The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. We found some fault with the Council: it failed to contact Ms B until less than two weeks before her eviction, delayed in considering intentional homelessness and did not offer her any accommodation until after she had been evicted. The Council has agreed to pay Ms B £250 and improve its procedures for the future.
The complaint
Ms B complained that the London Borough of Havering (the Council) in respect of her homeless situation: failed to accept her reasons for refusing an offer of housing or explain why it did not accept her reasons; failed to inform her of her right to request a review of the suitability of the offer; failed to communicate with her properly; and unreasonably removed her from the housing register.
This has denied Ms B the chance to find suitable housing and caused significant distress to her and her family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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 have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Homelessness Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018: he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)) Assessments and personal housing plans Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18) Prevention duty If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure their current accommodation In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195) Relief duty 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) Main housing duty 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) Suitability of accommodation The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters: the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district; the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012) Review rights Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a decision about the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer. Applicants can then request an appeal on a point of law to the County Court.
Council’s housing allocations policy 2016 This policy said that the Council would make one offer of accommodation to applicants on the housing register. If an applicant refused a reasonable offer of suitable accommodation the Council’s duty to rehouse them would end and their application would be cancelled. It also said that due to a limited supply of housing it would not consider it reasonable to refuse an offer of accommodation due to its location unless there were exceptional circumstances.
What happened Ms B had suffered a serious head injury in 2019 and was waiting for medical treatment. She was unable to work and this had affected her ability to afford her privately rented property which she shared with her two adult children.
In June 2021 Ms B approached the Council as homeless because her landlord was taking her to court for rent arrears. The Council accepted the prevention duty towards her and completed a PHP. It advised her to look for accommodation in the private sector and not to rely on bidding for council housing as it could take several years. The letter accompanying the plan explained that the duty would end if Ms B refused suitable accommodation Ms B then cancelled several appointments due to illness but met with the Council in July 2021. Ms B was due in court the next day for a possession hearing for rent arrears. The Council accepted a relief duty and notified her in writing, explaining her review rights.
The court granted a possession order due to over £13000 of rent arrears. The order expired on 5 August 2021.
On 21 September 2021 the landlord obtained an eviction warrant for 27 October 2021. Ms B did not receive it until 12 October 2021. She rang the Council the same day to find out what was happening. No-one rang her back.
On 17 October 2021 Ms B contacted the Council to say she had not been successful bidding for accommodation on the housing register and she had heard nothing from the Council about her impending homelessness. She was worried about all her belongings if she was evicted.
The following day her local councillor contacted the homelessness team about her situation. The Council replied that it was considering intentional homelessness due to non-payment of rent. It wrote to Ms B saying it had not yet made a final decision on intentional homelessness and she should provide more information by 25 October 2021. The councillor challenged the Council on the intentional homelessness. He said it was due to medical problems meaning Ms B could not work.
On 19 October 2021 Ms B had a difficult call with the Council. The Council said during this call that it had previously offered her two properties in different boroughs which she refused due to the need to be close to her support network and for medical appointments in Havering. The Council said there was no reason why she could not access her support networks and medical appointments from those locations. Ms B denies the Council made her any offers of accommodation before she was evicted. It has not sent me any further documentary evidence beyond the notes of the telephone call to substantiate its view.
Ms B was evicted on 27 October 2021. In the afternoon the Council says it offered her a property in a neighbouring borough, which it says Ms B refused. She denies the Council made her any offer that day and she slept in her car. The Council has been unable to provide any further evidence to support its view that an offer was made.
On 30 October 2021 the councillor challenged the Council’s actions. He said Ms B had been intending to leave the property in May 2020 due to her inability to afford the rent, but the Council had advised her to stay in the property while an alternative was found. This was delayed due to the COVID pandemic, but the Council reassured her she would not be found intentionally homeless.
The councillor agreed to meet with the Council on 9 November 2021 to discuss the case. The Council has not provided any notes or records or recollections of what was discussed at the meeting. It has provided an email to the councillor after the meeting confirming that Ms B would not accept or view an offered property (no address given).
On 12 November 2021 the Council wrote to Ms B formally offering her a three bedroom property approximately four miles from her former address. The letter said it was a final offer, warned her that if she refused the offer its duty to house her would end and explained her right to request a review of the decision.
Ms B refused the offer verbally. She said it would compromise her son’s job due to the area. She did not request a review.
On 17 November 2021 the Council notified her that the relief duty had ended because she refused an offer of suitable accommodation. It gave her a right of review against the decision. On 8 December 2021 it notified Ms B that it had also removed her from the housing register because the relief duty had ended, and she no longer qualified to remain on the register. Ms B appealed against the decision but in March 2022 the Council confirmed its decision was correct.
Analysis Initial action I have not found fault with the Council’s actions in June and July 2021 following Ms B’s first contact regarding her housing situation. The Council offered an appointment, carried out an assessment of her situation and drew up a PHP. Once she had received a court date the Council accepted, she was now threatened with homelessness and accepted the relief duty towards her.
Intentional homelessness However, the Council made no further contact with Ms B until after she had received the eviction order and then only in response to correspondence from her councillor. It then suggested finding her intentionally homeless and gave her a week, ending two days before she was due to be evicted, to respond. This was fault. The Council had known about Ms B’s circumstances since 2019/20 and had previously given assurances that she was not intentionally homeless. The Council had accepted the relief duty in July 2021, and it could have considered whether she was intentionally homeless at a much earlier stage. To leave it to the last minute to raise this important issue was wrong and caused Ms B significant distress. I also consider it was unreasonable to ask Ms B at that late stage to gather together evidence to support her view that she was not intentionally homeless.
Offers of accommodation There is no evidence beyond a note of a telephone call to support the Council’s view that it offered Miss B three properties before she was evicted. It cannot tell me where the accommodation was or why it was suitable for Miss B. I am unable to reach a safe conclusion that the Council offered Miss B any accommodation before she was evicted. This was fault which caused Miss B distress and anxiety.
I agree it made an offer of accommodation on 12 November 2021 after the councillor intervened. Although there is very little evidence to show that the Council considered her reasons for refusal, Ms B had a right of review against the decision that the accommodation was suitable. The Council notified her of this right of review in its letter of 12 November 2021. This was the correct route to follow to challenge the Council’s decision and I consider it reasonable for Ms B to have used this right. Ms B did not request a review and so I have not considered this matter further.
End of housing duty The Council also notified Ms B of her right to request a review against the decision to end its housing duty towards her. She did not request a review. This was another opportunity to challenge the Council’s view that the accommodation offered was suitable, but Ms B did not take it. I have not considered this issue further.
Removal from housing register I have not found fault with the Council’s actions in removing Ms B from the housing register. Once it had ended its housing duty towards her, she was no longer eligible to bid for housing. Ms B did appeal against this decision but as she had not challenged the earlier decisions about the suitability of the accommodation, there were no grounds to restore her application to the housing register.
Agreed action
In recognition of the distress caused to Ms B by the lack of contact between July and October 2021, the delay in considering the issue of intentional homelessness, and the failure to offer any accommodation before she was evicted, I recommended the Council (within one month of the date of the final decision) pays her £250.
I also recommend within three months of the date of the final decision that the Council reviews its homeless procedures, to ensure communication with applicants awaiting eviction is more frequent and more timely, that consideration of the main housing duty is taken as soon as the Council has sufficient information to reach a view and it keeps records of all offers of accommodation made to applicants.
Final decision
I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Ms B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman