Summary: The Council failed to properly deal with Mr X’s homelessness assistance application. There were large periods of inaction and his case was wrongly closed for several months as a direct result of the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments for Mr X’s disability. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X, prioritise action on his case and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that there have been failings in the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness application. In particular, he says that it closed his case in error, failed to make reasonable adjustments for him, and delayed dealing with his case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and government guidance

5. The Equality Act 2010 says that anyone who provides services to the public or a section of the public, who finds there are barriers to disabled people using a service must consider making adjustments to their process. If those adjustments are reasonable they must be made.
6. 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.
7. Every person applying for assistance from a housing authority stating that they are homeless or are going to be homeless will require an initial interview. If there is reason to believe that they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether they are eligible for assistance. If the applicant is not eligible for assistance or if the authority is satisfied that they are not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they must be given a written notification of the decision reached. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 11.3)
8. If the council is satisfied someone is eligible for assistance and either homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must try to agree a personalised housing plan with the applicant, setting out what both parties will do to try to resolve the housing problem. The council must review and update the assessment and the personalised housing plan as circumstances change. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)
9. If homelessness is not successfully relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Under the main housing duty, councils must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Key events and analysis

10. Mr X submitted a homelessness assistance application to the Council in April 2018. He stated that he was unable to continue living with his aunt and uncle because the accommodation was overcrowded and his health conditions were deteriorating. Mr X also provided medical evidence to support his application.
11. Mr X attended an interview with a Housing Advice and Homelessness Officer on 16 May. The officer recorded that Mr X should be contacted by text or email only because he was hearing impaired and unable to answer the telephone.
12. Mr X says he found the interview difficult because the officer ignored his request to raise her voice or face him so that he could lip read. The officer says that she did not ignore his requests and always faces applicants during interviews. There is not enough evidence available for me to determine whether the officer failed to make reasonable adjustments to the way she conducted the interview.
13. The Council’s records show that after almost an hour and a quarter, Mr X asked to end the interview for health reasons. The Council says that because of this, the officer was unable to complete her assessment and issue a personalised housing plan or notification letter confirming the status of his application.
14. Mr X says that he did not ask to end the interview and he believed the officer had completed her assessment.
15. The Council’s records show that the officer made some enquiries following the interview in May but then took no further action until November. She then tried to contact Mr X by telephone and when he did not answer, she closed the case. This was fault. The officer should have completed her assessment, issued a personalised housing plan and made a decision on Mr X’s application. The officer should also not have tried to contact Mr X by phone and should not have closed his case when he did not answer.
16. In February 2019, Mr X emailed the officer and asked for an update. He did not receive a reply. Mr X emailed the officer again in April. The officer told Mr X that his case had been closed due to no contact.
17. Mr X complained to the Council about the way it had handled his case. In one of the Council’s responses, it agreed to reopen his case and said it had allocated it to a different officer who would contact him early the following week.
18. The officer did not try to contact Mr X for two months, and this was only following further complaints by Mr X. This delay was fault.
19. The officer tried to contact Mr X by phone, and when he did not answer, he sent an email. The officer should not have tried to call Mr X. This was fault.
20. Mr X then complained to the Council about the officer’s actions and the delay. He asked for his case to be allocated to a different officer.
21. The Council did not agree to Mr X’s request and did not uphold his complaint. The Council says it closed his complaint on 2 October 2019 but it no longer has a copy of its response to Mr X. This is fault.
22. The following day, the officer noted that he had been told to treat the case as a priority and arrange an appointment with Mr X. He did not do so. This was fault.
23. In January 2020, the Council told our office that Mr X’s case remained open because Mr X had told the Council that he did not want any action taken until the complaints process had been completed. The process had been completed in October 2019 and so the Council should have progressed his application. It did not do so; this was fault.
24. When the Council wrote to our office in August 2020, it said that there had been no decision on Mr X’s application. It said that his case had been allocated to one of its senior practitioners who would contact Mr X. It apologised for not allocating the case beforehand.
25. The Council’s failings in this case have caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty as to whether he would have been provided with housing by the Council if it had handled his case properly. He says that he has had to remain sleeping on the floor of his aunt and uncle’s one bedroom flat and the conditions have exacerbated his health problems.

Agreed action

26. Within two weeks of my final decision, the Council will ask Mr X to provide the information it needs to complete its assessment of his case. It will then complete its assessment within four weeks of Mr X providing this information.
27. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the failings identified in this case.
• Make a payment of £600 to Mr X in recognition of the distress he has suffered as a result of those failings.
• Decide if Mr X is eligible to join the housing register and if he is, it will backdate his housing registration date to the date he applied in September 2020.
28. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Put in place a method for ensuring any agreed reasonable adjustments are prominently highlighted to officers.
• Create a process to track open cases to reduce delays.
• Highlight the failings in this case to its officers to prevent similar failings in future.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman