Written evidence submitted by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [EXA 006]

About the Ombudsman

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) welcomes this opportunity to respond to the LUHC Committee’s call for evidence in relation to its inquiry into exempt accommodation.

The Ombudsman provides a one-stop-shop for complaints about the actions of local authorities. Of particular relevance to this enquiry, we deal with complaints about Housing Benefit and Homelessness.

With regards to complaints, we consider whether there is any fault in the way the council reached a decision or provided support and whether it is likely there would have been a different outcome if there was no fault. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because someone disagrees with it.

We also have a role in improving public services. This is done using the evidence we gain from our casework and by working with local authorities to support learning from complaints.

Response to the call for evidence

The question of exempt accommodation features in our casework in two main areas. Housing Benefit and the suitability of accommodation provided to homeless households.

Housing Benefit

We receive some complaints about councils refusing to pay Housing Benefit or disputing that accommodation is exempt. However, our jurisdiction means we do not usually investigate these complaints. This is because there is a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal, and we generally expect complainants to use this alternative remedy.

Homelessness

14% of complaints to the Ombudsman in 2020/21 were about housing. Of these, about 20% were about homelessness. We upheld 82% of these complaints. This is higher than our average uphold rate of 67%.

The suitability of accommodation provided to homeless households is a common feature of our investigations in this area. Where the accommodation is provided under s193 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended, there is a right of review and an appeal to the county court. This means, as with Housing Benefit, that we generally expect complainants to use this alternative remedy.

However, there is no such alternative remedy when accommodation is provided under the s188 duty to provide interim accommodation. In these cases, the Ombudsman investigates whether and how the council considered the suitability of the accommodation for the applicant. Where this accommodation is a refuge or a hostel, it will be specified accommodation under the Housing Benefit regulations.

The quality and condition of the accommodation provided is often the basis for complaints to the Ombudsman. Common issues are:

• The security of the building
• The condition of the building, including issues of damp and mould
• Disrepair, and failure to complete reported repairs
• The behaviour and lifestyle of other residents
• The cost of the accommodation/affordability

Hostel accommodation often requires residents to share facilities like kitchens and bathrooms. This poses additional challenges to homeless households’ ability to effectively socially distance or self-isolate in line with government guidance on the COVID-19 pandemic. In a complaint we received against Westminster City Council (ref 20009669) the complainant raised these issues as part of a complaint about the suitability of temporary accommodation.

In some cases, the hostel accommodation will be owned and managed directly by the council. In such cases the responsibility for the condition of the accommodation is clear. For example, in a complaint against the London Borough of Hackney (ref 19012490), we found fault with the council for failing to act on reports of disrepair and pests in a hostel for homeless applicants. And in a complaint against Leicester City Council (ref 19018397) we found fault with the council for failing to consider the affordability of a hostel it offered as interim accommodation.

Where a council procures accommodation from a Registered Social Landlord, Housing Association or other provider, complainants can face additional barriers to resolving issues. A common feature of our complaints is councils telling applicants that disrepair should be reported to the provider. If the provider fails to make repairs, the council has no obligations to the applicant unless the condition of the property renders it unsuitable. The main avenue for the council is to enforce any part of its contract with the provider relating to the property condition. This is often negotiated and overseen by a different department in the council than that responsible for homeless services. Such arrangements can make our own investigations more challenging. On a practical level, it can be more difficult to get the evidence we need to complete our investigations and limit the kinds of recommendations we might make for improvement where we find fault.

Navigating the relationship between councils and providers can also pose jurisdictional barriers. For example, in a complaint against Bristol City Council (ref 20002795) the council discharged its Relief duty to the complainant by providing accommodation at a supported hostel. The complainant contacted the council on several occasions because he said he was experiencing racially motivated abuse at the property. The council referred the complainant to the provider to address this. The housing provider is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and so we were unable to investigate this part of the complaint.

The LGSCO is very experienced at dealing with complaints that cross jurisdictional boundaries. We committed to working with organisations such as the Housing Ombudsman to ensure that complaints spanning multiple jurisdictions are handled seamlessly.

We hope the above is useful to the Committee’s consideration of exempt accommodation.

January 2022