Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss Q’s complaint of it failing to promptly, and properly, process her homeless application. It failed to show it considered the need to offer her interim accommodation. It also failed to consider whether it was reasonable for her to occupy the accommodation where she was staying. The Council failed to show it reviewed the personal housing plan, kept full records on her case, or made enquiries on her application. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Q complains about the Council’s handling of her homeless application made in July 2018 and especially about:
1. Its failure to promptly and properly process her application;
2. The way the case officer treated her;
3. Delays asking her for information needed to process it and with repeated requests for information and evidence it already had; and
4. The failure to offer her temporary accommodation.
2. As a result, she stayed sleeping on the sofa in her disabled uncle’s one-bedroom flat before, and after, the birth of her child which she found stressful, made her fearful, and affected her mental health

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

Council’s duties towards the homeless

5. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]

6. 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.
7. 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)
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)

Back to top

Prevention duty

9. Councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person (regardless of priority need for example) who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means helping them stay in their current accommodation or helping them find a new place to live before they become homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless brought to an end.
10. Reasonable steps might include: trying mediation/conciliation where an applicant is threatened with family exclusion; provide support to applicants (financial or otherwise) to access private rented accommodation.
11. Personalised housing plans need to be realistic, taking account of local housing markets for example, along with the applicant’s needs and wishes. It should make every effort to get the agreement of applicants to the plan. If this is not possible, it needs to record what they could not agree. Assessments and plans must be kept under review throughout the prevention and relief stages. Councils need to set up timescales for reviewing plans. Applicants have the right to ask for a review of the steps the council agreed to take.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered all the information Miss Q sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent my draft decision to Miss Q and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

13. Miss Q is a single parent with a 10-month-old baby. She suffers from panic attacks and anxiety. They had been staying at her uncle’s one-bedroom flat, sleeping on his sofa. Her uncle did not want them living with him due to health concerns. She applied for housing in 2018 when her uncle asked her to leave as she became pregnant. The Council refused to help her.
14. The key events are as follows:

2018

• June: Towards the end of the month, Miss Q applied to the Council as homeless declaring she was sofa surfing at a friend’s house. She stated she was pregnant, had mental health problems, and gave some information about where she lived over the last 5 years. She also stated she had to move that day and had nowhere to stay that night.

The Council asked her to visit its offices and asked her to bring documents which included her birth certificate, proof of pregnancy, letter from the person asking her to leave the flat, and passport. She visited and presented as homeless, but she had no documentation. The officer discussed the case with another officer who said they could not help without the documents.

In response to my enquiries, the Council said there was a lack of documentation to confirm eligibility for homelessness and priority. It enclosed a copy of a letter from the hospital confirming an examination earlier that month showing she was pregnant;

• July: Her mother wrote to the Council confirming she was pregnant and homeless.

A friend wrote saying she could no longer have Miss Q stay at her accommodation because of the size of her flat and having children herself. The Council confirmed she provided a ‘letter of exclusion’;

The Council wrote to her accepting it had a duty to prevent her from becoming homeless. It sent her a personal housing plan and told her she had the right to ask for a review of the decision. The plan said an officer would visit and give advice on private renting/benefits and contact her uncle. She was to make efforts to find privately rented accommodation, get a GP letter about her mental health, and apply for benefit. The Council confirmed it was not signed so it could not confirm whether it was agreed;

• August: Miss Q attended a prevention appointment at the Council. An officer spoke to Miss Q’s uncle who agreed she could stay with him until the end of the month and a personal housing plan was agreed with her. Miss Q denied her uncle agreed to her staying. An officer was to visit her at home but failed to do so. She told the Council at the end of the month she was now staying with various friends.
• September: The Council asked her to confirm her last settled address and how long she had lived there. It wanted the contact details of the address she was currently in along with various documents (passport, birth certificate, bank statements, utility bills and GP evidence about her pregnancy and health concerns).
• December: Miss Q visited the Council’s offices and provided her bank statements and address history. She did not know the address she was staying at as it was arranged with her father. She was staying with a friend who was happy for her to remain there until the birth of her baby.

2019

• January: Miss Q chased the Council for an update. The Council told her the case was still at the stage of enquiry. Once a decision was made on her homeless application, it would write to her.
• February: She again chased the Council twice about her application as there was no progress on it, 5 months after making it. An officer replied saying he met her in December and explained they could place her in temporary accommodation, but she wished to stay with her friend up to the birth to have some support. Her application remained in the prevention stage and would move to the relief stage if she had nowhere to live. Miss Q replied saying she wanted temporary accommodation. The Council asked for evidence of her friend now wanting her to move.
• May: The Council had still not received the letter it asked her for from her friend. Miss Q told the officer during a telephone call she did not want to be placed in temporary accommodation. Her GP sent a letter in support of her application confirming panic and anxiety attacks. The Council said it received her private renting sector statement but, she failed to complete and return the income/expenditure form. There is a record stating Miss Q told an officer she did not want to go in to temporary accommodation as she did not want to go too far away.
• October: An internal email confirmed Miss Q needed a home visit and, ‘her case has sat in prevention since June 2018 because of staff sickness etc’. It went on to say she chased for a decision but, ‘I can’t do much with it until we’ve confirmed homelessness-she’s been there for a year plus as ‘threatened’. Miss Q complained to the Council about the way it dealt with her application and the failure of the homeless team to answer her calls. Her application remained in the prevention stage. An email from her said she thought it best to go in to temporary accommodation.

An email sent to her said the Council would look for suitable accommodation when she visited the offices. It still needed to confirm homelessness. She was also told she could bid as homeless once her homeless application had been assessed and a duty to her accepted. This is usually done 56 days after the start of her relief period. The relief period would start when it accepted her as homeless.

• November: The Council responded to her query and confirmed her application was still open. She wanted her application referred to a medical advisor.

It explained it offered a refuge place because of the risk posed to her. Miss Q had told the Council she had been chased, followed, and attacked on the streets because her uncle was arrested at the scene of a shooting. She did not wish to go in a refuge and wanted housing in one area only;

An officer carried out a home visit. She was staying with her uncle in a one bedroom flat where she said she had been since 2016. He agreed for her to stay there for a further 2 months to allow her to get her own place;

2020

• January: Miss Q told the Council her uncle, despite asking her to leave again, allowed her to remain in his flat for a while longer. She confirmed she did not want temporary accommodation as it would affect her mental health as she would not know where she would be placed;
• February: Miss Q entered a tenancy agreement for a private flat. There was a shortfall in the rent each month between the rent payable and her benefits. Initially, the Council told her it would not authorise it because of the shortfall of the rent. The Council closed the case as homelessness was prevented.

15. In response to her stage 2 complaint request, the Council accepted keeping Miss Q waiting for a meeting at its offices for 30 minutes asking her to provide documents she already provided. The Council apologised.
16. The Council also accepted: it failed to meet the statutory requirements including the full needs assessment, the PHP reviews, issuing notification letters on time, and delays both in the investigation and the prevention duty. It explained these were caused by the sheer demands on workloads and has taken action to ensure this is not repeated. This includes a Backlog Service to help provide support dealing with delayed cases. In March 2020, it had 1,683 prevention and relief applications waiting for decisions.

Analysis

17. A council, which has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, must make inquiries to satisfy itself whether that person is eligible for assistance and if so, what, if any, duties are owed. A person is threatened with homelessness if they are likely to become homeless within 56 days. A person is homeless if they have no accommodation available for their occupation which they have a legal right to occupy. A right would include an express or implied licence to occupy it (as a lodger, for example).
18. Where an applicant has been asked to leave by family or friends with whom they have been staying, the council will need to carefully consider whether their licence was revoked.
19. I found fault causing injustice on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. In June 2018, Miss Q was homeless and sofa-surfing. She told the Council she was pregnant. The Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation as soon as it had reason to believe Miss Q may be homeless, eligible, and in priority need. While the Council considered it reasonable to expect her to co-operate and provide evidence, the legal threshold is low. Miss Q telling the Council she was pregnant was enough to trigger the duty to provide interim accommodation in these circumstances. It should have provided interim accommodation and then asked her for the evidence. The Council failed to provide her with interim accommodation. The Council applied too high a threshold which resulted in it not offering her interim accommodation.
2. The law says the Council had to consider whether it believed she may be homeless or threatened with homelessness and must make inquiries to see if it owed her a duty.
3. Under the Code of Guidance (paragraph 6.4), a council must consider several factors to decide whether a person is homeless. The Code says a person who has accommodation, ‘is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation’. There is no evidence the Council considered whether the accommodation she was in at the time was reasonable for her to continue to occupy as a pregnant woman. There is nothing to show it considered the property’s size, her physical health, the health of her uncle, or her own mental health, for example.
4. There is no evidence the Council took reasonable steps to help her secure suitable accommodation that became available to her for at least 6 months. The only evidence of any steps taken by the Council was it contacting her uncle to ask him to delay her having to leave his flat. As noted, this would only have been appropriate prevention action if the Council had evidence it considered it reasonable for her to continue to occupy the accommodation. What the Council did was mediate with her uncle which delayed, not prevented, her homelessness.
5. Had the Council properly addressed whether it was reasonable for Miss Q to occupy the accommodation she was staying in, it might have decided she was homeless in which case the relief duty would have applied. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is already homeless and eligible, it must take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure the applicant secures accommodation which is available for at least 6 months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B, as amended by section 4(2), Homelessness Reduction Act 2017).
6. In July, it accepted it owed her the preventative duty and sent her the plan. There is no evidence it contacted her friend, who wanted Miss Q to leave her flat, to establish immediate homelessness.
7. The burden of proof about whether a person is homeless or not rested with the Council. In Miss Q’s case, the Council reversed this by placing the burden on her. It did this by asking her to provide documents, for example, before making a decision about whether it owed Miss Q the main housing duty.
8. The Council delayed progressing her application. It kept it at the prevention stage, which should have lasted no more than 56 days, for about 18 months. There is little evidence showing what the Council did during most of this period. For example, there is nothing showing whether it made its own efforts to get the information or documents it asked her for. There is nothing to show what it did from February 2019, for example.
9. Councils must keep the assessment and PHP under review. If new information comes to light, or circumstances change, this should trigger a review. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A, as inserted by section 3 (1), Homelessness Reduction Act 2017). This would have included the need to have a review when she had her baby, for example. The failure to keep it under review denied her the right to appeal any new steps, or lack of steps, the Council proposed. This means we are not prevented from investigating this complaint from the date she became homeless. A Council internal email sent in October 2019, acknowledged her application had been in the preventative stage since 2018 because of staff shortages and sickness.
10. The Council delayed making inquiries to help it decide whether it owed her the main housing duty.
11. In August, she went to the Council for the preventative meeting. An officer spoke to the uncle, although I have not seen a record of that call. It is claimed he agreed to her staying until the end of the month. The officer also failed to carry out an agreed visit to meet Miss Q and the uncle.
12. In September, the Council again asked her to provide documents. There is no evidence it chased her before this. Nor is there evidence of it making inquiries to get the information it needed.
13. The injustice these failures caused included: stress; frustration; delay; the uncertainty for Miss Q of not knowing whether the Council would have offered her suitable temporary accommodation while it made enquiries; while it is unknown whether she would have accepted an earlier offer, it would have been offered early on during her pregnancy which could have avoided the dilemma she faced of a possible move closer to the due date or shortly after the birth; lost opportunity; unnecessary uncertainty and anxiety about the future for her and her child; and she was put to the unnecessary time and trouble of chasing the Council about it and providing information it wanted.
20. There was no evidence to support Miss Q’s complaint about her treatment by officers who she says were unhelpful and rude, for example. This is not supported by the written records and we cannot know what might have passed between her and officers in meetings and during telephone calls.

Agreed action

21. I considered our guidance on remedies.
22. I also considered the public report we issued in November 2019 against the Council which dealt with broadly similar failures and issues (19 000 068).
23. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following actions:
1. Send Miss Q a written apology for its failings to: provide interim accommodation; of applying too high a threshold; consider whether it was reasonable for her to occupy the accommodation; make enquiries on her application; keep full records; review the PHP.
2. Complete a review within 6 weeks which examines its failings to ensure they are not repeated in the future.
3. Remind officers of the need to: properly consider whether they should offer interim accommodation; apply the correct threshold when considering applications; consider whether it was reasonable for her to occupy the accommodation she was staying in; carry out reviews of PHPs; keep full records on cases; make their own enquiries on applications where an applicant is slow producing what is needed.
4. Pay £2,400 (£200 x 16 months: I took 16 months instead of 18 to allow for the 56 days under the PHP) to Miss Q for the avoidable distress she suffered because of the fault.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Miss Q’s complaint. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman