Summary: The Council’s delay progressing a statutory homelessness review it agreed to complete as a remedy to a previous complaint to us was fault. The review found that Ms X’s accommodation was unsuitable. The Council has already identified a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused Ms X. The Council has also agreed to apologise, make payments to Ms X and Mr Y and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. In a previous complaint, the Council agreed to complete a statutory review of its decision to end the main housing duty to Ms X within four weeks. We issued our final decision in July 2023. We started this investigation because it did not complete the review until November 2023.
2. This caused Ms X and her representative, Mr Y, further avoidable distress and frustration.

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 spoke to Ms X’s representative, Mr Y, about the complaint.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
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 organisation 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 reviews

9. 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. 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, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
11. 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 reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
12. Councils must complete reviews of decisions about the suitability of accommodation and ending homelessness duties within eight weeks of the review request. This can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
13. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Our previous decision

14. On 21 July 2023, we made a final decision on a complaint with reference 22015039. We found the Council failed to act on Ms X’s request for a statutory review of its decision to end its main housing duty to her.
15. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X by this fault. The Council agreed to complete a statutory review of its decision to end its main housing duty to Ms X within four weeks. The deadline to complete the review was therefore 18 August 2023.

What happened

16. Mr Y contacted the Council on 9 August 2023 to ask about the review. In response to my enquiries, the Council said this is the first time its review team knew about the review.
17. The next day the Council asked Ms X to provide information about her income and spending. Ms X said she needed help from Mr Y to do this. Ms X sent the Council the completed form on 17 August. The Council says this email went into a “junk” folder and so it did not receive it. As a result, the Council chased Ms X for the completed form on 21 August. In that email, the Council recognised that the review decision was due on 18 August. It suggested an extension to 18 September.
18. On 22 August, the Council asked Ms X for information about her rent and more information about the damp, mould, and cold she complained of in the property. The Council acknowledged that the email of 17 August had gone into a junk folder which is why it had chased Ms X on 21 August. The Council asked Ms X to provide evidence of her spending on heating and pictures of the damp and mould. Mr Y sent the Council copies of Ms X’s gas and electricity bills to demonstrate her spending on heating.
19. Mr Y then contacted the Council’s complaints team about the delay completing the review. The Council said it was waiting for Ms X or Mr Y to provide the requested information to complete the review. In an email on 7 September, Mr Y said he refused to provide any more information for the review because of the Council’s failure to meet the deadline.
20. On 8 September, Ms X sent the Council, but not the review officer, pictures showing a recent leak into her property.
21. Following extensive correspondence with Mr Y throughout September, the Council suggested arranging a meeting with Mr Y and Ms X. This meeting took place on 13 October 2023. The Council’s note of this meeting says it accepted it was at fault for delay contacting Ms X about the review in July and then missing the information sent in August.
22. On 16 October, the review officer said the Council could not complete the review without the information Ms X and Mr Y had not yet provided.
23. Mr Y provided further information to the Council in late October and early November.
24. The Council completed the review on 15 November 2023. The review found that Ms X’s accommodation was not suitable because of an ongoing issue with damp, mould, and a leak. This meant the Council could not end its main housing duty to Ms X.

My findings

25. As the Council has already accepted, its failure to take any steps to progress the review before Mr Y made contact on 9 August was fault. We made our recommendation on 21 July and the Council should have started the review then. Mr Y should not have needed to chase the Council for the review to start. This was fault and caused Mr Y avoidable frustration, which is an injustice. The Council has also accepted fault for missing the information Ms X provided on 17 August. These faults significantly delayed the progress of the review, which is an injustice to Ms X.
26. However, once the Council started the review, it acted promptly to seek information from Ms X. Ms X and Mr Y contributed to the delay by refusing to provide further information throughout September and early October. I have taken this into account in my recommended remedy.
27. The review found that Ms X’s accommodation is not suitable. This means the Council continues to owe her the main housing duty. In my enquiries, I asked the Council to tell me what it intended to do to remedy the injustice to Ms X arising from this. The Council said although she asked for a review in September 2022, the first time Ms X told it about the damp and mould was March 2023. It therefore proposed to pay Ms X £150 a month from March 2023. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies and is a suitable remedy for the injustice to Ms X from March 2023.
28. I cannot say, even on balance, whether the issues of damp and mould Ms X complained of existed before March 2023. However, this uncertainty is an injustice to Ms X, which the Council should remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. To remedy the injustice 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 Mr Y £150 in recognition of his avoidable frustration and time and trouble
• Pay Ms X £200 in recognition of the impact of the Council’s delay progressing the statutory review.
• Pay Ms X £500 in recognition of her avoidable uncertainty
• Pay Ms X £150 a month from March 2023 until the Council provides alternative suitable accommodation or otherwise ends its main housing duty to Ms X.
30. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
31. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Identify and implement a way of ensuring the actions agreed in an Ombudsman investigation are progressed promptly following a final decision.
• Ensure the Council tells the Ombudsman in response to draft decisions if it will not be able to complete any recommended actions within the suggested timeframe.
32. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I have completed my investigation. There was 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