The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her when she was homeless as it charged her storage costs and a charge for her accommodation causing distress and financial loss. We found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application and charged her for storage costs. But we found fault in the way the Council dealt with a rent in advance loan as it does not have an updated written policy explaining how it will implement the scheme for temporary accommodation. I have recommended the Council draws up such a policy as a suitable service improvement in this case. So, we have completed our investigation.
The complaint
I have called the complainant Miss X. She complains about the way the Council dealt with her when she was homeless. In particular Miss X says: The temporary accommodation allocated by the Council was unsuitable for her and the needs of her family.
The Council is unreasonably charging her storage costs for items she cannot fit into her current property.
The Council is charging her an advanced payment for her current accommodation making her go into debt.
Ms X says the Council’s actions have caused her distress and financial hardship.
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future 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)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Miss X’s concerns about way the Council dealt with her homelessness application, charged her storage costs and a rent in advance loan. I have not investigated Miss X’s concerns about the suitability of her current temporary accommodation. I explain my reasons for not doing so within the decision statement.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and I discussed the complaint with her on the telephone. I read documents the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
Miss X 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
Summary of the relevant law and guidance Homelessness Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
The prevention duty 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 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) The main housing duty If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193) Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188) 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 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) Rights of review After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33) Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decisions including: their eligibility for assistance.
what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
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.
Key events leading to the complaint What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
Miss X and her family had been placed in the district in temporary accommodation by a different council I will refer to as Authority B. Authority B had accepted a homelessness duty towards Miss X. Miss X made a housing application to the Council in 2020. The Council refused Miss X's application because she had no local connection to the area. Miss X sought a review of the Council’s decision on her housing application, but the review upheld the original decision.
Miss X received a final offer of accommodation by Authority B to discharge its homelessness duty. Miss X refused the offer and Authority B ended its homelessness duty towards Miss X. Miss X applied to the Council as homeless and included her two adult children on the application. The Council accepted a relief duty towards Miss X, drew up a personal housing plan (PHP) and offered her interim accommodation. Miss X refused the offer and withdrew her homelessness application. The Council discharged its relief duty towards her.
A month later Miss X made another homelessness application to the Council. The Council accepted a relief duty to Miss X and offered her the same interim accommodation. This was a 1 bedroomed ground floor flat. The Council considered it suitable as Miss X’s adult children could share one bedroom and Miss X use the other room. Miss X was also allowed to keep her dog there. Miss X accepted the accommodation.
During Miss X’s stay at the interim accommodation she raised concerns about issues such as lack of hot water in the shower and the oven not working. Council documents show it resolved the issues for Miss X and sent a maintenance person to mend the shower. The Council confirms Miss X had hot water in the rest of the accommodation. The accommodation owner also replaced the oven. After five weeks the accommodation owners said they could no longer house Miss X. The Council moved Miss X’s belongings into storage. Miss X and her family moved into hotel accommodation for several days. The Council confirms it was the only accommodation that would accept Miss X’s dog. The Council then moved Miss X into a serviced apartment for a week. The Council could not renew the booking so moved Miss X into another apartment in the same building.
The Council accepted a main housing duty towards Miss X to help her secure accommodation. Miss X’s interim accommodation at the serviced apartment was ending. So, the Council offered Miss X a choice of a two bedroomed apartment or a one bed first floor flat in the same building as the apartment. Miss X agreed to consider the one bedroomed flat. The Council secured the flat and Miss X and her family moved in.
After a few weeks the Council made Miss X an offer of temporary accommodation of a three bedroomed privately rented property under s 193. The Council says the landlord needed one month’s rent paid in advance to secure the accommodation for private renting. The Council agreed to pay the one month’s rent in advance for Miss X subject to her repaying the amount. Miss X accepted the property and agreed to repay the amount to the Council. The Council asked Miss X what she could afford to repay, and it was agreed Miss X would pay £10 a month until repaid.
Miss X signed her agreement to the repayment. The agreement noted that if Miss X failed to maintain the repayment plan to repay the loan it would result in the Council suspending her housing application. The Council would also take action for non-payment.
The Council arranged for Miss X’s belongings to be removed from storage. Miss X asked the Council to deliver a sofa to her daughter’s address. The Council agreed to do it at a cost from the removals company of £150 +VAT. Miss X agreed she would need to pay this and understood a new invoice would be sent out. But she would not have to pay more than the £10 per month already agreed under the rent in advance loan.
Miss X moved to the new property. The removals company delivered items from storage to the property. Miss X asked the removals company to return some items to storage saying they could not fit through the door or there was not enough room.
Miss X requested a suitability review of the temporary accommodation at the three bedroomed property as she considered it did not meet the family’s needs. The Council agreed to the suitability review and told Miss X it had 56 days to do the review (by 1 November 2023). But if it needed to make further enquiries the Council may require an extension to complete the review.
Miss X complained to the Council about the removals and storage of her belongings, the debt she incurred for the rent in advance scheme and recharge for delivering the sofa. Miss X raised concerns about the suitability of the property and previous interim accommodation allocated to her. Miss X said the Council failing to consider the family’s health needs, and the banding allocated to her housing register application.
The Council’s response to Miss X’s complaints The Council responded to Miss X’s complaints. It confirmed it had investigated her complaints about the removals and storage. The Council said it provided storage for Miss X’s belongings while she was in nightly accommodation which was a requirement under homelessness legislation. But when Miss X moved into the three bedroomed property the Council considered it was large enough for all her belongings. Miss X asked the removal company to take some items back into storage as she said they did not fit into the property.
The Council confirmed it gave Miss X time to find alternative storage or to sell her items. This was because it felt it was reasonable for her to place her items in the property. But Miss X failed to do this. The Council advised Miss X that as she had been in the property for two months, she would be charged for items left in storage from 8 November 2023.
The Council considered Miss X’s complaint about damaged and missing items following her move. The Council listed out Miss X’s items and the removals company’s response to the allegations made. While the complaint was not upheld the removals company made a goodwill offer of a payment towards the alleged damage and cleaning some items. But Miss X had refused the offer.
The Council confirmed Miss X was aware of the rent in advance and removals costs. The Council made the repayment arrangements interest free and at minimum repayment level for her. The Council was considering the suitability of the current temporary accommodation under the review. It confirmed the accommodation owners had responded to Miss X’s complaints about issues within the interim accommodation. The Council said it had been in discussions with the family’s GP and social worker so was aware of the needs of the household. And considered the interim accommodation suitable.
The Council confirmed Miss X was now on the housing register but there would be a long wait for social housing for the size of accommodation Miss X required. The Council considered Miss X correctly placed a on housing banding.
In response to my enquiries the Council confirms it decided to offer Miss X the three bedroomed property as temporary accommodation rather than a discharge of its homelessness duty following discussions with Miss X. This was to enable Miss X to seek a review of the suitability of the accommodation and for the Council to continue with its duty to secure accommodation for her. The Council said in response to my enquiries that it did not have a policy on rent in advance for temporary accommodation. But says Miss X was aware she needed to pay the first month’s rent in advance as it was a private let. Miss X then willingly signed the rent in advance form and chose to repay at £10 a month.
In response to the draft decision the Council says it does have a procedure note/ policy on rent in advance loans. The policy is dated 2015. The Council says it has not been updated for some time but does cover the basic premise of the scheme and affordability. It says it does not publish the scheme for applicants, but it is willing to do so, expand on the scheme and update it.
The current situation Miss X remains at the three bedroomed temporary accommodation. The Council sent Miss X information to set up repaying the rent in advance loan. Miss X did not make any repayments, so it suspended her housing register application as result. The Council advised Miss X it was ending the storage and the costs involved. Miss X declined to make payments and complained the accommodation was not large enough to fit in all her belongings.
The Council says Miss X may be able to move to different accommodation is if she finds a suitable alternative private rented property to discharge the Council’s duty under s193. The Council has offered Miss X financial help if she finds a reasonably priced property to rent. If Miss X starts to repay her loan and storage costs the Council will immediately reinstate her housing register application without waiting for three months of payments as its Allocations policy requires.
The Council confirms there is currently a wait of several years for the type of three bedroomed property Miss X requires. It has offered to help her adult children with housing options to find their own settled accommodation and Adult Social Care would support them with any care and support needs. This would enable Miss X to be considered for a smaller property which make became available sooner if she was back on the housing register. But Miss X has declined these options.
The officer carrying out the suitability review of the temporary accommodation wrote to Miss X in February 2024. The officer said they were minded to make a decision the accommodation was suitable and invited Miss X to make any further representations. Miss X did not respond. The officer wrote to Miss X in March 2024 advising they had not upheld the review request and the property was considered suitable for Miss X and her family. The Council advised Miss X of her right of appeal to the county court if she disagreed with the decision.
The Council advised Miss X it would be ending the storage booking for her belongings. The Council sent Miss X a 14-day notice of the booking ending in February 2024.
My assessment
The documents provided by the Council show it has dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application according to the legislation. So, there is no evidence of fault by the Council. This is because it has assessed Miss X and drawn up a PHP setting out the steps the Council and Miss X will take to alleviate her homelessness. The Council has offered Miss X temporary accommodation.
Miss X considers the interim accommodation she was allocated was unsuitable and there were issues with hot water and other items. The Council explained it considered the accommodation was suitable as it was able to house the family and pet. It responded to Miss X’s concerns about the hot water and other maintenance matters which were dealt with by the accommodation owners. I do not consider I could achieve anything further for Miss X as the Council responded to her concerns and she was moved to other accommodation when possible.
Miss X considers the current temporary accommodation unsuitable and has been able to request a review of the Council’s decision it considers the accommodation is suitable for her. Miss X’s review request was unsuccessful, but she can challenge the Council’s decision to the county court if she continues to disagree about the suitability of the property. I consider it is reasonable to expect Miss X to appeal to the courts and so we will not investigate Miss X’s concerns about suitability. This is because the courts can decide on the facts of the case and whether the Council’s original decision was correct.
The Council’s documents show it took longer than the 56 days specified in the regulations to deal with Miss X’s suitability review request. But Miss X could have appealed the county court if she considered the Council had taken too long to reach a decision on her suitability review. I consider it was reasonable to expect Miss X to do so as the courts could decide on the facts of the case and whether the Council’s original decision was correct.
Miss X says the Council has unreasonably charged her storage costs for items she cannot fit into her current property. The Council is entitled to make charges for storing Miss X’s items and the cost of delivering them to her accommodation. The documents show Miss X was aware of the costs involved. The Council decided Miss X could protect her own property following her move and gave her a deadline of two months to remove the remaining items from storage. There is no evidence of fault by the Council as it has given Miss X plenty of notice about the storage costs and storage booking ending.
The documents show the Council investigated the concerns Miss X raised about the removals company moving her belongings into the temporary accommodation. The Council liaised with the removals company and went through Miss X’s list of items she alleged had been damaged. The Council did not uphold the complaint. However, the removals company made a goodwill payment offer and to clean some items. I consider the Council’s investigation was thorough and the goodwill offer from the removals company reasonable in the circumstances. So, I do not consider I could add anything to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further for Miss X.
Miss X says the Council charged her an advanced payment for her current accommodation making her go into debt. While Miss X may disagree with the Council’s decision to charge, it is open for it to do so as it can charge for temporary accommodation. The Housing Act says (s206): (2) A local housing authority may require a person in relation to whom they are discharging such functions— (a) to pay such reasonable charges as they may determine in respect of accommodation which they secure for his occupation (either by making it available themselves or otherwise), or (b) to pay such reasonable amount as they may determine in respect of sums payable by them for accommodation made available by another person.
So, while we would not consider it fault to recover the cost of the rent in advance in cases such as Miss X’s, there is fault due to the fact that the Council’s policy is out of date and does not refer to rent in advance for temporary accommodation. This is because the Council is requiring a homeless person to enter into a debt in order to secure accommodation. The Council will then make a reasonable charge to recover the loan. Without an up-to-date written policy to include temporary accommodation there is no guidance to govern how it will decide on what is a ‘reasonable charge’. The charge is an amount above what the homeless applicant would normally pay on top of their rent. So, the Council needs to ensure it is a ’reasonable charge’ and it should carry out an affordability assessment on what the person can pay. This should be done as it is a requirement of the Code of Guidance that temporary accommodation should be affordable.
The Council’s response to enquiries advised it did not have a policy so there is a lack of information to officers about the scheme. The Council should ensure officers are aware of the policy so it can be applied when necessary. While I consider it is fault for the Council not to have an up to date rent in advance policy, I do not consider it has caused Miss X such a significant injustice to warrant a personal remedy for her. This is because the Council’s documents show Miss X was aware of the consequences of entering into the agreement and it is likely the £10 a month is a ’reasonable charge’ to be repaying.
The Council should ensure its policy and procedure about the rent in advance loan is made available to applicants to ensure fairness and so a homeless applicant fully understands the financial implications of entering the agreement and impact any decision may have on their homelessness application. I recommend therefore that as a service improvement the Council updates its written policy on the rent in advance loan scheme including for temporary accommodation. This will ensure procedural fairness, the ‘reasonable charge’ and to make sure an applicant fully understands the consequences of entering into such an agreement and the outcome of not doing so.
I also consider the injustice to Miss X is minimal as the documents show the Council has made extensive efforts to support Miss X and her family with accommodation. It has offered the three bedroomed property as temporary accommodation when it could have done so as a final offer and end its housing duty. Because it has offered the property as temporary accommodation it still has a housing duty towards Miss X and discussed options with her for more permanent accommodation.
Agreed action
The Council should update its written policy for its rent in advance loan scheme including for temporary accommodation and ensure the policy and procedure about the rent in advance loan is made available to applicants. The Council should ensure procedural fairness, the ‘reasonable charge’ and to make sure an applicant fully understands the consequences of entering into such an agreement, the outcome of not doing so, and impact any decision may have on their homelessness application.
The Council should remind officers of the rent in advance policy so it can be applied when necessary.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within two months of my final decision.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application and charged her for storage costs. But we found fault in the way the Council dealt with a rent in advance loan as it does not have an updated written policy explaining how it will implement the scheme for temporary accommodation. I have recommended the Council updates its policy as a suitable service improvement this case.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman