Summary: Mr D complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing disrepair and homelessness issues and about the way it dealt with his complaints. There was fault as the Council did not check that repairs had been completed in December 2022 and there was some fault in the way the Council communicated with Mr D. This has caused him distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay him £500 and discuss a communication strategy with him, to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained:
1. About the way the Council handled disrepair at his privately rented property. In particular, that the Council failed to:
1. Ensure the landlord took action or issue an enforcement notice, as a result he was unable to challenge an eviction notice.
2. Escalate the matter to a senior manager.
3. Make reasonable adjustments when contacting him about this matter.
2. About the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application. In particular, that the Council failed to:
1. Help him with discretionary housing payment for assistance with paying for private renting deposits, leading to his eviction.
2. Support him or contact him to deal with the eviction.
3. Offer him suitable temporary accommodation after he was evicted.
4. Give him advance notice of where he would be moving to, as a reasonable adjustment, causing distress.
3. About the way the Council has dealt with his complaints, causing distress and time and trouble and a breakdown in trust. In particular, that the Council failed to:
1. Listen to his concerns.
2. Resolve his complaints or investigate them properly.
3. Respond to his communications.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have exercised my discretion to consider what has happened from October 2022 to January 2024. This is because Mr D first approached the Ombudsman in May 2023 but the case did not progress due to a lack of information. He came back to us in January 2024 about the same matter.
9. I have exercised my discretion not to investigate part (a)3 of Mr D’s complaint. This is because the Council has already apologised for sending text messages and further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
10. I have exercised my discretion not to investigate part (b)3. This is because Mr D could seek a review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation and the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I spoke to Mr D about his complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries. I discussed my provisional findings with Mr D on the phone and sent him an audio version of my draft decision statement and this final decision statement.
12. Mr D 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

Relevant law and guidance

Private housing disrepair

13. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk.
14. A council may serve a landlord with an improvement notice or a notice of emergency remedial action. This may protect the tenant from retaliatory eviction for six months. (Deregulation Act 2015, section 33)

Homelessness

15. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to get accommodation and gives reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
16. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• 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) & 175(5))
17. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18) Once the Council has accepted it owes the prevention duty, it must help the person for at least 56 days.
18. If the person becomes homeless, the council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(1)) This is the relief duty.
19. The relief duty can only be ended in certain circumstances, including if the applicant refuses an offer of suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(7)(c)) There is no discretion to extend the relief duty beyond 56 days in these circumstances even if the local authority has not complied with it.
20. The relief duty ends automatically after 56 days from when it was accepted if the local authority is satisfied that the applicant is in priority need and not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(4))
21. The council must then issue a decision letter that it accepts the main housing duty. The council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

22. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
23. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 204) If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
24. The Ombudsman usually expects applicants to use their review and appeal rights.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

25. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

Complaint handling

26. The Council has a two-stage corporate complaint process. At stage one the complaint will be investigated by the manager responsible for the service complained about. The Council aims to reply in 15 working days.
27. At stage two the complaint will be investigated by a more senior officer. The Council aims to reply within 25 working days.
28. The Council’s complaints team registers the complaints and forwards them to the relevant officers to investigate.

What happened and was there fault which caused injustice

29. I have set out below the key events in relation to disrepair, homelessness and complaint-handling from October 2022 to May 2024. This is not meant to detail everything that happened. For each part I have then set out my provisional findings about whether there was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr D.

Background up to October 2022

30. Mr D told us he has autism, anxiety and a panic disorder. He has a neurological problem that means he finds it difficult to process written information. Mr D had told the Council in December 2021 that he had difficulties with processing information and needed communication by phone, rather than email. He again asked the Council not to send emails in April 2022. In October 2022 he asked the Council not to send him text messages, although he does sometimes request text messages.
31. Mr D was living in private rented accommodation. His landlord had served a section 21 eviction notice in February 2022 which Mr D was challenging through the courts. The Council had accepted the prevention duty in February 2022. The relief duty was owed from 7 April 2022, but Mr D was still living in the property. The Council initially found Mr D was not in priority need, but Mr D contacted his MP and, following a review, this was overturned in June 2022. The Council issued a letter on 20 July 2022 saying it was keeping the reasonable steps to prevent homelessness under review. Mr D had told the Council that, due to his conditions, he needed a well-insulated home. His GP wrote to the Council about this in June 2022.
32. During 2022 the Council sent Mr D information about registering and bidding for social housing. Mr D says he was unable to bid on properties for technical reasons.
33. Mr D had asked the Council about help with a deposit for a new privately rented flat. In April 2022, he told the Council that its rent deposit scheme did not work as landlords asked for a holding fee (which the Council’s scheme did not cover) and they refused to await payment of the deposit by the Council. The case records show that Mr D was frustrated that the Council could not give him a specific timescale for how long it took to pay the deposit to a landlord. Mr D also asked about discretionary housing payments to cover a rent increase, but the Council initially decided this would not be sustainable.

Private housing disrepair October 2022 to June 2023

34. Mr D called the Council on 4 October 2022 to report problems with the shower, water heater and electrics in his flat. The Council asked the landlord to take action within 21 days. The landlord arranged for a plumber to visit and the shower was fixed on 11 October. The landlord told the Council that the water heater could not be looked at as Mr D had had to go out and would not allow the plumber to visit again. The Council emailed Mr D asking him to arrange a time for the water heater to be fixed.
35. On 16 October the landlord emailed the Council to say that the shower was repaired and the water heater was not broken. The Council agreed to inspect the property on 19 October with the landlord. The Council texted Mr D on 17 October to advise him of this but it is unclear if the visit went ahead.
36. Mr D complained on 27 October about poor communication by the Council’s private sector housing team. The Council spoke to Mr D about this on 31 October and sent a stage one complaint response on 5 December 2022. It did not uphold his complaint but agreed to allocate a new officer.
37. During this period, the landlord and Council tried to arrange for an electrician to visit Mr D’s property. The electrician visited on 9 December and fixed a socket. Mr D says not everything was fixed and there was no inspection by the Council to check that works had been completed.
38. Mr D says an officer told him he would escalate a request for an improvement notice to be served on the landlord to a senior manager, but this was not done.
39. On 15 May 2023, Mr D called the Council to report a socket next to his bed was sparking. The landlord gave the Council some dates they could visit but the Council could not get in touch with Mr D.
40. Mr D complained again about poor communication on 23 May.
41. The landlord contacted the Council on 4 June. The Council said it had not yet had a date from Mr D when the repairs could be made.
42. On 12 June the Council wrote to Mr D’s solicitor. It said it would not be issuing the landlord with an improvement or enforcement notice as the hot water and socket had been repaired and the landlord was trying to resolve the outstanding issues but a date could not be arranged with Mr D.
43. Mr D’s solicitor told the Council on 20 June that he was not well enough to arrange for the workmen to attend.
44. The Council sent a stage one complaint response on 21 June 2023 which said it would not re-investigate Mr D’s complaint about communications by its private sector housing team. It read this letter out to Mr D over the phone.
45. Mr D complained about the Council’s decision not to issue an enforcement notice to the landlord. The Council’s stage one response of 5 July 2023 restated the reasons given in its letter to Mr D’s solicitor.
46. The Council wrote a further complaint response in March 2024 but this was not sent to Mr D at his request. In relation to the escalation of a request for an improvement notice, this said that the officer had left so the Council had not been able to determine whether he had failed to escalate the request or whether he had requested it but it had not been actioned. It apologised for the matter.

My findings in relation to disrepair

47. Councils have powers to issue enforcement notices to landlords to make repairs if the Council finds there are health and safety hazards. There is evidence that Mr D reported problems and some repairs were made in October and December 2022. But I have seen no evidence that there were health and safety hazards that required the Council to issue an enforcement notice.
48. Repairs were made in October and December 2022. Mr D says not everything was repaired. I have not seen evidence that inspections were made by the Council in December 2022. I find it was fault not to check the repairs had been made. This has caused distress to Mr D who was worried about the electrics in his home. This is an injustice.
49. Mr D wanted the Council to serve an improvement notice on the landlord. Whilst residents cannot challenge a decision not to issue an improvement notice, it was fault not to keep a case record of Mr D’s request for this to be escalated to a senior manager. This caused uncertainty and distress to Mr D as he does not know whether the matter was properly considered.
50. In June 2023, the Council decided not to issue an improvement notice as the landlord was trying to arrange for repairs to be done. This is a decision it was entitled to make and I do not find fault as there is evidence that these attempts were being made in May and June 2023.

Homelessness application March 2023 to February 2024

51. Mr D’s landlord obtained a court order to evict him on 6 March 2023 and informed the Council. On 6 April, Mr D told the Council he had been served a possession order.
52. The Council accepted the relief duty on 11 April 2023 and sent a personal housing plan to Mr D. It made a referral to supported housing and temporary accommodation in May 2023 as Mr D was due to be evicted.
53. Mr D says he went to court six times in 2023 to challenge the eviction. The eviction did not happen and Mr D remained in his property. I have not seen evidence of any action by the Council’s homelessness team from May to September 2023.
54. On 12 September 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty. Its letter to Mr D explains he had a right to seek a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation but he was still in his flat.
55. There is evidence the Council sent Mr D information about bidding for social housing several times during 2023, but he says he was not able to bid until an officer placed bids for him in February 2024.
56. Mr D’s friend told the Council on 22 November that the court had ruled in favour of the landlord and asked what Mr D’s options were. The Council replied on 3 December asking for a copy of the court order. It said it would apply for emergency temporary housing for Mr D but I have not seen evidence this happened or that there was any more contact with Mr D.
57. Mr D called the Council on 12 January 2024. He said he had a court eviction order which expired on 7 February. He requested self-contained temporary accommodation but was told the Council was using hostels and hotels.
58. The Council made a referral for temporary accommodation on 18 January. Temporary accommodation was made available for Mr D on 31 January and Mr D signed for it on that day. Mr D says he was told it was a flat but it was a bedsit.
59. There is evidence that Mr D was also shortlisted for a permanent property but it would not be ready for a few weeks. Mr D says this property was not suitable for him.
60. The Council was in contact with Mr D about moving his belongings to the temporary accommodation. On 5 February, Mr D complained that the housing officer had not contacted him for months. The Council said this was usual practice as Mr D had remained in his property whilst searching for new accommodation.
61. Mr D moved into the temporary accommodation on 7 February. He says it was not suitable.
62. The Council texted Mr D on 9 February saying an officer would call him to discuss being shortlisted for a permanent property and that he had to sign a form. Mr D went to the Council’s offices. He says it was confusing whether he had to sign for the permanent property or the temporary accommodation. He also wanted to request a suitability review of the temporary accommodation. The housing manager was not available so reception staff offered to take down the suitability review. Mr D did not feel comfortable dictating it in a public area and did not want a home visit. The Council accepted a suitability review on 15 February.
63. Over the next few weeks the landlord and Council tried to visit to fix problems Mr D had reported and to review the suitability of the accommodation but Mr D was not available. The Council eventually visited on 6 March.
64. On 5 April the Council sent Mr D information about its rent deposit scheme which said it took about ten days to process the payment to the landlord.
65. Mr D privately found different accommodation and discussed with the Council what would happen if he moved out of the temporary accommodation. Mr D moved out and on 22 May 2024 the Council issued a decision to end the main housing duty as Mr D had moved to alternative accommodation.

My findings in relation to homelessness

66. There had been discussion with Mr D in early 2022 about the Council’s rent deposit scheme but the timescales of the process were not explained to him until 5 April 2024. My view is there was fault in not explaining the timescales more clearly in 2022, which caused him frustration and distress as he felt unable to use the scheme.
67. But I do not find any fault in the way this scheme itself was operated. Nor do I find fault in the Council’s decision that a discretionary housing payment would not be sustainable to maintain Mr D’s increased rent.
68. Mr D did not hear from the homelessness team from April to September 2023. This made him feel ignored and not helped at a particularly stressful time when he was fighting eviction.
69. The Council gave Mr D a week’s notice of the temporary accommodation he was to move to when he was evicted in February 2024. This is longer than its usual policy of letting a person know on the day, but Mr D says it was not long enough for him due to his anxiety.
70. The Council was aware from April 2022 that Mr D was not able to process emails and required phone calls. It was also aware of his anxiety. It made efforts in February 2024 to give him longer notice than normal of where he would be moving to. But I consider that when Mr D approached the Homelessness team in March 2023, the Council should have made a plan about how it would communicate with him and what his needs were. A discussion with him could have revealed the problems he was having with bidding and whether the Council needed to bid for him, how often it would contact him and how, whether he needed support to fight his eviction and prevent his homelessness, and how much notice he would need to move properties.
71. I find that the failure to have this discussion was fault and has caused distress to Mr D.

Complaint handling

72. I have seen evidence that Mr D made 10 formal complaints to the Council from 27 October 2022 to 10 January 2024. Four of these were about the private sector housing team in relation to disrepair in his accommodation. Three were about the complaints team. One was a complaint about the NHS which I have not seen.
73. Mr D had told the Council not to email him and to call him to discuss his complaints. In two of the complaints about the private sector housing team I have seen no evidence of an initial call being made to Mr D to discuss the complaint.
74. Stage one responses from the service complained about were sent in writing for seven of the 10 complaints. The stage one response of 21 June 2023, which dealt with five of the complaints, was read out to Mr D over the phone. Two complaints were dealt with at stage two only.
75. There was a delay in issuing a stage one response for Mr D’s complaint of 27 October 2022 about disrepair. The response was not sent until 5 December 2022 and the stage two response was sent on 28 April 2023.
76. The Council has accepted that it did not reply to Mr D in February 2023. He had contacted them about a complaint he had made in November 2022 about the complaints team. In February 2023 it was too late to escalate that complaint to stage two, but the Council has apologised that it did not reply to Mr D at the time and it reviewed it again in March 2024.
77. In January 2024, the Council had an internal meeting to discuss how best to handle Mr D’s multiple complaints. It agreed his allocated social worker should be his single point of contact. It had also been agreed that he could leave complaints on the complaints team’s voicemail. The Council considered Mr D should be directed to the complaints procedure and would not be able to discuss issues with Directors or senior managers outside this process, as this caused delay and did not resolve his concerns. The Council says it wrote to Mr D setting out these arrangements.
78. After Mr D came to the Ombudsman, the Council reviewed his complaints. It spoke to Mr D on 5 March 2024 but he did not want to meet to discuss the outcome of this review and did not want written correspondence. The Council therefore wrote a final complaint response dated 7 March 2024 but this has not been sent to Mr D.

My findings in relation to complaint handling

79. Mr D is concerned that, as his complaints were not upheld, they have not been properly considered or investigated. He also says they were not recorded properly and were watered down. Mr D says his complaints were dismissed without him having a chance to respond to the findings.
80. I note that it is not the complaints team which investigates the complaints or writes the responses. I have not seen any fault in which officers have dealt with Mr D’s complaints. There have been some delays in sending responses, which is fault.
81. If Mr D is unhappy with a stage one response, he has the right to ask for the complaint to be escalated to a senior officer. If he remains unhappy with the way the Council has responded to his complaint, he can come to the Ombudsman.
82. Having reviewed the Council’s complaint responses I do not find any evidence that Mr D’s concerns, as noted down, were ignored, or not investigated. But I have found fault in the disrepair matter which was not found by the Council’s complaint investigation.
83. Mr D needs to discuss issues on the phone. There is evidence he becomes anxious if his calls are not returned or if he considers he is not being listened to. He will then ask for his issues to be escalated to more senior managers and refuse to deal with the officer.
84. I have seen evidence of officers trying to call Mr D and not being able to get through or he would not be able to discuss at that time. But the Council has not always called him to discuss the complaint or its findings. This was fault which has caused distress to Mr D.
85. Mr D told the Council he did not wish to receive emails but he did sometimes communicate by email with the help of his friend. The Council has explained that it sometimes sent emails to ensure there was a record of the communication.
86. As I have set out in my homelessness findings, my view is that the Council should have considered what adjustments it could make to communicate with Mr D and agreed these with all teams from the outset. The Council had this discussion in January 2024 but my view is it should have been sooner.

Remedying injustice caused by fault

87. I have found fault which caused distress and uncertainty to Mr D.
88. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a moderate, symbolic payment up to £500 to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might.

Back to top

Agreed action

89. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr D for the fault and pay him £500 to remedy the distress this caused.
• Discuss a communication strategy with him so that the Council can determine what reasonable adjustments it could make to enable better dealings with Mr D in the future.
90. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

91. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman