Eastleigh Borough Council (06B07896)
Homelessness Maladministration causing injustice
10 September 2007
The complaint
Mr and Mrs H had four children: sons aged five, seven and 13, and a three-year-old daughter. They had mortgages on two properties, both of which had been repossessed by October 2005. On 27 October 2005 the family became homeless following eviction on repossession of their second property due to mortgage arrears. On 28 October 2005 they made a homelessness application to the Council. They provided evidence of the eviction and evidence that they had dependents. Mrs H complained about the Council’s handling of their homelessness application.
What happened
The Council and Mr and Mrs H do not agree on what happened next. The Council said it was waiting for evidence of the circumstances of the eviction and that the Hs had refused an offer of bed and breakfast accommodation. Mr and Mrs H said they received no request for evidence and no offer of bed and breakfast accommodation. The Council found a privately-rented property for the family on 13 January 2006. Between the end of October and 13 January the family had no settled accommodation and had to stay separately with friends and family.
On 18 January 2006 the Council issued a ‘not homeless’ decision on the application of 28 October 2005.
The Ombudsman’s view
Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Council should complete enquiries to establish whether the person is unintentionally homeless and in priority need within 33 working days. The Council should notify the applicant in writing of its decision on whether the applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness and is eligible for assistance. If the Council decides it does not have a duty to secure temporary accommodation, it must give reasons for that decision. The notification letter must also include information concerning the appeals procedure.
The Ombudsman was critical of the Council for failing to keep proper records, so there was no evidence that it had carried out proper enquiries on receipt of the homelessness application. He was also critical of the seven-week delay in issuing a decision on the application.
As a result, Mrs H, her husband and four young children spent 11 weeks, including the Christmas period, with nowhere to live other than with friends and relatives who could not accommodate them together as a family. In addition, Mrs H was denied the right of appeal against an unfavourable homelessness decision.
Outcome
The Council paid Mrs H £3,000 in recognition of its failings. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Council should satisfy itself that its operating arrangements for persons presenting as homeless were adequate.
Date Updated: 16/01/09