Luton Council to pay compensation after woman claims she wasn't given address of property she was to be housed in

A Luton resident left temporarily homeless is to receive £400 from the borough council after a misunderstanding over her housing provision.

The payment was recommended by the local government ombudsman after the complainant, referred to as Miss X, said she was left without interim accommodation because no address was given to her.

But the ombudsman decided not to investigate her complaint about the council’s alleged failure to meet its housing duties.

"This is because the council agreed our recommendation to provide a remedy to Miss X for part of the complaint," according to the ombudsman's report.

"It's reasonable for her to appeal to court about the remaining issues," said the report.

"Miss X says she couldn't attend her interim property as the council didn't provide her with the address. She says the local authority then wrongly decided she'd refused the offer.

"She says the distress caused has worsened her current health conditions and wants the council to find her permanent accommodation which she can afford."

A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, explained the report.

The council accepted last May it would take reasonable steps to help Miss X secure housing that would be available for at least six months.

It offered her interim accommodation during a telephone call and she was due to take up the property on June 2.

"Miss X didn't attend the venue on this date," added the report. "She contacted the council twice to chase up the arrangements for the property.

"On June 10th, the council told her that it had treated her failure to attend as a refusal and so had withdrawn the offer.

"The council decided it had discharged its duty to Miss X to provide her with interim accommodation.

"But it hadn't sent her details of the housing or its address in writing and didn't contact her on the day she failed to attend."

The ombudsman acknowledged "if we were to investigate this complaint, it's likely we would find fault with the way the council ended its duty to provide accommodation for her".

The report also said: "If she'd attended the premises, she could have remained there until July 21st when the council decided it didn't owe her a housing duty. Instead, Miss X was homeless for this period.

The council told her that was the case on July 21st, as "she wasn't in priority need" and, on September 10th, told her "the relief duty had ended".

Miss X had the right to ask the council for a review of these decisions, as well as the right to appeal to the county court following any review, explained the ombudsman.

"She says the council didn't keep her updated about her homelessness application.

"When she complained to the council, she said she didn't receive the letters dated July 21st and September 10th.

"I note the local authority sent these letters to the same email address she used to submit her complaints to the council and the ombudsman.

"There's not enough evidence of fault in how the council communicated its decisions to Miss X about her homelessness application to justify an investigation into this part of the complaint."

The ombudsman recommended the council should pay her £400, and improve its housing services by ensuring it puts all accommodation offers in writing and providing maps where possible, which LBC accepted.