Summary: The Council was at fault, because its contact with the complainant was poor at a time when she believed she was facing homelessness. The Council has agreed to apologise for this and offer the complainant a financial remedy, to reflect the frustration and distress she experienced. The Council was also at fault because it did not inform the complainant of her right to request a review, when it changed the size of properties she was entitled to bid for on the housing register. This did not cause her an injustice, but the Council has agreed to ensure it notifies applicants of this right in future. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs B.
2. The Council accepted the main housing duty for Mrs B in 2010, and since then it has provided her with temporary accommodation. Ms W complains:

• the landlord of Mrs B’s previous accommodation (Property 1) served an eviction notice on her in November 2022, but the Council delayed finding alternative accommodation for her;
• Property 1 had numerous disrepair issues, which caused ill-health to Mrs B and her family;
• Mrs B’s current accommodation (Property 2) is too small and also has disrepair issues; and
• the Council changed Mrs B’s entitlement on the housing register from a three-bedroom property to a one-bedroom property because her daughters were now over 21, despite the fact Mrs B continues to care for them for health reasons.

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. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mrs B’s complaints about the Council’s handling of the eviction notice and securing alternative accommodation, and about the change in her property size entitlement.
7. I have not investigated Mrs B’s complaint about disrepair in her previous property. This is because it is evident Mrs B was aware of this matter significantly more than 12 months before she complained to us in December 2023, which means it is a late complaint, as described at paragraph 4.
8. The law gives us the flexibility to disapply this rule where we consider it appropriate, but we must first be satisfied there are good reasons for a complainant’s delay in approaching us, and also that it remains possible to carry out a meaningful investigation.
9. Mrs B has not provided any reason for the delay, and I therefore cannot accept there was a good reason for it. And, even if I could, given Mrs B is no longer at that property, there is no practical benefit to an investigation by us now. For these reasons, therefore, I have not disapplied the time restriction on our jurisdiction for this complaint.
10. I have also not investigated Mrs B’s complaint about that her current property is too small and also has disrepair issues. This is because it did not form part of her complaint to the Council, and is therefore premature for investigation by the Ombudsman.
11. Mrs B also has a formal right to request a review of the suitability of her current property, if she feels it is too small, and we would expect her to use this before making a complaint about it.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I reviewed Mrs B’s correspondence with the Council, and sought the Council’s comments on several points.
13. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

14. The following chronology will describe only the key events relevant to this complaint. It is not intended to provide a detailed explanation of everything that happened.
15. Mrs B lives with her two daughters, both of whom are now adults. The Council has accepted the main housing duty for the family, and in 2010, it placed them in Property 1.
16. In November 2022, the landlord of Property 1 decided to end the Council’s lease on it and served Mrs B with a Notice to Quit. The notice required Mrs B to leave the property by 14 December.
17. On 19 December Mrs B’s friend, Ms W, submitted a formal complaint to the Council on Mrs B’s behalf. She listed the various efforts Mrs B had made to contact the Council about the upcoming eviction, including attending the Council’s office in person. However, Ms W said Mrs B had received no meaningful response to any of this, and had been given misleading advice about who was responsible for dealing with her situation. She also said an officer dealing with Mrs B’s case had made insensitive and inappropriate comments to her.
18. Ms W also complained that Mrs B had been told she could now only bid for one-bedroom properties through Council’s allocation scheme, despite the fact she was her daughters’ carer due to their mental health condition.
19. The Council responded to the complaint on 27 January 2023. It said the landlord had not informed it of the eviction proceedings, and so it was unaware of this before Mrs B had approached the Council. The Council apologised that Mrs B felt she had received a poor service, and said it would address the officer’s alleged inappropriate comments through her manager.
20. However, the Council said Mrs B was “not at risk of homelessness”. It explained it had an ongoing duty to accommodate her and that it was working to identify a suitable alternative property.
21. The Council also explained that, as Mrs B’s daughters were now over the age of 21, they would not be considered as part of her household under its allocation scheme. This meant that, as a single person, Mrs B was now only entitled to bid for one-bedroom properties. The Council noted Mrs B had said she was providing care for her daughters, and explained it could consider this if Mrs B completed and submitted a medical form.
22. Ms W then submitted a stage 2 complaint, and the Council responded again on 13 March. It acknowledged that Ms W disputed the Council had been unaware of the notice to quit, as she said the landlord had told Mrs B at the time it had also sent a copy to the Council. However, the Council explained its agreement with the landlord was that it communicate directly with its temporary accommodation team, which it had not done.
23. The Council also noted Mrs B’s complaint about the officer’s conduct, and said the officer’s line manager had addressed this, but explained that staff disciplinary matters were confidential.
24. The Council reiterated that Mrs B was not at imminent risk of homelessness. It noted a possession hearing was due to take place in court on 29 March, and said it was arranging for an officer to contact Mrs B to complete a suitability checklist, to ensure any alternative accommodation it offered was suitable for her.
25. The Council said Mrs B had bid for properties through its allocation scheme hundreds of times, and explained she should have been aware through this her bedroom entitlement had changed because her daughters were now over 21. The Council reiterated it could consider the family’s medical situation as possible grounds for an exemption to the scheme, but said Mrs B needed to complete the assessment form for it to do this.
26. I understand that, in March, the court adjourned the initial possession hearing for Property 1 to September. After the court then granted possession in September, the Council offered alternative temporary accommodation – Property 2 – to Mrs B in October, which she accepted. Mrs B and her family remain in Property 2.
27. The Council has also confirmed to us that, after Mrs B submitted the medical assessment form, it restored her entitlement to bid on three-bedroom properties in February 2024.

Back to top

Analysis

28. I will address the two points of Mrs B’s complaint I am investigating separately and in turn.

Delay in finding alternative accommodation

29. Mrs B complains the Council did not act promptly on the landlord’s decision to evict her family from Property 1.
30. I appreciate entirely the anxiety Mrs B felt upon receiving the Notice to Quit in November 2022, given its stated deadline of December. However, in the practical sense, the Council was correct to assure Mrs B this did not mean she was at imminent risk of homelessness. The Notice to Quit is only the first stage in the eviction process; if the tenant does not leave the premises by the given deadline, then the landlord must apply to the courts to gain possession, which is what gives the landlord the power to actually evict the tenant. And this can often take a long time, as happened in this case.
31. I note the Council said, in its stage 1 response, that it was working to identify suitable alternative accommodation for Mrs B. I therefore asked the Council to give me more information about this, to show what work it was doing at that time. The Council did not provide this information in its response to my enquiries, although it did acknowledge “[there] could have been better communication with [Mrs B] and her representatives during the intervening period between the issue of [Notice to Quit] and transfer to alternative accommodation.”
32. On balance, therefore, and even accepting I do not know exactly what the Council was doing to find Mrs B alternative accommodation before October 2023, I do not consider there was any definable fault in this respect. The fact is, once Mrs B received the Notice to Quit, the Council’s duty was to secure alternative accommodation for her before she became homeless – which it did. The fact this took a long time is therefore inconsequential.
33. Rather, the evidence shows the fault here was simply that the Council did not keep in adequate contact with Mrs B and/or Ms W during this period. I say this on the balance of probabilities, because it is the main thrust of Mrs B’s complaint to the Council, and because the Council has conceded so.
34. I consider this caused Mrs B an injustice, in the sense she was naturally distressed about the prospect of being homeless, and the Council’s failure to stay in touch properly exacerbated that distress.
35. Our guidance on remedies says:

“Our recommendation for a remedy [for distress] needs to reflect all the circumstances including:

• the severity of the distress;
• the length of time involved;
• the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant);
• whether the complainant or other persons affected are vulnerable and affected by distress more severely than most people; and
• any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.

“Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.”

36. Given, again, the paucity of information I have, it is difficult to define a length of time in this case. However, given the situation affected Mrs B and both her daughters, all of whom have some vulnerability, and that they were faced with a fear of homelessness, I consider a remedy of £500 to be appropriate here. I make a recommendation to this effect.
37. I also recommend the Council write formal letter of apology to Mrs B for the same reason.
38. I find fault causing injustice in this element of Mrs B’s complaint.

Change in Mrs B’s property size entitlement

39. Mrs B also complains the Council changed her entitlement on the housing register from three-bedroom properties to one-bedroom properties without telling her, because her daughters had turned 21. This was despite the fact she needed to continue caring for her daughters.
40. The Council has explained to me it does not proactively inform people when their bedroom entitlement changes for this reason. It says the rules are clearly explained in the published allocation scheme, and that the change should be obvious to any applicant who is actively bidding.
41. The Council has also explained that Mrs B’s entitlement changed twice – from three-bedroom to two in September 2022, and from two-bedroom to one in October 2023. On 8 July 2023, Mrs B submitted a medical form, which the Council assessed on 10 July. But, because Mrs B did not expressly ask for her bedroom entitlement to be considered in light of her daughters’ care needs, the assessor did not consider this. It was only upon reconsideration, in February 2024, that the Council restored Mrs B’s entitlement to three-bedroom properties.
42. At section 166A(9)(b) and (c), the Housing Act 1996 says:

“[An applicant] has the right to request the authority to inform him of any decision about the facts of his case which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation to him; and … has the right to request a review of [any such] decision…”

43. A change in bedroom entitlement is such a decision. While there is no explicit requirement in law for a council to notify an applicant their entitlement has changed, given that it attracts a right of review, we would expect the council to ensure they are aware of this right. It follows that councils should notify applicants when their entitlement changes.
44. The first change in Mrs B’s entitlement was in September 2022. This falls outside the period I can investigate, as explained in paragraph 4, and so I cannot make a finding on it. The second change, however, was in October 2023, and does fall into the investigable period. I therefore find fault for this reason.
45. However, although the Council did not directly notify her that she had the right to request a review, it is clear Mrs B was aware of the first change by December 2022, as it formed part of her stage 1 complaint. In response to that complaint, the Council clearly explained the reason for the change in entitlement, and informed her she could submit medical information, for it to potentially consider giving her an exemption.
46. This was not a review, in the strict sense, but it gave Mrs B the opportunity to present the reasons why she felt the Council should restore her three-bedroom entitlement, and in doing so it effectively served the same purpose. Mrs B then did submit a medical form, albeit the Council did not agree to provide an exemption at that point.
47. And, again, while the Council should have notified Mrs B when the second change happened, it had clearly explained the rules of the scheme in response to her complaint. For this reason I consider it reasonable to expect her to have been aware her entitlement was likely to change again, from two bedrooms to one, because of her daughter’s age.
48. Putting these points together, I do not consider the Council’s fault caused Mrs B an injustice. Although it did not directly notify her of the changes, as it should, I am satisfied it made her aware of the rules, and of her right to submit a form of review, in good time.
49. But, while I do not consider Mrs B suffered an injustice, I consider the Council should take steps to ensure it alerts applicants to their right to request a review of a change in their bedroom entitlement – which, in practice, means directly notifying them of the change. This is necessary for the Council to comply with the law.
50. I am not in a position to recommend precisely how the Council should implement this, although I acknowledge it may not be a straightforward procedural change to make. I will therefore recommend the Council consider and decide the best way to implement this change, and provide evidence – including a target date – to the Ombudsman. I make a recommendation to this effect.
51. I find fault which did not cause injustice in this element of Mrs B’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mrs B, acknowledging the frustration and distress she suffered because of its poor communications with her, when she believed she was facing homelessness. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice, and the Council should consider this guidance when writing to Mrs B.
• offer to pay Mrs B £500, to reflect her frustration and distress at the Council’s poor communications with her, when she believed she was facing homelessness; and
• consider and devise an action plan, including a target date, to implement a change to its procedure, to ensure it informs applicants on the housing register of a right to request a review if their bedroom entitlement changes.

53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman