Summary: Mr B complained about the way in which the Council dealt with his housing situation when he became homeless. We found some fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £200 and improve its complaint handling for the future.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Leeds City Council (the Council) in respect of his homelessness situation, failed to:
• take any effective action between February 2021 (when Mr B informed the Council his landlord has issued a section 21 notice) and January 2022 when Mr B received a possession order;
• provide suitable alternative accommodation before they were evicted in April 2022 and then offered interim accommodation in an unsafe area for them;
• provide suitable interim/temporary accommodation between April and July 2022;
• provide suitable (large enough) accommodation in July 2022;
• pay for the initial storage costs due to difficulties in contacting staff;
• provide details of available garages to alleviate the high storage costs Mr B is still paying; or
• approach Mr B’s case in a proactive manner or consider any suggestions such as purchasing the property they were being evicted from or building a bespoke solution as the Council has done for another family.
2. The situation has caused Mr B and his family significant distress and hardship and they are still living in unsuitable accommodation.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. 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

6. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

Homelessness

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]

Prevention duty

8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

Relief duty

9. 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)

Interim accommodation

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. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.

Main housing duty

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitability of accommodation

13. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them once the main housing duty has been accepted.

Protection of belongings

15. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Council’s lettings policy

16. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It assesses an applicant’s housing need and places them in one of four bands: A to D, with A being the highest priority. It also has a Band A+ category for those applications where a household has more than one distinct assessed need which falls into Band A.
17. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
18. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Council’s complaints procedure

19. The Council operates a two-stage procedure: It says Stage 1 is the first formal stage and its policy is to respond in full within fifteen working days of receipt. It also has an initial informal stage:

“Upon receipt of the complaint, our service will look at the issues contained within the complaint. We will look at whether we need to start a full investigation or if we could resolve the issue for you quickly. If we think we can do so, we may contact you to discuss this with you with the hope of resolving your issue.”  

What happened

20. Mr B was living in private rented accommodation with his wife, and six children, two of whom he and his wife look after as Special Guardians. He and his wife are also carers for elderly family members so have to stay within a particular area of Leeds. A dispute with another family member also restricted the areas they could live in. Mr B has a medical condition which affects his ability to use steep or deep stairs.
21. In February 2021 Mr B informed the Council that he had received a section 21 notice from his landlord and had six months to find alternative accommodation. The Council advised him to look in the private rented sector and apply to Housing Associations directly.
22. In March 2021 the Council awarded Mr B Band A priority on the housing register. Mr B felt he qualified for Band A+. The Council advised him to request a review of the decision on banding. It also spoke to the lettings agent to see if Mr B’s landlord would change their mind on the eviction. The landlord said they were selling the house so the eviction process would go ahead.
23. The Council advised Mr B that it did not have any five bedroom properties in its own housing stock and said he would have to find somewhere in the private rented sector. It said he could bid on large four bedroom properties and keep his Band A priority. It suggested one of Mr B’s children who was now 18 could make their own application for housing.
24. Mr B said he was looking every week for privately rented accommodation but there was nothing big enough in the right area. The Council referred Mr B’s case to the private rented team to intensify the support and said he could keep his Band A priority if he accepted a private sector property. It also said it could help with the costs of private rented properties.
25. In April 2021 it refused band A+ priority. It said he would only qualify for band B priority on medical grounds, and he was already in a higher band, so it would not improve his situation.
26. In October 2021 Mr B advised the Council the landlord had served a court notice. The Council repeated its advice for him to look in the private sector for a five bed property. It would help with the cost and Mr B could keep his Band A priority.
27. The possession hearing was held on 27 January 2022. The Court ordered possession to the landlord and Mr B was required to leave the property by 10 March 2022. The Council discussed a possible property. But Mr B pointed out it was in the area they could not live in.
28. Mr B’s MP contacted the Council to ask for more help for Mr B. The Council replied saying that Mr B’s areas of choice were very narrow, but it would provide financial assistance to secure a property in the private sector and Mr B could accept a property further afield and retain his Band A priority.
29. In February 2022 the specialist private rented sector team met with Mr B. They agreed he could restrict the area he was looking in due to his caring responsibilities but said rents in that area were often higher making affordable property scarcer. It identified two properties on Rightmove which Mr B applied for.
30. The Council offered him a property. Mr B rejected it as the steps were too steep for his medical condition and although there were enough bedrooms there was insufficient space for them all. The Council referred Mr B for an urgent medical assessment. It said apart from the steps, it considered the property was suitable and it could look at adaptations if he accepted it.
31. The medical assessment concluded Mr B needed a property with easy access such as a ramp or one to three steps, one flight of internal stairs and a walk-in shower.
32. On 25 February 2022 the Council increased Mr B’s property to Band A+ to reflect his cumulative housing needs, the threat of homelessness and the risk of the two children under special guardianship going into care. Officers liaised with Mr B’s local councillor, the kinship care team and the housing options team.
33. On 28 February 2022 the Council allocated a specialist caseworker to the case who took a homeless application and again tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with the landlord. The Council accepted a relief duty and issued a personal housing plan.
34. In March 2022 the Council sent Mr B a storage inventory form accepting it had a duty to store his belongings. Mr B found contact with the Council difficult and made his own arrangements. The Council agreed to pay the cost of Mr B’s storage. Mr B also requested linking two new-build houses together. The Council said it could not do this as they were being built by a separate organisation.
35. On 24 March 2022 Mr B made a formal complaint. The family were due to be evicted on 26 April 2022. He said the Council had refused to consider any of the options Mr B had put forward such as purchasing their existing property or creating a bespoke solution by knocking together two properties. It had only offered a property in an unsuitable area and a property which was too small and unsuitable for Mr B’s medical conditions.
36. Mr B’s MP intervened again and said the situation was becoming desperate. Mr B viewed a second privately rented property. The Council said it responded to his stage one complaint by telephone and agreed to pay six months’ rent in advance, but the agent rejected the offer. Mr B viewed another property but felt it was too small and only had one toilet . Mr B repeated his view that the Council was being inflexible and should provide him with a bespoke solution.
37. On 22 April 2022 Mr B and the Council found possible properties but the agents rejected the applications. On 24 April 2022 the Council offered the family some interim accommodation which Mr B reluctantly accepted. He did not consider it was suitable: it was in a bad state of repair, was too small and the stairs were too steep for him to get to the toilet or upstairs. He slept in the living room. The Council said he did not have a right of appeal until it became temporary accommodation (once the Council accepted a main housing duty to them).
38. On 6 May 2022 the relief duty ended, and the main housing duty started. The Council sent written notification advising Mr B he now had a right of appeal against the suitability of the accommodation.
39. In June 2022 Mr B found a property with a rent of £1800 a month. The Council said this was too high as it was double the local housing allowance eligibility. Later that month Mr B, with financial assistance from the Council secured a four bedroom property with a second reception room to be used as a bedroom, for a twelve month tenancy.
40. The Council said Mr B could bid for four bedroom properties on the housing register, keep his Band A+ priority and would not be penalised for refusing a four bedroom property.
41. Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two of the procedure. He questioned the suitability of the current property due to the access and steps. He asked again about knocking through two properties.
42. The tenancy started in July 2022. Mr B retains his Band A+ priority but has not found any more suitable accommodation. The Council responded to his complaint on 21 September 2022. It said it had done everything it could to find suitable accommodation for Mr B and would continue to do so. It would consider providing storage for Mr B’s mobility scooter.
43. Mr B complained to us. He said the Council were not proactive and were unwilling to consider any flexibility in providing them with suitable housing. He gave the example of another family in housing need where the Council had knocked together two new-build houses. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained the reasons why it had offered the other family two houses and how it differed from Mr B’s situation.

Analysis

Failed to take any effective action between February 2021 (when Mr B informed the Council his landlord has issued a section 21 notice) and January 2022 when Mr B received a possession order; and

Failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation before they were evicted in April 2022

44. The Council’s duty to take action under homelessness legislation started once Mr B was threatened with homelessness within eight weeks. Initially he was due to be evicted on 10 March 2022, but this was extended to 26 April 2022, so the Council needed to take a homeless application by 1 March 2022. The Council did so on 28 February 2022, so there was no delay here. It accepted the relief duty and sent him a personal housing plan.
45. Prior to this the Council had awarded Mr B Band A priority and offered advice and assistance since February 2021. This included offers of financial assistance to secure properties in the private sector. It could not offer any properties from its own housing stock as it did not hold any five bedroom properties. It also said it would allow Mr B to keep his Band A priority if he accepted a smaller property or a property from the private sector. I have not identified fault during this period.
46. The Council only carried out a medical assessment in February 2022 after it had offered Mr B a property in the private sector which he considered unsuitable. Given the amount of time the Council had known about his case I consider it should have carried out the medical assessment at an earlier point, so it was aware of the type of properties which would be suitable for him. This would have saved Mr B some time and trouble and raised expectations. However, I do not consider this would have altered the outcome in terms of suitable properties. I note the Council also awarded him Band A+ priority at this point but again I do not consider this would have altered the availability of properties, if this had been awarded sooner.
47. I accept the Council did not find a property suitable for all Mr B’s needs before the eviction. However, I have not identified any fault by the Council which caused this situation. It appears that no properties were available of the right size in the right area despite the efforts made by the Council.

Failed to provide suitable interim/temporary accommodation between April and July 2022

48. The accommodation provided by the Council just prior to the eviction was not suitable for Mr B and he could not safely access the toilet or the upstairs of the house. The Council says this was all that was available at that late stage. I agree the accommodation was not suitable but I have not been able to identify fault which led to this outcome.
49. As soon as the Council accepted the main housing duty, it notified Mr B of his right of appeal against the suitability of the property. It also continued its efforts to find more suitable accommodation, which was ultimately successful, resulting in Mr B's current accommodation in July 2022.

Failed to provide suitable (large enough) accommodation in July 2022

50. Mr B’s current property has four bedrooms and a second living room downstairs which can be used as a bedroom. The Council considers in terms of the number of rooms, it is big enough for Mr B’s needs. However, the Council has also recognised that it lacks the space of his previous accommodation including a garage and larger living areas and has allowed him to keep his Band A+ priority to keep searching for something bigger. I have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Failed to pay for the initial storage costs due to difficulties in contacting staff and failed to provide details of available garages to alleviate the high storage costs Mr B is still paying

51. The Council accepted the need to arrange and pay for Mr B’s storage. Mr B experienced difficulties in contacting his case worker at a crucial time to confirm the storage arrangements. This caused him some distress and time and trouble. But the Council agreed to pay for the storage he had arranged. Mr B was only left with a small amount to pay himself.

Failed to approach Mr B’s case in a proactive manner or consider any suggestions such as purchasing the property they were being evicted from or building a bespoke solution as the Council has done for another family

52. I understand Mr B considers the best option for him would have been a bespoke solution such as knocking together two new-build homes or purchasing a property. The Council has explained that it cannot do this in Mr B’s case and why his situation was different to the other household. I appreciate this is frustrating for Mr B, but I am satisfied he is not being treated unfairly and I cannot pursue this issue further as it relates to management of the Council’s housing stock which falls outside our jurisdiction.

Complaint handling

53. I note the Council says it responded to Mr B’s complaint orally at stage one and agreed further financial support as a result. I do not consider this is adequate response to a formal complaint and is not in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure. Even though the procedure allows for informal resolution I would expect at least notes of the conversation to be made. Neither did the resolution to provide further financial support address all the points in the complaint. This was fault which meant Mr B had to proceed to stage two.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. In recognition of the injustice caused by the delay in carrying out a medical assessment, the problems in arranging storage and the poor complaint-handling, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• pays £200 to Mr B; and
• reviews its complaint handling to ensure it keeps a written record of informal responses given at the early stage of the complaints procedure.
55. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman