Summary: Miss E complained how the Council dealt with her homelessness case. She says the interim accommodation it provided her with was subject to serious disrepair issues and officers were unsupportive and unprofessional. We find majority of Miss E’s complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it. For the remaining matters, we find the Council was at fault for its delay in responding to Miss E’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss E to address the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss E complained how the Council dealt with her homelessness case. She says it failed to use its homeless prevention fund to clear her rent arrears, it failed to consider the previous property she lived in was overcrowded and it unreasonably decided she was not entitled to a discretionary housing payment. She also says the Council failed to provide her with any support in finding accommodation under her personal housing plan and it unlawfully decided she was intentionally homeless.
2. Miss E adds housing officers were unsupportive and unprofessional, the interim accommodation the Council provided her with was subject to serious disrepair issues which it failed to resolve, and the Council failed to pay a deposit to help her secure privately rented accommodation.
3. Miss E says the Council’s actions have caused her and her family significant distress and upset.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated Miss E’s complaints in paragraph two of this statement from June 2021 onwards.
5. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons to do so. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. Miss E referred her complaint to us in June 2022, but her complaints in paragraph one of this statement refers to events from 2019 and 2020. I see no good reason why Miss E could not have bought her earlier concerns to us sooner, and so I have not exercised discretion to investigate them.
6. Miss E also could have appealed to County Court about the Council’s decision on her homelessness application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I considered information from Miss E. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
12. Miss E 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

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) 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. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
15. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person (this is the “relief duty”). This duty continues for 56 days, or ends earlier in some circumstances, for example if the applicant is no longer homeless as they have suitable accommodation available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. If a council has reason to believe a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority needs then it must provide interim accommodation for them.
17. Section 202 of the Act gives applicants a statutory right to request a review of decisions about intentional homelessness and ending the relief duty. It sets out the review procedure and timescales.
18. Section 204 gives an applicant who is dissatisfied with the section 202 review a right of appeal to County Court. An appeal must be brought within 21 days of the applicant being notified of the review decision. The Court may give permission for a late appeal if there is a good reason why it was not made in time.

Discretionary housing payments

19. The discretionary housing payments (DHP) guidance manual issued by the Department for Work and Pensions says councils may award a DHP where a council considers a claimant needs further financial support. This is towards housing costs. Eligibility depends on the applicant’s entitlement to either housing benefit or the housing cost element of universal credit. The scheme is purely discretionary, a claimant does not have a statutory right to a payment.

What happened

20. Miss E approached the Council for homelessness assistance in May 2019 after her private landlord started eviction proceedings.
21. The Council provided Miss E with interim accommodation in September while it assessed whether it owed her a main housing duty.
22. The Council assessed Miss E’s circumstances in November and decided she was intentionally homeless. Therefore, it said it did not have a duty to help her find accommodation. It said she would need to vacate the interim accommodation by January 2020.
23. Miss E asked the Council to review its decision on her homelessness application. The Council wrote to Miss E in March 2020 and said her appeal was unsuccessful. It told her if she believed the decision to be wrong in law, she could appeal to the County Court within 21 days. It told her to direct the appeal paperwork to its senior lawyer and legal department.
24. Miss E emailed the Council and said she disagreed with its response. The Council responded and said there was no further review, and it awaited her notice of appeal. It said she should send all correspondence about her appeal to its legal department.
25. Miss E emailed her disagreements with the Council’s response to its senior lawyer on 30 March, rather than the County Court. The lawyer did not respond.
26. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council agreed to let Miss E stay in the interim accommodation.
27. The management agent that was responsible for the day-to-day management of the interim accommodation contacted Miss E on 1 October 2021 and said she would need to leave by 18 October. Miss E contacted the Council on the same day and said it had not responded to her email of 30 March 2020. She also said it had not provided her details of the County Court.
28. The Council responded and said it would send her email to the correct department. Miss E responded and asked for more time to vacate the property.
29. The Council emailed Miss E later that day and said it made it clear in its letter from March 2020 she had a right to appeal to the County Court. It said she would need to find alternative accommodation.
30. Miss E said it was unclear where she should send her appeal to. It said the senior lawyer failed to respond or provide her with details for the County Court. The Council responded and said it provided the senior lawyer’s details so she could provide them to the County Court when she filed an appeal. It said it would extend her eviction notice from 14 to 21 days.
31. The Council has a scheme where it can provide financial assistance to residents seeking a privately rented property. Miss E contacted the Council’s housing supply team and said she required her deposit from the scheme. The team responded on 4 October and said for it to assist with paying a deposit she needed to find a property and complete a form. It would then allocate her case to one of its officers to complete an affordability and suitability check.
32. Miss E contacted the Council on 21 October and said she had approached a neighbouring authority (Council Z) for housing assistance. She asked if it would pay her a deposit if she received housing support from Council Z.
33. The Council responded and said her case was closed. It told her to contact her housing officer to seek advice.
34. Miss E emailed the Council’s housing supply team and copied in her housing officer. She said she required her deposit.
35. The Council sent an internal email to another officer and asked him to contact Miss E and help her find private sector accommodation.
36. Miss E contacted the Mayor of the Council on 22 October. She said officers had failed to provide any support. She also asked for her deposit.
37. Council Z took over the responsibility of Miss E’s case on 9 November.
38. The Council responded to Miss E’s complaint on 15 November. It said it decided she was intentionally homeless, and therefore it did not have a duty to house her. It said when she contacted the housing supply team in October 2021 for her deposit, she did not identify a property she was interested in. It said once she had identified a property, she could complete the form on its website. It would then assess her circumstances.
39. Miss E sent the Council an email on 22 November about how the housing officer dealt with her case. She also said it owed her a DHP.
40. Miss E sent the Council a detailed complaint on 4 February 2022 and outlined her case from 2019. She said it had failed to respond to her email from 22 November.
41. The Council responded to Miss E’s email from 22 November on 25 February. It said it rejected her DHP application on 30 January 2020.
42. The Council responded to Miss E’s complaint on 1 March and 4 April. It said the issues were more than 12 months old and it had nothing further to add to its previous response.
43. Miss E was dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in June.

Back to top

Analysis

44. Miss E says the interim accommodation the Council provided her with was subject to serious disrepair issues which it failed to resolve. She also said she had to deal with mice, mould, and damp. I have not seen any evidence Miss E raised with these issues with the Council from June 2021 onwards. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Council for not taking action.
45. The Council says tenants should first raise any property disrepair issues with the management agent. If the management agent fails to resolve the issues, then the tenant should approach the Council. The Council asked the management agent to comment on Miss E’s complaint. The management agent says Miss E reported a burst pipe and boiler issues in August 2021 and both problems were resolved within a few days.
46. With regards to the deposit, the Council provided Miss E with information on the process to follow in its email of 4 October 2021. I cannot see Miss E followed the Council’s instructions and completed the relevant forms, so therefore it could not assist her further.
47. Miss E says the housing officer did not respond to her email about the deposit. I accept the housing officer did not respond. However, I do not consider this caused Miss E a significant injustice as the housing supply team had already advised her on the process she needed to follow to secure a deposit.
48. Miss E says she was unaware her case was closed until 21 October 2021 and the Council failed to send her a closing letter. The Council was under no legal obligation to send Miss E a further closing letter. It issued its final decision on her homelessness application in March 2020. This made it clear it did not owe her a main housing duty, but she could contact the appropriate team for advice in securing alternative accommodation in the private sector.
49. The Council was at fault for its delay in responding to Miss E’s complaint. She made a further enquiry on 22 November 2021, but it did not issue a response until 25 February 2022. This is a three month wait. This delay caused Miss E frustration, and the Council should apologise for this.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 10 February 2023 the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss E for the frustration caused by the delay in responding to her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

51. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman