The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault by the Council. The Council considered the request for Miss X to make a homeless application but made a decision that it was reasonable for her to remain in her housing association flat without fault. Miss X’s request for a review of the suitability of her accommodation was late and so there was no fault in the Council not accepting the request. There is no evidence the Council was asked to protect her belongings when she moved.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains the Council has not accepted a homeless application as she considers it is not reasonable for her to continue to live in her accommodation. Miss X has said the Council did not accept a late request for a review of the suitability of her accommodation and so she is now homeless as she will not return there.
Miss X also complains the Council did not protect her belongings when she made multiple moves of temporary accommodation, which has resulted in financial loss.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I read the papers put in by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her.
I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
After a homeless application, the Council offered Miss X a housing association flat on 25 November 2021. She accepted the offer of accommodation. Miss X had a right to a review of the suitability of the accommodation within 21 days from the date of this offer letter.
Homeless application Miss X made another homeless application in March 2022. The Council wrote to her on 15 March 2022 to say it had no reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness.
The Council’s letter explained that Miss X said she could not remain at the property due to burglaries and harassment from her neighbours. Miss X reported a burglary at her flat on 10 March 2022 and said the neighbours in the flat below her were banging on her ceiling and using drugs. The housing association officers found no evidence of damage from a break in or that neighbours below were using the flat as a ‘drug house’. The Council said on 4 March 2022 the housing association had refused to move Miss X as a management transfer. The Council and Police were still investigating Miss X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour from her neighbours. The letter said that as there was no evidence to suggest Miss X was at risk in the property she was advised to remain there and so was not homeless.
The Council has said that over the last two years Miss X has moved 14 times because of complaints about accommodation. The Council provided evidence that it had liaised with mental health professionals involved in her care. Their view was that the mental health team would support Miss X to address her mental health needs but would not recommend alternative accommodation as it was not in her best interest as stability is the starting point to address her needs. The professionals considered whether Miss X needed supported housing but did not think this appropriate.
The Council sent a further letter to Miss X in August 2022. This included the information that Miss X had been staying with a friend or sleeping rough since February 2022. The letter concluded the Council had no reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness, as it did not consider Miss X was at risk in her property.
If there is reason to believe that a person may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, the housing authority must carry out an assessment to decide if this is the case, and whether the person is eligible for assistance. ‘Reason to believe’ is a low threshold. The housing authority must then carry out inquiries into what duty, if any, is owed to the applicant.
A person is to be considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (section 175 of the Act) Clearly, Miss X has accommodation she is entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available for her to occupy. However, she argues that is it not reasonable for her to continue to live there due to a break in and harassment from the neighbours.
My role is not to decide whether it is reasonable for Miss X to occupy her accommodation. My role is to check the Council made the decision aware of all the facts. It is clear from the Council’s letter that it has considered the points Miss X has made, the reports to the Police, evidence from her mental health team and the alleged antisocial behaviour when making its decision. So, I find no evidence of fault.
Review of suitability of accommodation Miss X had 21 days from 25 November 2021 to request a review of the suitability of the housing association flat she accepted. Miss X asked for the review on 11 January 2022 and the Council said on 14 January that it could not accept a review as it was out of time. The Council said ‘it had asked the Housing Association about her allegations and their neighbourhood officers found no evidence of squatters or anti-social behaviour in the block and that her flat is safe and secure’.
As Miss X asked for a review outside of the 21 days allowed by law the Council was entitled to reject her application. This was not fault, especially as the Council did consider her reasons, when considering whether to accept the late review, but decided not to.
Protection of belongings Miss X complains the Council did not protect her belongings when she made multiple moves of temporary accommodation.
The Council has explained that Miss X has made multiple moves. In response to her official complaint it has said ‘Miss X was able to protect her belongings as she arranged for them to be stored and for them to be moved when she moved home. Therefore, the duty to assist her was not triggered and the council cannot pay compensation in these circumstances. If property was damaged in her last temporary accommodation she would need either to make a claim on her contents insurance or approach the landlord of the property and make a claim against their insurance’.
The law (section 211 of the housing act) says the Council has a duty to protect belongings in some circumstances if they have reason to believe that an applicants property is in danger of loss or damage because the applicant is unable to protect it and no other suitable arrangements have been made.
I have seen no evidence that Miss X asked the Council for storage for her belongings. So, I cannot find fault on this point. However, if Miss X has emails to show she asked the Council to arrange storage and it did not, I can reconsider this point. Damage to property is a private legal matter between her and the person who did the damage, so the Council is correct to tell Miss X that she can make an insurance claim.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of your complaint. This complaint is not upheld as I have found no evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman