Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y, that the Council delayed in accepting a homelessness application from him and failed to consider his medical records. She also complains that the Council failed to communicate with her and did not escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in failing to review Mr Y’s personalised housing plan and in failing to notify him that the prevention duty had ended. It also failed to communicate with Mrs X and escalate her complaint to stage 2. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and Mr Y and make a payment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council:
• delayed in accepting a homelessness application from her son;
• failed to consider her son’s medical records;
• failed to communicate with her; and
• failed to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s failings caused her and her son distress and she was put to a great deal of time and trouble in chasing a response.

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. 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

5. I have considered all the information provided by Mrs X, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. The Council has duties towards homeless people under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2018 is the statutory guidance which councils must have regard to when carrying out their functions in relation to homeless people.
8. A council must take a homeless application from a person if it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days.
9. Having accepted an application, the council must complete an assessment of the person’s case, including the circumstances of their homelessness and their housing needs. The council will work with the applicant to develop a personalised housing plan (PHP) which sets out the steps both the Council and the applicant will take to try to resolve the applicant’s homelessness.
10. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible, it must take reasonable steps to help ensure the person continues to have accommodation available to them. This is called the prevention duty. This duty arises regardless of whether the applicant may be in priority need. The duty does not extend to the council having to actually secure accommodation for the applicant.
11. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant is already homeless and eligible, it must take ‘reasonable steps’ to help ensure the applicant secures accommodation which is available for at least six months. This is called the relief duty.
12. The council may give notice to bring the relief duty to an end in several circumstances including where it has complied with the relief duty for at least 56 days whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation.

Key facts

13. Mr Y has Aspergers and is dyslexic. He cannot read or write so his mother helps him with this.
14. On 4 December 2018 Mr Y approached the Council stating he was threatened with homelessness. He had been released from prison and was living in a car on his parents’ drive. They would not allow him to live in the property because his behaviour was causing stress to the family. The Council accepted a homelessness application from him. An officer gave Mr Y advice and arranged a further appointment for a housing needs officer to complete a full assessment.
15. On 8 January 2019 Mr Y attended the appointment with his housing needs officer, Officer B. He said his mother had now let him into the property until 2 February 2019 because he had been released from prison on condition that he lived at her address until that date. He said he suffered from anxiety and depression and provided a letter from his GP dated 2018. He also provided a copy of his education health care plan from 2004 which showed he had special educational needs.
16. Officer B completed a PHP which stated that Mr Y’s parents had served a notice to quit because he was causing stress to the family. The PHP set out actions to be taken by Mr Y (look for affordable accommodation in the private sector) and the steps Officer B would take (submit the documents provided by Mr Y to the medical team to establish whether or not he had a priority need).
17. Officer B provided information to Mr Y on how to find alternative accommodation.
18. The PHP stated that the Council would complete a review with Mr Y on 1 February 2019 by telephone.
19. On 10 January 2019 Officer B contacted Mr Y’s GP requesting his medical records because the documents provided by Mr Y were out of date. Once he received the documents from the GP, he requested a medical assessment. The medical team decided Mr Y was not vulnerable and in priority need.
20. On 24 January 2019 the Council wrote to Mr Y confirming it had accepted a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent him from becoming homeless (the prevention duty). The letter explained that the duty would last for at least 56 days and the Council would notify Mr Y when it came to an end. The letter enclosed a copy of the PHP and explained that Mr Y had a right to request a review of the steps the Council had agreed to take.
21. On the same day the Council wrote to Mr Y explaining its decision that he was not in priority need. The letter notified Mr Y of his right to request a review of the decision within 21 days.
22. On 8 February 2019 Officer B wrote to Mr Y explaining that the Council had accepted a relief duty to him. The letter stated that, following a full assessment of Mr Y’s needs, the Council was satisfied he was eligible for help and it had reason to believe he was homeless. It explained the Council had a duty to take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help him secure accommodation through various measures including personalised advice. Officer B reminded Mr Y of the PHP and advised him to complete the action points identified. He also confirmed he had referred Mr Y to the single homeless team for further assistance. Mrs X says Mr Y did not receive this letter.
23. On 11 February 2019 an officer from the single homeless team telephoned and spoke to Mrs X because Mr Y was not available. The officer explained Mr Y had been referred to the team for help with rehousing him in a hostel or privately rented shared accommodation. Mrs X refused to engage saying she would provide further medical evidence supporting Mr Y’s case as she considered him to be vulnerable and in priority need. The officer notified Officer B.
24. On 14 February 2019 Officer B referred Mr Y’s housing application to the housing needs manager, Officer C, for a decision on which band it should be placed in on the housing register.
25. On 8 April 2019 Officer B sent Mr Y a letter confirming 56 days had elapsed since the relief duty began so the Council owed no further duty to him. He advised Mr Y to follow the advice he had been given on obtaining his own accommodation.
26. Mrs X telephoned the Council on 14 May 2019 stating she had heard nothing from Officer B since Mr Y’s appointment with him in January despite telephoning several times and leaving messages asking him to return her call. She had recently spoken to another member of staff who had advised her that the Council had discharged its duty to Mr Y in April. Mrs X said she was unaware of this having received no correspondence from the Council. The same day Mrs X sent an email to the Council complaining about its failure to respond to her calls.
27. On 23 May 2019 Officer C placed Mr Y’s housing application in Band 4. The Council wrote to him confirming this and explained that his application would be backdated to 14 February 2019.
28. Mrs X made a complaint on 7 June 2019. Officer C responded on 19 June 2019. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the response and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
29. In October 2019 Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman saying the Council had not responded to her stage 2 complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the Council. It then issued a response at stage 2.

Analysis

Mr Y’s homelessness application

30. The Council accepted a homelessness application from Mr Y at his first appointment on 4 December 2018 and arranged an appointment for a full assessment. I find there was no delay in the Council accepting a homelessness application.
31. The Council correctly issued a PHP. Mr Y had the right to appeal the steps the Council agreed to take, and then to appeal to court. It would have been reasonable for him to do so if he felt the steps the Council agreed to take were not sufficient. We cannot therefore comment on the suitability of those steps, only whether the Council took them.
32. The only step set out in the PHP for the Council to take was to pass Mr Y’s medical information to the medical team for assessment to determine whether he was in priority need. Officer B did this. He also provided Mr Y with advice and information about how to find private rented accommodation and referred him to the single homeless team for further help.
33. Councils must keep the assessment and PHP under review throughout the prevention and relief duties to ensure the agreed steps remain appropriate. Mr Y’s PHP should have been reviewed on 1 February 2019 as set out in the PHP. This was because he was no longer required to remain at his parents’ address after 2 February 2019 when his bail conditions ended. However, this did not happen. This was fault and caused Mr Y a significant injustice. He lost the opportunity to have the PHP reviewed and suffers the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Council would have agreed to take further steps in an updated PHP.
34. The Council was also at fault in failing to notify Mr Y that the prevention duty had ended. Councils must tell applicants in writing when the prevention duty ends. Although the Council wrote to Mr Y on 8 February 2019 explaining it had accepted a relief duty to him, it should also have notified him that the prevention duty had ended. Failure to do so caused Mr Y a significant injustice because the notification would have included information about his right to challenge the decision.

Mr Y’s medical records

35. Mrs X says the Council did not request any medical records from Mr Y.
36. Officer B contacted Mr Y’s GP directly to request his medical history and proof of any referrals made to relevant agencies regarding his health. He also requested information about Mr Y’s mental health. Once this information was received from the GP, it was considered by the medical assessment team.
37. I find no fault in this regard.

Communication with Mrs X

38. Mrs X says the Council failed to communicate with her. She says she left numerous messages for Officer B and sent him several emails but received no response.
39. At stage 1 Officer C accepted communication with Mrs X could have been better and apologised for this.
40. Mrs X says that, when she eventually spoke to an officer in May 2019, she was told they were waiting for a decision on banding. She says this conflicts with the Council’s assertion that it wrote to Mr Y in April 2019 discharging its duty towards him.
41. The Council’s relief duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came to an end on 8 April 2019 after 56 days. The Council wrote to Mr Y confirming this but Mrs X did not receive the letter. However, the Council had not yet reached a decision on which band Mr Y’s housing register application should be placed in. This was not decided until 23 May 2019. So, it is this decision the officer was referring to and not the decision Mr Y’s homelessness application. It appears that, because Mrs X had not received the Council’s letter in April 2019, this caused some confusion.
42. I find the Council’s failure to properly communicate with Mrs X was fault and caused her a significant injustice. She suffered distress because she was unable to find out what was happening with her son’s homeless application. This was not helped by the fact that Mr Y did not receive the Council’s letter of 8 April 2019. Although there is no evidence to suggest the letter was not sent, if the Council had responded to Mrs X’s telephone calls she would have found out sooner that the Council had discharged its duty to Mr Y. She may then have appealed against that decision. By the time Mrs X spoke to an officer in May 2019, the deadline for appealing had passed.
43. The Council says it is reviewing its procedures and seeking ways to improve and evaluate customer satisfaction. It has apologised to Mrs X and has offered to pay her £100 in recognition of the frustration caused by its poor communication.
44. I consider the Council’s apology, the review of its procedures and its offer to pay Mrs X £100 represents a satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused by its failure to respond to her communications.

Mrs X’s complaint

45. Mrs X says she was dissatisfied with the Council’s stage 1 response to her complaint and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 but this did not happen.
46. The stage 1 response explained that, if Mrs X was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, she may be able to escalate the complaint to stage 2 by contacting the Council’s complaints and information team. The letter set out the team’s contact details.
47. The Council says Mrs X spoke to Officer C on 1 July 2019 having received his stage 1 response. It says she told him she wanted to progress her complaint to stage 2 and he explained she could do so by following the steps set out in the stage 1 response. Mrs X denies this and says that when she told Officer C she would take her complaint to stage 2 he said, “That’s up to you”. She says he did not advise her of the process.
48. The Council has explained that, at the time, it had no telephone recording facilities so there is no record of the conversation. So, I cannot reach a view on what was said.
49. I am satisfied Mrs X submitted a stage 2 complaint under the procedure set out in the stage 1 response. She sent an email to the Council’s complaints team on 2 July 2019 and has provided a copy of this. The email clearly states that she was not happy with the stage 1 response and wanted to take her complaint to stage 2.
50. The Council’s complaints team responded to the request on 10 July 2019 requesting Mrs X’s full address “so we can assist you further”.
51. Mrs X says she provided her address but the Council requested it four more times. On 9 September 2019 Mrs X responded saying she had sent her stage 2 request nine weeks previously and asking why the Council was requesting the same information again.
52. On 16 September 2019 the Council sent Mrs X a further email saying it was unable to see the email trail attached to her email and again asking for her to send her address and explain what her enquiry was.
53. Mrs X responded the same day saying, “I have sent you my address so many times it is a joke this is the fifth email asking for my address”. She then complained to the Ombudsman.
54. On 20 September 2019 an officer sent an email to Mrs X stating “I understand that you contacted us several weeks ago to request to escalate the complaint… Please accept my apologies for the length of time and the confusion that occurred around your request. When you contacted us by email, we should have asked you for the reference number of your complaint rather than your address, in order to proceed with your request”.
55. Mrs X replied stating that she had re-sent the reference two weeks previously and then telephoned and was told the matter would be sorted out and someone would phone her back that day but that had not happened. She requested a telephone call.
56. Mrs X sent further emails to the officer 7 and 8 October 2019 saying she had been trying to telephone and had been placed on hold for 30 minutes with no response. The officer apologised and said the complaint had not yet been escalated to stage 2 because she had not stated the reason she was requesting it. “For example, if the response that you received didn’t address all of the points that you raised”. However, in Mrs X’s email of 2 July asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2 she specifically stated that the stage 1 complaint “did not address any of the points I made”.
57. I find the Council was at fault in failing to deal with Mrs X’s stage 2 complaint. In addition to the poor communication Mrs X had already received from the Council this caused her further distress and frustration and she was put to a great deal of time and trouble in attempting to escalate her complaint. She did not receive a stage 2 response until after the Ombudsman contacted the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by its failure to properly deal with her stage 2 request and pay her £100 in recognition of this. This is in addition to the apology and payment of £100 already offered by the Council for its poor communication with her; and
• apologise to Mr Y for the injustice caused by its failure to review his PHP and its failure to notify him that the prevention duty had ended and pay him £200.

Final decision

59. I find the Council was at fault in that it:
• failed to review Mr Y’s PHP;
• failed to notify Mr Y that the prevention duty had ended;
• failed to properly communicate with Mrs X; and
• failed to properly deal with Mrs X’s stage 2 request.
60. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman