Summary: The Council did not contact Ms X’s landlord and did not tell Ms X it would rehouse her a few days before deciding she was not homeless. However, Hthe Council failed to consider relevant information when making this decision. It took too long to deal with Ms X’s request for a review and provided conflicting information about complaints. These faults caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her homeless application and issues with her landlord. In particular, that the Council:
1. Contacted her landlord without her consent despite evidence this would put her at risk
2. Told her domestic abuse support worker that the Council would rehouse her but decided she was not homeless a few days later
3. Delayed progressing her request for a review of its decision she was not homeless and gave conflicting information about complaints and reviews
4. Failed to provide any support or advice to address her landlord’s conduct when she approached the Council in October 2022 about her landlord’s refusal to pass on the government energy rebate.
2. As a result, Ms X says she had to leave her property urgently, missed out an opportunity to move into refuge, and experienced harassment and poor conduct from her landlord.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homeless law and guidance

9. 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.
10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

11. Someone is homeless if they have accommodation but it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy it. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3)
12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
14. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. A decision that an applicant is not homeless carries a statutory right of review. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
15. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The review must be completed within eight weeks. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

What happened

16. Ms X contacted the Council in November 2022. She said she was at risk of homelessness because her landlord intended to increase her rent in January and she would not be able to afford this. She said her landlord had been intimidating and harassing her since she challenged him about his failure to pass on the government’s energy rebate in October 2022.
17. When she spoke to the Council, Ms X asked it not to contact her landlord while she was still living in the flat. She said she was sure this would lead to an escalation in the intimidation.
18. At the time, Ms X also had support from a domestic abuse charity due to a previous abusive relationship. Ms X has complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the abuse she experienced.
19. Ms X’s support worker at the charity told the Council that the landlord’s behaviour triggered Ms X’s PTSD and resulted in her feeling unsafe.
20. Ms X says her support worker told her, after speaking to the Council, that the Council would rehouse Ms X.
21. In December, the Council decided Ms X was not homeless. It wrote to her with its reasons. It said:
1. The landlord’s behaviour did not amount to harassment. That it triggered her complex PTSD was “not grounds the council can consider when assessing a homelessness application.”
2. The rent increase was invalid because the landlord did not provide it in the correct form.
22. Therefore, the Council was satisfied it was reasonable for Ms X to continue to occupy her accommodation. The letter set out the right to ask for a review of the decision.
23. Ms X sought a review in early January. Around the same time, she also moved out of the flat. She stayed with friends for a few weeks before finding a new private tenancy.
24. Ms X chased the Council for updates about her review in January and February because she had not heard from the review officer. In late February, an officer at the Council told Ms X that reviews and complaints were separate processes.
25. Ms X therefore made a complaint to the Council in March. She said the Council had contacted her landlord despite her asking it not to. She said the Council told her support worker it intended to house her and then decided she wasn’t homeless a few days later.
26. In response, the Council told her it had passed her complaint to the reviews team to deal with and closed her complaint.
27. Ms X was confused and sought clarification. The review officer advised she focus on the review as this would address most of her concerns.
28. In April, the review officer told Ms X that because she had since moved into new accommodation, the review was academic. The officer suggested she withdraw the review request and make a complaint instead. The review officer agreed to pass Ms X’s file to the complaints team.
29. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage one in late April. It said there was no evidence the Council had contacted Ms X’s landlord.
30. Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process. She said the Council had not dealt with all aspects of her complaint. Particularly, that it had decided she was not homeless a few days after telling her support worker it would house her.
31. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage two in June. It said there was no evidence the Council told Ms X or her support worker that she would be rehoused.

My findings

32. I will set out my findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Contact with the landlord

33. Ms X says the housing officer told her the Council would have to contact her landlord as part of the inquiries into her homeless application. It is likely the officer did advise something to this effect. However, there is no evidence the Council did contact the landlord.
34. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council.

Not homeless decision

35. Ms X says the Council told her support worker it would rehouse her. She says her support worker passed this on to her a few days before the Council wrote to her with its decision she was not homeless.
36. I made enquiries of the domestic abuse charity about this. It told me that the Council said it would consider housing Ms X but it had to assess and make a decision first.
37. There is no evidence that the Council gave Ms X conflicting advice or raised her expectations. I do not find fault with the Council.
38. Ms X says the Council’s decision she was not homeless failed to consider the impact on her of her landlord’s conduct. Specifically, that it triggered her complex PTSD.
39. In its decision letter, the Council said this was not something it could consider as part of its assessment of whether Ms X’s accommodation was reasonable for her to continue to occupy. This was fault. The Code says “There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances of the applicant.” (Homelessness Code of Guidance 6.23)
40. The Council should have considered whether the impact on Ms X’s mental health of remaining in the property was relevant to its decision about whether it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy it. Not to have done so was fault. I cannot say, even on balance, what the Council would have decided had it done so. However, this uncertainty is an injustice to Ms X.

Review and complaint

41. Ms X says the Council took too long to review the decision she was not homeless.
42. Ms X sought a review in early January 2023. The Council has eight weeks to complete reviews. This means the Council should have completed the review by early March. It did not do so until April. This delay of four weeks was fault.
43. In itself, this delay did not cause Ms X any injustice because she had already moved and was not homeless. However, had it completed the review sooner, the Council would have told Ms X it was academic and advised her to complain. The Council’s fault therefore delayed Ms X’s access to the complaint process, which is an injustice.
44. Ms X says the Council also provided confusing and conflicting advice about complaints.
45. In February, the Council told her reviews and complaints were separate processes. She therefore made a complaint in early March. However, when she did so, the Council closed her complaint and said it would be dealt with through the review process. The Council should have told Ms X which parts of her complaint would be addressed by the review and dealt with the rest as a complaint. Not to have done so was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable confusion and time and trouble which is an injustice.

Support and advice about landlord conduct

46. Ms X says she approached the Council for advice in October 2022 when her landlord failed to pass on the energy rebate to her. She says the Council told her to raise the matter with her landlord directly. It did not provide any support, despite knowing she was afraid of him and had already raised the issue.
47. The Council says it has no record of any contact with her about this before Ms X made a homeless application. In response to my enquiries, it pointed out that the government guidance on this issue says tenants should make a claim in county court if their landlord has not passed on the rebate.
48. Ms X provided contemporaneous evidence of messages she sent to other tenants at the time. These say she sought advice from the Council. I find that, on balance, she did seek this advice. The Council should have a record of this and not to is fault. As a result, I cannot say whether the Council should have provided more or different advice.
49. However, the correct process for Ms X to take was to make a claim in county court. There is, therefore, no injustice to Ms X from this fault.
50. I am concerned that the Council did not take any steps in relation to the invalid rent increase Ms X’s landlord sought to impose. Especially since the landlord rents out multiple flats in the same block. Good practice would have been to refer the matter to the Council’s private sector housing team. However, in the circumstances, not doing so does not amount to fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Ms X £250 in recognition of her avoidable uncertainty, distress, and time and trouble.
52. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
53. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff that when deciding whether accommodation is reasonable to continue occupy, officers can and should consider any relevant information or circumstances of the applicant.
• Review the advice and information available to staff responsible for dealing with complaints to ensure they can identify matters not subject to statutory homelessness reviews and so avoid delaying investigating complaints.
54. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. There was some fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman