Miss B was seeking specialist debt advice. The Council’s approach was that Miss B should explore the cost of the repairs and how these might be funded, although I accept that on a low income, the options for funding repairs might well be limited.
34. The Council properly considered all the relevant factors in reaching its final position that Miss B was not homeless and was no longer entitled to emergency accommodation. Ultimately, the statutory review was the mechanism to challenge whether the Council had a duty to house the family because the property was in poor condition and Miss B could not afford the repairs or to keep up with the mortgage payments. When Miss B requested the Council review its decision, her specialist advocate pointed out that she could not afford the repairs to the property, and this meant that it was not affordable for her to continue to live there. However, Miss B withdrew her request before the Council could review its decision. This was not fault by the Council.
35. I can see that Miss B and Mr Y had originally understood the Council would rehouse them and so put their belongings in storage. I cannot see that the Council gave them this false expectation. The Person Housing Plan is clear that the Council was offering emergency accommodation while it explored further whether the family could live in Miss B’s house.
36. The Council gave Miss B and Mr Y sufficient time to move from the emergency accommodation. I appreciate that they had to get a social fund loan to cover the cost of returning the furniture. However, the loan is interest free and if Miss B was going to fund this a week later when she got paid, she would then have the funds to pay off the loan. Getting the social fund loan did not disadvantage Miss B. The Council was not responsible for how the furniture was delivered or any damage to it.
37. The Council’s case notes are clear that it properly reconsidered the situation when it learned the boiler had been decommissioned. The Council’s building control team visited the house again but still did not find it so bad that the family could not live there.
38. The Council has separate powers where a property is structurally dangerous. The Council decided that it was not, but that Miss B should take steps to stop it from deteriorating further.
39. In reaching its decision, the Council took into account the professional opinion of its environmental health and building control teams. Officers from both teams reached their decision based on visits to the property. The Council also took into account the private survey submitted by Miss B, although it could not verify the qualifications of the surveyor.
40. Miss B and Mr Y have complained that the Council’s Building Control surveyor did not properly inspect the house. But this officer is a senior member of staff with the correct qualifications and experience, and the Council’s notes state they inspected every room, and was able to describe the condition of the property.
41. The Council acted within its housing allocations policy when it decided Miss B could not join the housing register.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman