Summary: Ms X complains the Council placed her family in unsuitable accommodation and delayed addressing her complaint. We find fault which caused Ms X avoidable inconvenience, distress and frustration. The Council should apologise and make symbolic payments to Ms X to reflect the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council placed her family in unsuitable accommodation (outside London). She says the Council also did not address her complaint about its failure to correctly discharge its housing duties.
2. Ms X says her family now live far from their support network which has caused them distress, affected her children’s education and her work and benefit entitlement and she was inconvenienced trying to resolve her complaint with the Council.

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 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)
5. Ms X explained she did not request a review of the Council’s decision to discharge its housing duty. She said this was because of her limited command of English and she had lost confidence in the Council’s process. I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.
6. 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

7. I have considered information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her. I also made enquiries with the Council and considered its response and evidence provided.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. The relief duty comes to an end after 56 days. If the applicant’s homelessness has not been successfully relieved by then, the Council will owe them the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))
11. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (s.206 Housing Act 1996 and (from 3 April 2018) para 17.2 Homelessness Code of Guidance)
12. Before deciding to move a household out of the local housing authority area, the placing authority should undertake a suitability assessment. A local authority must consider the location, any affordability issues, disruption to employment, caring responsibilities, separation from support networks and education of the person and their household. (Paras 17.48 to 17.66, Homelessness Code of Guidance)
13. Councils should inform applicants accepting or refusing an offer of permanent accommodation, in writing of the outcome and any right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. (s.193 Housing Act and Para 15.41 Homelessness Code of Guidance)
14. A person who accepts permanent accommodation outside the local authority’s district can seek an internal review of the suitability of the accommodation. If the reviewing officer upholds the decision that the accommodation is suitable, a person can appeal to the County Court on a point of law. (s.202 (1A) Housing Act 1996).

What happened

15. The Council’s records (‘the records’) show:
• In June 2022, the Council accepted a homelessness relief duty to Ms X and her family. It also noted Ms X was open to being housed outside London in her personalised housing plan.
• The Council made efforts to find Ms X London properties. Ms X rejected one offer due to distance from her husband’s employment and another became unavailable after Ms X had placed a bid. Ms X also considered properties in other parts of the United Kingdom, but the Council was unable to secure these.
• In mid-September the Council referred Ms X to a third-party agency it uses to help source properties (Agent A). At the end of September, Ms X telephoned the Council and explained Agent A had shown her a property outside London (‘the property’) managed by Agent B. The records say Ms X told the Council she was accepting the offer, was due to move in a few days and requested financial help with the move.
• The Council arranged travel funds (train fare) for Ms X and her family. It also requested quotes for a van hire to move their belongings. The records do not show Ms X providing a quote by the move date. The records also do not show the Council undertaking any assessment of the suitability of the property prior to the move.
16. Ms X told me Agent A contacted her by telephone and sent photographs of a house which turned out to be for a different property. When she tried to obtain further details of the postal location, monthly rent, and closeness to amenities, Agent A were reluctant to offer the information. She said Agent A kept saying she had to accept the property and move, or she would not be considered for any further help by the Council. The Council’s records do not contain details of this contact as described by Ms X.
17. Ms X said she felt under pressure due to her personal circumstances. In early October, she travelled with her family to the new property. On arrival she met with Agent A’s representative. She discovered the property was much further from London than she had anticipated and different to the photographs she had seen. Ms X said she felt like she had no choice as she did not have the means to return to London and therefore signed the agreement.
18. The evidence shows, in early October:
• The Council realised the tenancy agreement was for supported housing with additional charges which the family did not require. This meant their housing benefit would not cover the additional costs and further restrict Ms X and her husband’s entitlement to working full-time.
• The Council considered the suitability of the new property in terms of location, bedrooms and furnishings. It also obtained necessary utility and energy performance certificates.
• The Council made further enquiries with Agent A who said the tenancy agreement would be corrected with Agent B and the rent lowered. However, it later changed course and said Agent B would try to find Ms X an alternative property. The records say Agent A then stopped responding.
• The Council then informed the new local authority that Ms X and her family had moved into its area, and it was therefore ending its housing duties and closed Ms X’s case.
19. Ms X said the Council had not resolved their situation. She therefore approached an advice agency. Ms X has provided evidence which shows the advice agency liaised with Agent B, who confirmed:
• Agent A had introduced Ms X and completed the sign-up process. This did not include any input from Agent B or the Council.
• Agent B was not aware of Ms X’s family situation, or they would not have accepted the application as Ms X and her family did not need supported housing.

Ms X’s complaint and the Council’s responses

20. In late March 2023, Ms X complained to the Council about the issues she has raised with us.
21. In its stage one response the Council said it had not forced Ms X to move. It was not aware she had already viewed and accepted a property when she contacted it in late September 2022 (paragraph 15) a few days before her move.
22. In its stage two response, the Council upheld its earlier position. It also explained it could not complete a suitability assessment prior to the move due to the short notice Ms X gave advising it of her plans.
23. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms X approached the Ombudsman in July 2023.

Council response to our enquiries

24. The Council has explained:
• It had found Ms X a suitable property to view through Agent A. However, Ms X decided to consider an alternative property with Agent A, which the Council was not aware of until Ms X advised of the move. This caused a lot of the subsequent confusion and did not allow the Council time to assess suitability until after she moved.
• Ms X willingly accepted an offer of permanent housing (outside London) and the Council considered the property was suitable. However, it accepts it closed Ms X’s homelessness case before complaints about the rental costs and relocation costs were addressed.
• It should have done more to find Ms X affordable accommodation after it became aware of the tenancy supported costs issue in October 2022. There was a delay (until August 2023- 9 months) in re-opening Ms X’s homelessness file. However, it has since been actively helping her family to try and find a suitable property.
• It is willing make a payment of £1200 to Ms X for the inconvenience, delay and distress caused until it reopened her homelessness file in August 2023. It is also willing to make a payment of £500 to cover the costs of her relocation from London.
• It does not have a contract with Agent A, and Agent A does not act on behalf of the Council. Agent A simply introduces applicants to private landlords and housing associations. In future it will be more stringent in its dealings with Agent A.
25. Ms X told me:
• The Council promised to provide a van on the move day. Instead, it told her to move, and her belongings would follow. However, the family’s belongings did not arrive which caused them inconvenience.
• The additional avoidable weekly costs to her family after her housing benefit entitlement was approximately £27 per week. However, Mrs X managed to resolve these payments through a backdated housing benefit claim with a legal advice agency.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The Council had a duty to help Ms X to secure accommodation under its homelessness relief duties as set out at paragraph 10 (above). The evidence shows the Council made continued efforts to try and find Ms X a property in London. The records also show Ms X was open to being housed outside London. The Council assisted with suitable enquiries but was unable to secure her preferred bids. I do not find any fault in relation to the way the Council addressed its housing duties at this initial stage of Ms X’s homelessness case.
27. The Council referred Ms X to Agent A to consider a specific property which it was satisfied was suitable. Ms X says Agent A told her about a different property and she felt pressured to accept it. Agent A was not acting on behalf of the Council when it told Ms X about the different property. I therefore cannot reach any conclusions about Agent A’s advice to Ms X, as we can only investigate actions taken by or on behalf of the Council.
28. However, the Council had a duty to assess the suitability of the housing Ms X was moving to, as set out at paragraph 11 and 12 (above). The records show Ms X told the Council she was accepting an offer of accommodation and the Council promptly arranged travel funds (paragraph 15). It has also told us it considered the property was suitable for Ms X’s housing needs (paragraph 24). However, in its stage two complaint response (paragraph 22), it said it could not complete a suitability assessment due to the limited time between Ms X informing it of the move and physically relocating. These are inconsistent accounts., The Council’s records also do not show any consideration of the suitability issue (including accommodation type and potential affordability) for Ms X. Based on the evidence, I find the Council failed to completely assess the suitability of Ms X’s permanent accommodation before ending its duty to her. This was not in line with the law as set out at paragraph 11 and 12 (above) and is fault which caused Ms X avoidable frustration and distress on discovering the additional rental costs.
29. The records show the Council became aware of the tenancy issue in October 2022 after Ms X moved in. The Council initially made enquiries of Agent A to try and resolve the situation but then closed Ms X’s homelessness case and ended its homelessness duty before addressing the housing costs and relocation support issues. The Council’s handling of Ms X's case at this stage was not in line with the Code (paragraph 11 and 12) and is fault. This meant Ms X and her family were left in housing with additional supervision and support costs which their housing benefit entitlement did not cover and which they did not need. It also limited Ms X and her husband’s right to work full time hours to support their family which caused them avoidable distress and frustration for longer than necessary.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. The Council has made an offer of financial payments to Ms X to address injustice caused which is welcomed (paragraph 24). However, this is a partial remedy, and I will make further provisional recommendations (below).
31. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:
• Write to Ms X and apologise for failing to completely consider the suitability of her permanent housing and the delay in reopening her homelessness case and any avoidable inconvenience, distress and frustration caused.
• Make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £1200 to reflect the inconvenience, frustration and distress caused by its delay in re-opening her homelessness case.
• Make a payment of £500 to Ms X towards the costs of her relocation.
• Make a symbolic payment of £150 to Ms X for her avoidable time and trouble in resolving her complaint.
• Provide staff dealing with homelessness applications a reminder of the Council’s statutory duties to assess the suitability of housing in homelessness applications.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I find fault which caused injustice to Ms X. I have made recommendations to address the injustice caused.
34. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman