Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. The Council had already accepted it was at fault for not allowing Miss X to join the choice-based lettings scheme and for wrongly deciding she was intentionally homeless. We also found the Council at fault for failing to update records promptly. However, we did not find the Council at fault for its response to reports about disrepair. But we found there is remaining injustice caused by the Council’s fault, in the form of distress, lost opportunity, and uncertainty, which the Council agreed to remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She said the Council failed to follow procedures, delayed, and its record keeping was poor. She also said there were issues with disrepair in her temporary accommodation. Miss X considers a gas leak in her temporary accommodation caused a miscarriage.
2. The Council accepted it denied Miss X access to the choice-based lettings scheme and wrongly decided she was intentionally homeless. It changed its decision and rehoused Miss X and her family. It also paid their storage costs while in temporary accommodation, paid a rental advance for their new home, and paid their removal costs. This totalled £1,613.93. The Council offered Miss X a further £450 as a goodwill gesture.
3. Miss X is not satisfied the Council fully remedied her complaint. She sought redress for the distress her family suffered because of the Council’s incorrect decision and delays. She said the Council’s failings resulted in her family having to sleep on sofas and stay in hotels, and stay in temporary accommodation longer than necessary. Miss X also sought a further £220 in storage fees, and £595.40 in hotel fees.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I investigated the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness application, its procedures, and its response to her complaints about disrepair.
7. Miss X considers a gas leak in her temporary accommodation caused a miscarriage. However, this is not something the Ombudsman can investigate or make findings about.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
9. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
10. Miss X 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

11. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

The prevention duty

12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants 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)

The relief duty

13. 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)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is in priority need and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days.  The Council must then complete inquiries promptly to decide whether it owes any further duty, such as the main housing duty.
15. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says councils should not have a blanket policy of ending the relief duty after 56 days where they have the discretion to continue it. They should take the applicant’s circumstances into account.
16. Where an applicant does not have a priority need, or they have a priority need but became homeless intentionally, councils should consider continuing the relief duty for longer.

The main housing duty

17. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Interim and temporary accommodation

18. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
19. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
20. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
21. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
22. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Housing allocations

23. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
24. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.
25. Under the Council’s housing allocations scheme, it will award an applicant a priority banding based on their circumstances and level of need. The Council places applicants who are homeless, and either owed the initial relief duty or the main housing duty, into priority Band A.
26. However, the Council can refuse to let an applicant join its choice-based lettings scheme if they have rent arrears above a certain level.

What happened

27. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
28. Miss X contacted the Council in April 2022 after receiving an eviction notice from their landlord due to rent arrears. Miss X said they had an agreement with the landlord that they did not have to pay rent at the relevant time, as they were going to buy the house. However, after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, they could not get a mortgage. The landlord allowed them to continue renting, but there were now arrears.
29. The Council asked Miss X for a copy of their tenancy agreement. Miss X said she could not find it, but it was a short-term agreement between the landlord and her partner.
30. The Council also asked Miss X to add her partner to her application to join the choice-based lettings scheme. Miss X said she understood she could not join due to her rent arrears. The Council confirmed Miss X was ineligible.
31. Miss X sent the Council a copy of a court possession order in May 2022. The Council awarded Miss X the relief duty on 20 May 2022.
32. The Council contacted Miss X in June 2022, asking if she heard from the landlord or the court. It said it had a duty to offer temporary accommodation (TA) if Miss X had nowhere to stay on eviction.
33. On 20 July 2022, Miss X told the Council they had nowhere to go from the next day and needed emergency accommodation. The Council placed Miss X, her partner, and their child in TA on 22 July 2022. This was bed and breakfast accommodation.
34. The Council received a call from the TA landlord on 1 August 2022 about a domestic incident between Miss X and her partner. The Council made a safeguarding referral.
35. The Council moved Miss X and her family into new TA on 12 September 2022. This was a two-bedroom flat.
36. Later in September, three residents from the building complained about a smell of cannabis from Miss X’s flat, and about Miss X and her partner shouting. The Council telephoned Miss X and her partner but got no answer, so sent them a message about the incident asking to discuss it.
37. After another report of anti-social behaviour, the Council sent Miss X a final warning letter on 4 October 2022. This explained they could lose their TA if the Council received more complaints.
38. Council officers visited Miss X and her partner on 7 October 2022. They said a guest smoked cannabis, so they asked them to leave. They denied arguing. Officers asked Miss X and her partner to keep noise to a level where it is not disturbing neighbours, and said visitors were their responsibility.
39. The Council tried to call Miss X’s partner about another report of anti-social behaviour on 14 October 2022. Then, on 20 October, the landlord of the TA told the Council there was a verbal altercation between Miss X’s partner and a neighbour. And a complaint from an upstairs neighbour about a smell of drugs.
40. The Council wrote to Miss X advising the interim TA duty ended because Miss X and her partner breached the licence agreement through unacceptable behaviour. The reasons were, drug use, noise complaints, and intimidating behaviour. The Council gave Miss X 24 hours’ notice to leave the TA. It said it was still working to resolve their housing situation, but it was no longer under a duty to provide TA.
41. Miss X contacted the Council in November 2022. She said the Council ended her TA after a resident victimised her family by making unfounded complaints, and the Council ended the placement without asking their side of the story. She said her family had been sleeping on a sofa at a relative’s house, but they now must leave. Miss X said she stayed at hotels but run out of money.
42. The Council said it received several reports from the TA landlord about anti-social behaviour, from multiple neighbours, not just one. It asked Miss X for more information about the rent arrears and the agreement with the landlord to buy the house.
43. Miss X provided the requested information. She also said they tried looking for private rental accommodation, but needed a guarantor, which they do not have.
44. The Council placed Miss X and her family in new TA on 10 November 2022. This was another two-bedroom flat.
45. Miss X contacted the Council at the end of November complaining the flat was damp. She said her child’s bedroom was uninhabitable due to mould.
46. A Council officer inspected the flat and found patch of damp under a window. They also found condensation at the bottom of the windows causing mould to build up in a bedroom. The officer noted the flat was warm and no windows were open. Wet clothing was drying on radiators. The officer told Miss X to stop drying clothes on radiators as this caused condensation to build up. They said they would speak to the landlord to sort the issue.
47. The officer then spoke to the landlord and asked them to resolve the issues. The landlord said they went to fix the problem, but Miss X shouted at them because the family were sleeping and said not to disturb them. The officer tried to call Miss X but got no answer so left a message asking them to allow the landlord in.
48. The Council spoke to Miss X’s and her partner’s former landlord in December 2022. The landlord confirmed offering them a discount to buy the house, but did not agree they could stop paying rent while looking for a mortgage.
49. The Council wrote to Miss X with its decision on her homelessness application on 5 December 2022. It found her intentionally homeless and ended its housing duty. It said this was in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance, chapter 9, of 2018. The Council said it was satisfied Miss X’s failure to pay the rent led to their eviction and there were no affordability issues.
50. Miss X said the Council’s information was wrong and she wanted to appeal its decision. She said she was not party to the tenancy agreement and has no arrears. She asked the Council not to end her TA until it made a final decision. She also requested her housing file.
51. A review officer wrote to Miss X on 8 December 2022. They said the Council’s decision Miss X was intentionally homeless is wrong and they overturned it.
52. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the main housing duty, from 5 December 2022. The Council placed Miss X’s application in priority Band A, backdated to 20 May 2022 (as this was the date it owed the relief duty).
53. Miss X told the Council her family could only live in parts of the local area, due to being victims of gang violence in the past. She asked the Council not to place bids on certain areas.
54. Miss X contacted the Council on 15 January 2023 asking why it skipped her bid on a new home she wanted. The Council said the home was in an area Miss X said she could not live due to gang violence. Miss X disputed this, referring to geographical boundaries. Unfortunately, the Council had already offered the home to someone else.
55. On 17 January 2023, Miss X told the Council her TA landlord changed the gas meter, but she did not believe he was registered. She said both her and her partner feel dizzy, and her partner could smell gas. She wanted a qualified gas engineer to check the flat was safe. The Council arranged an alternative property for Miss X while it carried out safety checks.
56. The Council offered Miss X a new social housing home in February 2023. Miss X and her family moved in on 20 February 2023.

Formal complaint

57. Miss X complained to the Council in January 2023. She raised the following points:
• Her partner was sole tenancy holder at their former home.
• Their housing officer mistakenly told Miss X she was ineligible to bid for social housing through the Council’s choice-based lettings service due to rent arrears. This was despite Miss X telling the Council she did not personally owe rent and was not party to the tenancy agreement.
• The Council made the family leave their temporary accommodation following a neighbour complaint, without asking their side of the story and without questioning other residents. They had nowhere to go and had to share a sofa at a relative’s and then stay in hotels, which they could not afford.
• No one from the Council’s social care team contacted them about the fact they were homeless with a young child.
• She was paying to store her belongings, but fell behind with payments, risking losing them.
• It took the Council eight months to send her personalised housing plan. The housing department then decided it did not owe her the main housing duty, because she was intentionally homeless. She challenged this decision, and the Council accepted it made an error. It confirmed it owed her the main housing duty. It also said she was eligible for the choice-based lettings service. Miss X said she would have been rehoused by now if the Council made the correct decision straight away. This would also mean her storage fees would not be so high.
• The recent temporary accommodation was unsuitable for her child, as the bedroom wall and bed were wet. She complained and the landlord then became insulting and bullying. They changed the gas meter using someone who was not registered.
58. The Council sent its stage one complaint response in February 2023. On the points Miss X made, the Council said:
• The officer who made the incorrect decision wrongly assumed Miss X was a joint tenant and therefore jointly liable for the arrears. This was based on their review of the eviction notice. They failed to see the court order dismissing the action against Miss X. The result of this error meant Miss X was ineligible for the choice-based lettings service between May 2022 and December 2022.
• The landlord of Miss X’s TA received several complaints about their behaviour. The Council was satisfied there was enough evidence of a breach of the occupancy agreement, and Miss X housing officer spoke with her about the implications of their conduct.
• When a household with dependent children leave TA, the Council’s considers this a potential safeguarding matter, triggering a referral to its social care service. The housing department made a referral on 20 October 2022. The Council said it referred Miss X’s complaint about its social care service’s delay contacting the family to the relevant department for them to investigate.
• The Council offered Miss X another TA placement when she got in touch saying she could no longer stay with relatives.
• An officer visited the new TA on 30 November 2022 to assess the reported damp and mould. They found wet clothes drying on radiators with windows closed, and told Miss X this caused the damp.
• The Council arranged for a qualified gas engineer to inspect the TA. They found the seals on the gas meter intact and safe. The Council also said it receives annual gas safety checks for TA.
• It was satisfied the TA was suitable for the household’s needs.
• Miss X would have been able to bid for properties for eight months, if not for its error. However, it said 110 households were registered in Band A for its choice-based lettings scheme during this time, seeking similar accommodation. Miss X could only consider properties in certain areas, and there is little supply of social housing in those areas that would be suitable for Miss X’s family.
• The Council agreed that it should have awarded the main housing duty sooner, meaning it would have been liable for Miss X’s storage costs. It agreed to pay her arrears and continue covering the costs until it finds Miss X a home.
59. Miss X asked to escalate her complaint to stage two. She said there was a significant delay by the Council deciding on her homelessness application which caused her injustice. She also said the Council amended records at later dates to include false information, and did not provide a personal housing plan at the outset. She said she was exposed to illegal gas tempering in her TA which resulted in her having a miscarriage. She denied drying clothes caused the damp, as it was pre-existing. She continued to report the problem, but the Council did not respond.
60. The Council sent its final complaint response in January 2024. It recognised Miss X was disadvantaged when she could not bid on properties for seven months. However, it said it was impossible to ascertain whether she would have been rehoused during that time, due to the lack of available properties in the areas Miss X selected. It said the choice-based lettings scheme only advertised 11 two-bedroom homes in that time. It also said it placed Miss X in TA during this time at no cost to herself, whilst she was in employment.
61. The Council said there was a genuine mistake when Miss X’s bid for a property was skipped over the location of a property.
62. The Council recognised Miss X denied the reports about anti-social behaviour, but complaints came from multiple sources and on multiple occasions.
63. The Council found no issues with the gas safety certificate for the recent TA, and the flat was safe during the time Miss X lived there. The Council also checked the details of the gas engineer and found they were registered.
64. The Council said it is often not possible for officers to update records contemporaneously, due to caseload demands. It accepted an officer took about a month to input a record, but it did not consider the motive was to misrepresent events.
65. The Council said it already paid Miss X’s storage fees of £699.60, plus a rental advance of £694.33, and removal costs of £220. This totals £1,613.93. The Council also offered to pay for the storage costs Miss X already incurred, if she could provide evidence. To recognise the delays progressing the case, the Council offered a further £450.

Findings

66. The Council accepted it was at fault for telling Miss X she was ineligible for its choice-based lettings scheme, and for wrongly deciding she was intentionally homeless.
67. Miss X also considers the Council was at fault for delay deciding her homelessness application once the 56-day relief period expired. However, I have not seen evidence the Council ended the relief duty once the 56 days were up. It appears the duty continued. Councils have discretion to extend the relief duty in circumstances such as in this case. Also, I do not consider any alleged delay in this regard was the cause of Miss X’s injustice. Her injustice arose from the Council’s failure to properly consider her evidence about rent arrears at the outset.
68. Miss X complained about record keeping, as there are backdated entries in her case notes which officers made some weeks after the events occurred. This in itself does not mean those records are wrong or unreliable. And I have not seen evidence which would call into question the officer’s entries, but it understandably raised concerns for Miss X. While we would not criticise council officers updating records a few days after the event, several weeks is too long and amounts to fault. This is something the Council should address with officers to ensure they update records promptly.
69. Miss X reported issues with damp and the gas supply while in TA, questioning its suitability. The Council inspected the damp and asked Miss X to allow access for the landlord to fix the issue. The Council also checked the gas supply and confirmed it was safe. I do not consider there was fault in the Council’s actions.
70. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to end her TA placement without seeking their views. I found no fault in the Council’s decision. It received several reports about incidents, and from different residents. There is evidence officers visited Miss X to discuss one of the reports, and the Council also sent a final warning letter before it acted. In these circumstances, I cannot criticise the Council’s decision.

Injustice

71. The Council’s decision that Miss X was intentionally homeless because of rent arrears caused her considerable avoidable distress. She also had to challenge the Council’s decision to correct matters.
72. The Council accepts it should have allowed Miss X to join the choice-based letting scheme at the outset. That would mean awarding Miss X Band A priority in May 2022.
73. When the Council allowed Miss X to join the scheme in December 2022 it backdated her priority to May 2022. She was first placed bidder for a suitable home in January 2023, just over a month later, though she was passed over for another applicant due to the location. The Council then offered Miss X a suitable home in February 2023, which she moved into on 20 February 2023. It therefore took the Council about ten weeks to rehouse Miss X once she could bid for homes.
74. If the Council allowed Miss X to join the scheme in May 2022 it is likely the Council would have rehoused her sooner. That would have meant spending less time in TA.
75. However, as the Council points out, there is uncertainty. In December 2022, Miss X was top of the list for new homes because the Council backdated her priority to May 2022. If the Council had allowed Miss X to bid on new homes in May 2022 she would not have been top of the list, as other applicants in Band A would have been waiting longer. Plus, the Council had limited stock of suitable homes during May and December 2022. I therefore cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, exactly when the Council might have rehoused Miss X.
76. This uncertainty caused injustice to Miss X and her family, who understandably consider the Council would have rehoused them much sooner but for its errors. It also resulted in lost opportunity to bid for homes for seven months.
77. When offering a remedy for the injustice, the Council referred to the payments it already made for Miss X’s storage costs, removal costs, and advanced rent.
78. However, the Council had accepted the duty to protect Miss X’s belongings. I have therefore discounted this from my remedy consideration.
79. The payments for removal costs and advanced rent were discretionary payments which any homeless applicant can apply for when the Council rehouses them. I therefore also discounted these payments from my remedy consideration.
80. The Council offered Miss X a further payment of £450 in recognition of its errors. I do not consider this is enough for the avoidable distress, uncertainty, and lost opportunity caused by the Council’s failings. I appreciate the Council provided TA for much of the time, at no expense to Miss X, but it was the Council’s duty to do so.
81. Our remedies aim to put the person back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. Where we find there is still significant unremedied injustice arising from fault, we can ask a council to make a payment to recognise the distress or difficulties the person suffered because of what went wrong.   
82. Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. We can recommend higher payments to remedy distress where we decide it was especially severe and/or prolonged. We will also consider the number of people affected.
83. The distress, lost opportunity to bid on other homes, and the uncertainty, affected not only Miss X, but her partner and young child as well. I consider a payment of £500 per person would be a suitable remedy.
84. Because I cannot say exactly when the Council would have rehomed Miss X, and because I found no fault in the Council’s decision to end the TA accommodation placement after reports of anti-social behaviour, I cannot say the Council should reimburse Miss X’s hotel fees.
85. The Council agreed to pay Miss X’s ongoing storage fees, and settle the arrears. It also offered to reimburse storage costs Miss X already paid if she could provide evidence. Miss X said she paid £220. She sent me a record of a payment of £110, however this did not show who the £110 payment went to, or what it was for. I therefore did not recommend an additional payment for storage fees. If Miss X has proof of the payment, she can send it to the Council for consideration.

Back to top

Agreed action

86. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for incorrectly deciding she was ineligible for the choice-based lettings scheme, and for deciding she was intentionally homeless. The Council’s apology should recognise the distress, lost opportunity to bid on new homes, and uncertainty which resulted from its fault.
• Pay Miss X and her family £1,500 (£500 each) to remedy the remaining injustice.
• Remind staff in its housing service about the importance of updating records promptly.
87. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

88. I completed my investigation. The Council already accepted it was at fault for not allowing Miss X to join the choice-based lettings scheme at the outset and for incorrectly deciding she was intentionally homeless. I also found the Council at fault for failing to update records promptly. I did not find the Council at fault for its response to reports about disrepair. But I found there is still remaining injustice caused by the Council’s fault which it should remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman