The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her homelessness application. The Council is at fault as it failed to provide proper advice to Miss X on benefits and storage, delayed in accepting the main housing duty and failed to notify Miss X of her right to seek a review of its decision that her temporary accommodation remained suitable. These faults caused uncertainty and distress to Miss X. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising to Miss X and making a payment of £150 to her which is in addition to a payment of £350 already offered by the Council. The Council will also review the charges made for the storage of Miss X’s possessions.
The complaint
Miss X complains that the Council: Failed to arrange a meeting with her to discuss her housing needs and failed to give sufficient advice and assistance when she made a homelessness application. In particular, it failed to provide advice on whether Miss X could claim housing benefit on two properties as she was fleeing domestic abuse and failed to advise the Council could contribute to storage costs.
Delayed in considering her homelessness application and in accepting the main housing duty.
Failed to take sufficient action when she raised her concerns about her and her family’s safety at her temporary accommodation and failed to respond to her and her Independent Domestic Violence Advisor (IDVA) concerns that Miss X was at risk of ongoing domestic abuse; Offered unsuitable accommodation to Miss X to discharge the main housing duty.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). Miss X’s complaint about the Council not arranging a meeting to discuss her housing needs and support offered is late as these matters occurred in 2021. But I consider there are good reasons to investigate those matters as I cannot carry out a meaningful investigation of later events without doing so.
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) When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, 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)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated complaints a) to c). I have not investigated complaint d) as Miss X had the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision and appeal to the county court regarding the suitability of the property offered by the Council to discharge the main housing duty.
How I considered this complaint
I have: Considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X; Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided; Invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered the comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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) 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) 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). 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 Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. These include the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
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) The Council’s housing allocations scheme applicable at the time of the complaint provided that applicants who are owed the main housing duty did not need to bid for properties through its housing register. Instead, the Council would make a direct offer of accommodation which may be in the private sector or from the Council’s own housing stock.
Protection of property Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent a loss of a person’s property or to mitigate damage when it has reason to believe there is a danger that an applicant’s property will be lost or damaged, the danger arises as the applicant is unable to protect or deal with their property and no other suitable arrangements have been made. The duty applies when the council is subject to a homelessness duty including the duty to provide interim accommodation, the relief duty and the main housing duty. Councils can make a reasonable charge for the removal and storage of an applicant’s personal property (section 211 of the Housing Act 1996) The Council’s storage of goods procedure provides that once an officer is satisfied an applicant is homeless and owed a homelessness duty, they must enquire what arrangements the applicant has made for their belongings. If the Council considers it has a duty to protect an applicant’s belongings officers must request written storage quotes and provide the applicant with the storage of goods letter and agreement. Prior to the applicant signing the agreement, an officer must complete a robust income and expenditure assessment to confirm affordability of the applicant’s contribution to the storage costs.
What happened The following is a summary of key facts relevant to the consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
Miss X approached the Council as homeless in late 2021 as she and her children were fleeing domestic abuse from a different area. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment for Miss X by telephone. The Council accepted the relief duty and placed Miss X and her children in self-contained interim accommodation. The Council also drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Miss X setting out the actions it and Miss X should take to relieve her homelessness.
In August 2022, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss X. In its letter notifying Miss X of the decision, the Council advised that her interim accommodation was now temporary accommodation until it could make an offer of permanent accommodation to her.
Shortly afterwards, Miss X contacted the Council to request storage for her belongings while she was in temporary accommodation. An officer advised Miss X that she needed to provide three quotes for storage and the Council would charge her £13 per week towards the costs of storage. Miss X sent further emails to the Council seeking more information on storage. There is no evidence the Council responded to these emails. Miss X subsequently sent an email to the Council advising she had sent in her quotes but not received a response so she had arranged storage. Miss X asked if the Council would help with the storage costs.
In early 2023, Miss X contacted the Council several times to request alternative temporary accommodation as she felt unsafe due to harassment from her neighbours. She also asked again about help with storage costs. In her emails Miss X said she was paying for two homes.
Approximately a month later the Council responded to Miss X. It asked why Miss X still had her former property and whether she had forwarded receipts for the storage costs. It also explained she was on the waiting list for permanent accommodation.
Miss X sent a further email saying she would like to remain in her temporary accommodation until 2024 and for the Council to pay her storage costs. Miss X clarified that she had debts from her previous property rather than two properties. However, I understand Miss X had not ended her tenancy on her previous property.
Miss X made a complaint about how the Council had dealt with her homelessness application including her request for storage and about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council responded to Miss X at stage one of its complaints procedure and said it did not uphold her complaint that her temporary accommodation was unsuitable.
The Council’s records show Miss X said she was at risk of domestic abuse from her new partner. I also understand Miss X’s IDVA raised concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. The Council’s records note an officer contacted Miss X’s IDVA for more information on whether Miss X was at risk of domestic abuse. The Council then sent an email to Miss X saying her IDVA did not consider her to be at risk so her temporary accommodation was suitable. Miss X disputed she was not at risk.
The Council made an offer of permanent accommodation to Miss X. Miss X refused the offer and requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to her. She also escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The Council arranged for an independent reviewer to undertake the review of the suitability of the accommodation. Before the review was completed Miss X moved back to her previous property as she considered she was no longer at risk there. The Council did not issue a decision on the suitability of the property offered as Miss X withdrew her request.
In response to Miss X’s stage two complaint the Council said officers had checked with Miss X’s IDVA and the police and there was no evidence she was unsafe in her temporary accommodation. But the Council acknowledged it had failed to respond to Miss X’s emails and request for callbacks as it should have done. It had also failed to provide appropriate guidance. The Council apologised and offered a payment of £250 to Miss X for the distress and inconvenience caused.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said: There were delays in making decisions on homelessness applications between 2021 and 2023. This was due to high caseloads, an internal restructure and staffing issues. The Council considers the delay in accepting the main housing duty for Miss X did not disadvantage her. This is because the main housing duty applied on the 57th day after it accepted the relief duty even if it didn’t notify Miss X of the decision until August 2022. Miss X would also have been placed in band D of its allocations policy at the time which was not a priority band.
It continues to experience delays in deciding homelessness applications due to a period of time using temporary staff. It has now recruited a permanent team and it is analysing the scale of the backlog.
It advised Miss X that a dual payment for housing benefit may be possible in her circumstances when it carried out the homelessness assessment.
It will offer an additional £100 to Miss X to acknowledge the distress caused by raising her complaint further.
Analysis Failed to arrange a meeting with Miss X and failed to provide her with sufficient advice.
Miss X considers the Council should have held a meeting with her to discuss her housing needs and requirements. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment by telephone of Miss X’s housing needs and circumstances. The Council also drew up a PHP which set out the actions it and Miss X should take to relieve her homelessness. So, I am satisfied the Council held a meeting with Miss X to discuss her housing needs.
But I consider, on balance, that the Council did not provide sufficient advice to Miss X regarding claiming housing benefit. Miss X has said she was not told she could claim dual housing benefit on the property she was fleeing from and her interim and temporary accommodation. The Council has said officers discussed with Miss X the circumstances in which housing benefit on more than one property could be claimed. There is no record of this discussion or any discussion about benefits in the assessment or PHP. So, I cannot be satisfied the Council properly considered the support Miss X needed to sustain her accommodation. This is fault.
Miss X provided inconsistent information to the Council about whether she still held the tenancy at the property from where she fled. I therefore cannot know, on balance, if she would have claimed housing benefit on both properties if the Council had clearly advised her, and if so, whether her claim would have been successful.
The Council has acknowledged it failed to respond to Miss X’s questions and provide appropriate guidance on storage. The Council’s storage of goods procedure also provides that officers should discuss what arrangements the applicant has made for their belongings once the Council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and where it has a duty to provide interim accommodation. There is no evidence the Council made these enquiries of Miss X and the question of storage arose as Miss X raised it several months later. This is fault.
The Council also informed Miss X that she would have to pay £13 per week towards her storage costs. The Council’s procedure provides that officers must carry out a robust assessment of the applicant’s income and expenditure to confirm the affordability of the contribution. There is no evidence to show the Council carried out such an assessment before advising Miss X of the contribution when she first enquired about storage and when it later paid the costs of the storage minus Miss X’s contribution of £13 per week. This is fault.
The Council has offered a total remedy of £350 to Miss X to acknowledge the distress caused to her by its failure to respond to her emails and provide sufficient advice on storage. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the distress caused to her.
The Council has also paid the outstanding storage fees. But Miss X cannot know if she has been charged an affordable contribution. The Council should therefore review the contribution based on Miss X’s income and expenditure at the time to determine if the contribution of £13 per week was affordable for her. If the Council considers the contribution was not affordable then it should refund the difference between what it would have charged and what it did charge to Miss X. If the assessment finds Miss X should have contributed more than £13 per week then the Council should consider if it is appropriate to charge Miss X the difference between what she has paid and the assessed contribution.
Delay in accepting the main housing duty.
The Council delayed in making a decision about whether it owed Miss X the main housing duty. The relief duty expired 56 days after the Council had accepted it. It therefore should have made a decision on 57th day as to whether it accepted the main housing duty. The Council did not make this decision until August 2022 which is a delay of seven months. This is fault.
The Council considers the delay did not disadvantage Miss X. But, at that time, the Council made direct offers of permanent accommodation to those applicants owed the main housing duty. So, the delay in accepting the main housing duty delayed Miss X being put on the waiting list for a direct offer and potentially delayed the offer of permanent accommodation to Miss X. I cannot know if the Council would have made an offer to her sooner or if Miss X would have accepted the offer made. Miss X’s circumstances also changed during that time as two of her children moved away which affected the size of property she was eligible for. But the delay caused some distress and uncertainty to Miss X which the Council should remedy.
The Council has said it is continuing to experience delays in dealing with homelessness applications and it is considering the scale of the backlog. We would normally recommend the Council takes specific action to address the ongoing delays. However, the Council has advised that it will be undertaking a root and branch review of its homelessness service. It will draw up an action plan to deal with the delays as part of that review. It is therefore not necessary to recommend service improvements in this area.
Failed to take sufficient action when Miss X raised concerns about the suitability of her temporary accommodation The Council has a duty to keep the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation under review. There is no evidence to show the Council reviewed the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation in late 2022/early 2023 when she raised concerns about harassment from her neighbours. On balance, this is fault. But I do not consider the fault caused injustice to Miss X as she advised the Council that she wanted to stay in the temporary accommodation until 2024.
The Council said it considered Miss X’s temporary accommodation to be suitable when it responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint. It also reviewed the suitability again when Miss X raised concerns about the risk of domestic abuse at the property. The Council notified Miss X of its decision that it considered the accommodation to be suitable in its response to her stage one complaint and in emails with Miss X following its enquiries of the IDVA. But it did not notify Miss X of her right to seek a review of its decisions that the temporary accommodation remained suitable. These were new decisions so the Council should have notified Miss X of her right to seek a review. This fault denied Miss X the opportunity to seek a review of the decisions.
I cannot know if Miss X would have sought a review or what the outcome of any review would have been. The Council also made an offer to Miss X of permanent accommodation shortly afterwards. But the Council should remedy the uncertainty caused to Miss X.
Agreed action
That the Council will: Send a written apology to Miss X for the distress and uncertainty caused by the failure to provide sufficient advice to her on claiming benefits, delay in accepting the main housing duty and failure to notify Miss X of her right to seek a review of its decisions about the suitability of her temporary accommodation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
Make a symbolic payment of £150 to Miss X to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused. This payment is in addition to the total payment of £350 offered by the Council.
Carry out an assessment of Miss X’s income and expenditure at the time she required storage to determine if the £13 weekly charge was affordable for her. If the Council considers the charge was not affordable it should refund the difference between what Miss X was charged and what it would have charged had it carried out the assessment. If the Council considers Miss X should have paid more than £13 per week it should decide if it is appropriate to recover the additional contribution from Miss X.
Provide evidence of the action taken by the Council to: Remind officers to ensure they discuss what benefits an applicant may be able to claim when carrying out the homelessness assessment and drawing up the PHP and record the advice given.
Remind officers that applicants must be notified of their right of review in the event the Council makes a new decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation.
Remind officers of the requirements of the Council’s procedure for the storage of goods.
The Council should take the actions at a) to c) within one month and the action at d) within two months of my final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
Fault causing injustice to Miss X.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman