Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Miss B’s housing situation and in the social worker’s assessment of the needs of the family. The Council was not clear about whether it had decided it owed a homelessness duty to her. There were confusing entries in the Council’s Child and Family Assessment, and the Council did not send a copy of this to Miss B until she asked for it. The shortcomings caused Miss B distress and frustration. The Council should apologise to her, amend its records, and share this decision with relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about how the Council dealt with her housing situation and a related issue of safeguarding her children. In particular she says the Council:
• Was slow to respond to her when she asked for help with housing. It initially refused to give her temporary accommodation and discouraged her from contacting her MP for help;
• Failed to deal with her homeless application properly. It did not accept that she is homeless because it is unreasonable for her to stay in the home, and did not accept it had a relief duty. It took too long to prepare a personal housing plan. It did not notify her of its decisions in writing;
• Has not assessed her housing application properly and has failed to properly consider making her a direct offer of housing. The Council is not taking into account the impact on her family of having to live next door to the perpetrator and having to keep her family inside the house;
• Has not addressed that a social worker dealing with her case was biased towards the perpetrator, made unjustified comments about her family, and produced a Children & Families Assessment which contained inaccuracies; and
• Did not deal with her complaints about the social worker properly as it did not tell her how to escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
2. Miss B says that as a result of the Council’s shortcomings, her children are having to stay inside the house. They and the family are suffering distress from having to live next door to someone who has assaulted the daughter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
•  it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information provided by Miss B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council’s housing and children services departments including the file documents. I also considered the law and the Council’s housing allocations policy. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken their comments into account in this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness duties

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them 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)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure 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)
11. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review of a number of decisions. Amongst these applicants can ask the Council to review its decision about:
• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end.
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage

The Council’s housing allocations policy

13. The Council assesses an applicant’s housing need and will place them in a band according to their priority. Housing needs band A includes applicants who need to move urgently due to a critical medical or welfare need, or because there are critical safeguarding needs. Housing band B is for applicants with a serious medical or welfare need (amongst other circumstances).
14. The Council’s policy allows it to make direct offers of housing, outside the usual choice-based lettings system, in certain circumstances. These include where the location of the accommodation offered is likely to have significant implications in relation to child protection. The application is considered by the Council’s panel.

What happened

15. Miss B lives in a privately rented house with her two children, Child X and Child Y. Child X has additional needs relating to autism and behavioural and emotional difficulties. He attends a specialist school and is supported by the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS). In June 2020, Child Y was sexually assaulted by the neighbour, also a minor. Miss B reported this to the Police who made a referral to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub.
16. On 26 June 2020, the Council’s social worker (SW) assessed the family’s needs and identified that they would need more help and support to deal with the situation from the Council’s children’s services department. She noted that Miss B was protecting the children, keeping them away from the neighbours, but this was very difficult and the neighbours attempted to contact the children or engage with them. The assessment and the Council’s case notes show that Miss B was finding it distressing to keep the children in the house and away from the neighbours and that both children were traumatised.
17. The Council’s plan was to provide a support worker, do some direct work with child Y about protective behaviour, and to support the family to move. The SW emailed the housing department to support a move to another property. The assessment and plan was completed on 31 July.
18. The Council’s homeless team contacted Miss B. It already had a letter from the Police supporting the move. The Council first told Miss B that it would be able to offer her temporary accommodation while it decided her homeless application and then that it could not. It told her that the Police had not said that she must move which meant that she could stay at that property and manage the risk. Miss B continued to request temporary accommodation but ultimately decided that she could not move temporarily due to her son’s special needs.
19. The Council sent two homeless decision letters and two PHPs. One letter said that the Council had decided that Miss B was homeless, and one that she was threatened with homelessness. Both letters said that the Council had a duty to take reasonable steps to help Miss B find somewhere to live. The PHP set out the steps the Council and Miss B should take. These included that the Council would assess whether she should have additional priority under its housing allocations scheme.
20. On 7 July, Miss B contacted the Council for clarification on the confusing letters and to ask for the PHP to be amended. The Council told her that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. It sent her the final PHP but this said that she was threatened with homelessness. Miss B contacted the Council and advised that she had approached several rental agencies but none had any suitable or affordable properties.
21. Meanwhile, the Council had allocated a family support worker and I have considered her case notes. The first home visit was on 10 August. The Council decided that it would not do protective behaviour work with Child Y because the Police was already doing it. Miss B had not had a copy of the SW’s assessment. It is clear from the notes that Miss B’s main priority was to find somewhere else to live and she told the support worker she was waiting for the Council’s panel to consider whether she had exceptional circumstances such that it could make her an offer of housing outside of the normal housing queue. Miss B was struggling with anxiety. Her GP had prescribed antidepressants and she was on a waiting list for therapy.
22. The support worker contacted the housing team on 10 August, but it had not received a referral for Miss B’s case to go to the panel. It finally was put to the panel on 24 August. The panel decided that Miss B did not have exceptional circumstances. She was in Band A, but this meant it might take months or years for a suitable property to become available. The Council said it could help with a deposit and rent in advance if Miss B could find a private rented property.
23. On 25 August, the Council’s support worker and Miss B contacted 23 housing agencies, but none would accept her as she is in receipt of benefits. The housing officer decided to ask the panel to reconsider its decision because securing a private rented property looked unlikely, but it needed evidence that Miss B had made every effort to do so. The support worker emailed the housing office on 11 September confirming that she and Miss B had not been able to find a private rented property.
24. In the meantime, Miss B had received a copy of the SW’s child and family assessment and had found some factual errors. These said that Miss B and the children’s father had been involved in recent domestic arguments in front of the children and the Police had been called. However, this did not relate to Miss B at all.
25. The Council’s support worker continued to work with Miss B, but she was reporting that she was extremely anxious about the situation and the impact it was having on the children, particularly as they were still living next door to the perpetrator. The support worker continued to give evidence to the Council’s housing department of Miss B’s difficulty finding private rented property and the impact on the children.
26. Miss B’s MP had a contact form in which she could give details of her situation and concern. Miss B asked the Police to forward this to the MP. The Police told Miss B that the Council said this would not be necessary as it would resolve her housing.
27. In September, the Council decided that Miss B was not homeless and it did not owe her the relief duty. Miss B asked it to review its decision.
28. At the end of October, the Council referred the matter to its housing panel again. This time it agreed that Miss B should be offered a property outside of the usual system. It has now offered her a property.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss B?

Housing

29. The Council’s files show that its advice to Miss B was confusing. It considered her homeless applications and sent her two letters: one saying she was homeless and another that she was threatened with homelessness. It was not clear whether it had accepted that it owed her the prevention duty or the relief duty. This was fault by the Council and would have caused Miss B confusion and frustration at a time when she was extremely anxious and worried about the impact of trauma on her children. The notes show that the Council clarified its advice but it still was not completely clear about its duty to her.
30. However, this fault did not alter Miss B’s housing situation. The key factor in securing alternative housing was the Council’s panel and whether it would make a direct offer to her outside of the normal housing queue. The Council first found Miss B did not have exceptional circumstances and then later towards November it found that she did, and made an offer based on this.
31. I have considered whether the Council took too long to grant exceptional circumstances. There has been no change in her circumstances since she first made contact with the Council. The only additional information was that Miss B and her SW could not access the private rented sector. However, it was not wrong for the Council to look at this route first and, in order to say that this was not available to Miss B, it had to allow time to explore this.
32. In addition, the Police had told the Council that it was not imperative that the family move house and on that basis, the Council initially concluded that the risk could be managed within the home and an emergency move was not required. Again, this changed with the passage of time. The Council was able to gather more information about the impact on the children and understood that a move in the private sector was not realistic. On balance, the Council could not have made the decision to make a direct offer of housing to Miss B significantly sooner.
33. The Council notified Miss B of its homeless decisions in writing. It did not notify Miss B in writing of its panel decisions about whether she had exceptional circumstances. It would be clearer for the Council to do so. The Council issued the PHP is good time.

Children services

34. Miss B disagrees with some of the things the SW said to her, for example, that the perpetrator was a victim too or that the children were not at risk. Miss B tells me she was disappointed with the support the Council gave her too. The Police were already doing protective behaviour work with her children and she had to ask for the support worker herself. Overall, I do not see merit in pursuing this. I can understand that Miss B is unhappy about the SWs approach in the assessment but we cannot establish what was said and whether this caused very much injustice to Miss B. It was not wrong for the Council to allow the Police to continue with the direct work with the child. I can see why Miss B is frustrated that she had to ask for the support worker but the Council has provided the support identified in the assessment and has worked with the Police, the housing team, and the schools.
35. Miss B also says that she had to ask for the SW’s assessment to be sent, and that when she got it she found factual errors. It listed two incidents that are actually about her ex-partner and his new partner and not involving her at all. By listing these incidents alongside events relating to Miss B, it could be inferred that Miss B allowed the children to witness a fight and that there was recent domestic violence between them. The Council has explained that it was right to include these on the assessment as they relate to the children, however it acknowledges that these may be misconstrued. The Council has acknowledged that it was poor practice when it did not send Miss B a copy of the assessment and when it did not tell her how to escalate her complaint. These matters are fault and have caused Miss B worry and frustration.

Agreed action

36. The Council has agreed that it will show the Ombudsman that within one month of this decision it has:
• shared the decision statement with staff so that homelessness decisions are communicated more clearly;
• amended the records to make clear that the two incidents are not referring to the Miss B. It may not be able to change the assessment but could add an addendum to make clear the incidents that do not relate to her; and
• apologised to Miss B for its shortcomings.

Back to top

Final decision

37. Subject to further comments by Miss B and the Council, I intend to complete my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss B.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

38. I have not investigated whether the Council was wrong to decide she was not homeless. Miss B had the right to ask the Council to review its decision about this. At the time of writing, Miss B has submitted a review request and the Council is dealing with this. For this reason, I have exercised discretion not to investigate the Council’s decision that Miss B was not homeless.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman