Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to act on further requests she made for homelessness assistance. We found its failure to respond to her emails was fault. However we cannot say if the Council would have decided there were new facts since it made the previous homelessness decision which would have required it to take a new application. The injustice to Ms X is therefore limited to frustration and uncertainty about the outcome. We did not find fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X’s priority on the Housing Register. The Council has satisfactorily addressed Ms X’s concern that staff may have had unauthorised access to her records and dealt with her request for a reasonable adjustment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her requests for homelessness assistance and decided the priority band for her Housing Register application. In particular she complains that the Council:
• failed to act on two requests she made for homelessness assistance;
• did not act on her request for a reasonable adjustment to communicate with her by email due to her severe anxiety;
• did not respond to some of her emails and, when it did reply, did not address all the issues she had raised;
• did not respond to her concerns about the risk of unauthorised access by staff to her housing records;
• failed to respond to her enquiry for more information about an officer who filmed her sleeping arrangements in the accommodation where she was staying;
• was insensitive to her circumstances and needs as a victim of domestic abuse.
2. Ms X says she had to wait far too long to be offered housing. During this period, she slept on a sofa in a property occupied by her ex-partner who was abusive. Ms X feels the Council was deliberately obstructive, unhelpful and unsympathetic.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to do so. A complaint is late when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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)
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. We received Ms X’s complaint on 15 April 2021. Some of the events she complained about happened more than 12 months before. I exercised discretion to investigate the Council’s handling of her homelessness and Housing Register applications since March 2020. This falls just outside our 12 month time limit. In reaching that decision, I took into account Ms X’s vulnerability as a victim of domestic abuse with mental health issues.
7. Most of the events in this complaint happened before the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 came into force and extended councils’ legal duties to victims of domestic abuse. I therefore considered the Council’s actions in the context of the legal duties owed at the relevant time.
8. Ms X agreed to have an initial telephone conversation with me to discuss her complaint. I agreed to contact her by email from then on as a reasonable adjustment.
9. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries, including relevant documents from Ms X’s housing records and its housing allocations policy.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision

Back to top

What I found

Ms X’s circumstances

11. Ms X is a single woman. She has severe anxiety, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She also has chronic conditions which affect her physical health and limit her mobility. She receives disability benefits and has a mental health support worker.
12. Ms X had been living with her partner who lodged with a friend who was the tenant of a two bedroom flat. Ms X’s relationship with her partner ended shortly before the first COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. Ms X told me her partner was verbally abusive to her. After the relationship broke down, she remained in the flat and slept on a sofa in the living room. She said she had nowhere else to go. She struggled to manage the stairs to the flat because of a knee injury.

Ms X’s request for homelessness assistance

The legal duties

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (“the Code”) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
14. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
15. Paragraph 18.6 of the Code says:

“Housing authorities should take particular attention to identify instances where information on an inquiry about a social housing allocation scheme, or an application for an allocation of housing under Part 6, provides reason to believe that the applicant might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. This should be regarded as an application for homelessness assistance”.

16. Paragraph 18.11 of the Code advises councils on how to deal with a repeat application. It says:

“There is no period of disqualification if someone wants to make a fresh application. Where a person whose application has been previously considered and determined under Part 7 makes a fresh application, the housing authority will need to decide whether there are any new facts which render it different from the earlier application. If no new facts are revealed, or any new facts are of a trivial nature, the housing authority would not be required to consider the new application and can instead rely on its previous decision. However, where the fresh application does reveal a change in relevant facts, the housing authority must treat the fresh application in the same way as it would any other application for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation under Part 7.

17. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The statutory 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.
18. 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)
19. 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. This is referred to as the homelessness prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195
20. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions. This includes the steps they are to take in their Personalised Housing Plan at the prevention duty stage and the decision to end the prevention duty. The Ombudsman usually expects applicants to use the statutory review procedure to challenge such decisions.

What happened

21. Ms X first approached the Council for housing assistance on 20 March 2020. She explained she had separated from her partner and that he, and the tenant of the flat, had asked her to move out.
22. Three days later a Housing Adviser had a telephone interview with Ms X. She did this in two sessions on the same day because she could tell Ms X was anxious and stressed. The purpose of the interview was to assess Ms X’s housing needs and discuss the proposed content of the Personalised Housing Plan. They agreed the Housing Adviser would make a referral to the Council’s Private Sector Leasing team who would try to find Ms X a private rented property.
23. The Housing Adviser also discussed the option of a loan to help Ms X secure private rented accommodation. Ms X did not take this up because she expressed doubts about finding a landlord who would be willing to accept her pets. She also expressed concern about the affordability of private rented accommodation.
24. On 24 March the manager of the Private Sector Leasing team confirmed it had received the Housing Adviser’s referral. She said it was likely to be difficult to find a landlord willing to accept Ms X’s pets.
25. On 27 March 2020 the Council informed Ms X it owed her the homelessness prevention duty. It was satisfied she was threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance. It sent her a copy of her Personalised Housing Plan. The Plan said the Council would refer Ms X to its Private Sector Leasing team for an offer of one bedroom accommodation. It explained she would only get one offer.
26. Ms X did not sign the Plan but sent an email saying she was broadly satisfied with it. She asked the Housing Adviser to ensure the Private Sector housing team took her mobility needs into account when considering whether a property was suitable for her. She also expressed a preference for a property with a bath.
27. On 7 April Ms X replied to an enquiry from the Housing Adviser who had suggested they complete a risk assessment. This was a DASH (domestic abuse, stalking and 'honour'-based violence) risk assessment to assess the level of risk and ensure she received the right support.
28. Ms X said she did not feel she was at any immediate risk and her partner had been civil to her. The Housing Adviser told her to contact her if things changed.
29. On 15 April Ms X mentioned in an email she sent to Home Options that her ex-partner had been verbally abusive and shouted at her. The Housing Adviser contacted Ms X again to say she would like to complete a risk assessment with her.
30. Ms X responded that she was not at risk of physical harm but the verbal abuse was not good for her mental health. The Housing Adviser sent another email saying they should still complete a risk assessment. Twelve days later Ms X sent an email to the Housing Adviser saying all she needed was a home of her own so she did not have to sleep on a sofa.
31. On 28 April the Housing Adviser told Ms X she could refer her case to the relief team if she wished to move to temporary accommodation. She explained Ms X’s request for a review of the decision on her Home Options (Housing Register) application would be dealt with under a separate process. Ms X responded that she did not want to move to temporary accommodation as that would mean giving up her pets.
32. On 21 May Ms X sent an email to the Housing Adviser saying a private rented property was not affordable because the Local Housing Allowance would not cover the rent on a property suitable for her needs. The Housing Adviser said the Private Sector Leasing team had not yet managed to find a suitable one bedroom ground floor property for Ms X. She reminded Ms X about her previous offer to refer her to the team that arranges temporary accommodation and said that was still open.
33. On 25 June the Housing Adviser informed Ms X that she was in 7th position on the Private Sector Leasing team’s list and it had not yet found a suitable property for her.
34. On 6 July Ms X raised various issues in an email she sent to the Housing Adviser. She said her ex-partner was angry and verbally abusive to her. She said it was making her health worse to continue sleeping on a sofa.
35. The case officer replied. She said she suggested Ms X could contact a local charity which supports victims of domestic abuse. This was not recorded in the case notes at the time. A worker from a local mental health support organisation had contacted the case officer around this time to discuss Ms X’s case.
36. On 30 July 2020, after consulting a manager, the Housing Adviser wrote to Ms X to tell her the Council had ended the prevention duty. She said the duty had ended because the Council had taken reasonable steps to prevent her homelessness and more than 56 days had passed since it had accepted the duty. The letter explained Ms X’s right to request a review, gave information about the review procedure and local organisations who provide independent housing advice.
37. Ms X contacted the Housing Adviser in early August to say she was disappointed by this decision as she was still at risk of homelessness. But she did not request a review of the decision to end the duty.
38. On the same day the Housing Adviser closed the referral she had made to the Private Sector Leasing team.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had no record of Ms X making any further requests for homelessness assistance in December 2020 or February 2021. It said the Housing Solutions team had no further contact with Ms X after August 2020.
40. Ms X has provided some of her email correspondence with the Council from December 2020 onwards. This shows:
• on 12 December 2020 she sent an email to the Home Options team. The email was mostly about her appeal against the priority band for the Home Options scheme and her medical needs but she also said:

“Please note that I'm also still at immediate risk of homelessness as I was asked to leave this property in March 2020, and I'm having to constantly beg/negotiate to be able to stay here.  I am not living in an amicable situation”

• on 14 January 2021 she sent a further email asking the Home Options team to respond to her December 2020 enquiry;
• on 17 and 22 February 2021 Ms X sent emails to the Housing Options team about her appeal against the priority band awarded to her Home Moves application. In the email she said she was still at risk of homelessness and sleeping on the sofa. She said the tenant was running out of patience because he had first asked her to leave in March 2020. He was asking her every week when she would move out. She said the tenant said he could throw out her belongings and change the locks while she was out. In the first email, she asked for an assessment by the homelessness prevention team. In the second email, she said her homelessness application had been ignored for the second time.
• Ms X says the Council did not respond to these requests;
• On 9 April Ms X sent a further email to Housing Options complaining about the failure to respond to her previous emails. The team replied and advised her to look at the Council’s website for information about homelessness.

My analysis

41. Domestic abuse is not limited to acts or threats of physical violence but also includes emotional or psychological abuse. The Council’s records show the Housing Adviser offered Ms X appropriate support when she was dealing with the first homelessness application in 2020. On a number of occasions she offered to refer Ms X to the team that arranged emergency accommodation if it was unsafe for her to stay in the flat. Ms X did not take up this option. The Housing Adviser also offered to complete a risk assessment more than once but Ms X declined.
42. There is nothing in the records I have seen to confirm the Housing Adviser’s recollection that she told Ms X about a local charity which works with victims of domestic abuse. That should have been recorded. By December 2020 Ms X was being supported by this charity and one of their staff had contacted the Council to make enquiries about Ms X’s Home Moves application.
43. The Council’s records do not suggest the Housing Adviser was unsympathetic or insensitive to Ms X’s needs. She carried out the initial housing assessment over two sessions because she knew Ms X was upset and anxious. She responded promptly to Ms X’s emails reporting that her ex-partner had verbally abused or shouted at her. She made appropriate suggestions to complete a risk assessment and make a referral for emergency accommodation which Ms X declined. She also reassured Ms X this offer remained open and asked her to make contact if she changed her mind. For these reasons, I am unlikely to find fault in the Housing Adviser’s handling of the case.
44. I am likely to find fault in the Council’s subsequent handling of her case. It did not act on the further requests Ms X made for homelessness assistance in the emails she sent in December 2020, January 2021 and February 2021. She sent the first emails to the team responsible for her Home Options application. However the Code of Guidance is clear that councils should identify any requests for homelessness assistance made as part of an enquiry about a social housing application. I do not consider the advice Ms X was belatedly given in April to refer to the Council’s website was an acceptable or adequate response. For this reason, I am likely to find the Council’s failure to identify and act on these requests was fault.
45. I consider there was enough information in those emails to trigger the Council’s duty to treat this as a fresh homelessness application. The Council should therefore have decided if there were new facts which made the application different from the one she had made in March 2020. If there were new facts, the Council would have had to complete a new housing assessment and decide what duties it owed Ms X. If it found no new facts, it could have relied on the decision made in July 2020 to end the duty.
46. We do not know what the outcome would have been if the Council had properly considered these emails at the time. But we can say Ms X was denied the opportunity to have a new homelessness application properly considered. The injustice to Ms X is the uncertainty about what would have happened and her frustration that the Council ignored her requests.

Ms X’s Home Options application

The Council’s housing allocations scheme – qualification and priority bands

47. Applicants for social housing must qualify to join the Council’s Home Options scheme (the Housing Register).
48. Applicants will not qualify to join the Home Options scheme if the Council considers they are guilty of unacceptable behaviour which makes them unsuitable to be a tenant. Unacceptable behaviour includes applicants who have significant rent arrears which, in the council’s view, would entitle the landlord to a possession order. This applies both to current rent arrears and historic arrears from a former tenancy which are still owed to any landlord.
49. Where an applicant does not qualify due to rent arrears, and asks for a review of the decision, the Council expects applicants with an outstanding debt over £1,000 will be ineligible unless they have maintained a repayment plan for a minimum of twelve months or until the rent account is cleared, whichever is sooner. If the debts relate to a former tenancy, the applicant is expected to provide evidence of at least twelve months in settled accommodation with an up to date rent account and no tenancy issues.
50. Applicants who qualify to join Home Options are placed in one of five priority bands, based on an assessment of their housing need:
• Emergency Band
• Gold Band
• Silver Band
• Bronze Band
• Low Need Band
51. Applicants who are owed the homelessness prevention or relief duty, or sofa-surfing, but not likely to be in priority need, are placed in the Silver band. Applicants who have a significant medical need, directly related to their current accommodation, which would be resolved by a move, also qualify for the Silver band.
52. Applicants with a combination of medium needs qualify for the Gold band.
53. If the Council decides an applicant is eligible to join the Home Options scheme despite having outstanding rent arrears, it gives them reduced preference (Bronze priority) for as long as the debt exists. This includes applicants who would otherwise qualify for the emergency, gold or silver band.
54. Applicants are entitled to ask for a review of decisions on their Home Options application, including the priority band awarded.
55. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says a review request must be made in writing within 21 days of receipt of the decision. A Housing Options team leader or manager will review the decision, or in complex cases, the review will be done by an assessment panel. Reviews will be carried out within 56 days (8 weeks) and the applicant will be notified in writing of the decision. The council may extend these timescales in exceptional circumstances.

Ms X’s priority

56. On 24 June 2020, after initially deciding Ms X did not qualify to join the Home Options scheme, a review panel decided she did qualify. She was placed in the Bronze priority band because she had £2,000 rent arrears from a former tenancy with a private landlord. The Home Options team wrote to Ms X on 25 June to confirm this decision and explain the reasons for the Bronze award. The letter informed her about the right to request a review.
57. On 7 July 2020 Ms X asked for a review of her priority band. She also asked the Council to consider her medical needs and requested a medical self-assessment form.
58. On 9 September 2020 the Housing Options Manager completed the banding review and wrote to tell Ms X the outcome. This was completed just outside the eight week timescale. He said the decision to award Bronze priority had not changed due to the outstanding rent arrears. He said applicants with Bronze priority could get an offer if they bid regularly for properties which were not in the most high demand areas of the city.
59. On 18 November 2020 the Council received another medical self-assessment form from Ms X. A medical panel considered the form but decided not to change Ms X’s Bronze priority.
60. On 10 December 2020 a worker from a charity which supports victims of domestic abuse contacted the Home Options team about Ms X’s case. The officer explained Ms X would remain in the Bronze priority band because of the rent arrears. The charity worker said Ms X was only willing to move to a property with a garden.
61. On 11 December 2020 an adviser in the Home Options team informed Ms X the medical assessment did not lead to any change to her Bronze priority. The letter explained Ms X’s review rights.
62. On 29 January the Home Options team informed Ms X a panel had considered her case. The panel accepted evidence she provided about her long term mental health conditions and support from the Community Mental Health team. It also noted her chronic physical health and the unsuitability of her current accommodation. It said she remained in the Bronze band due to the rent arrears.
63. Ms X then borrowed money to pay off the rent arrears. On 16 February 2021 she forwarded an email from her former landlord confirming the arrears had been cleared. Ms X asked the Council to adjust her priority band.
64. On 22 February 2021 the Home Options team confirmed it had moved Ms X to the Silver band. Ms X then requested a further review. She said she had multiple needs and should qualify for the Gold band.
65. Ms X provided additional supporting evidence in late April 2021.
66. On 7 May the Council completed the review. It awarded medical priority, which combined with the existing Silver priority for sofa-surfing, qualified Ms X for the Gold band.
67. The Council says Ms X was not housed sooner following the award of Gold priority because she bid sporadically for properties between May and September 2021. She also wanted to move to a ground floor property with a garden. She successfully bid for a ground floor flat in early September 2021. Ms X has moved to this property and this has resolved her housing needs.

My analysis

68. Ms X was in housing need from March 2020 because she was sofa-surfing and had been asked to leave the flat. It was clearly unsuitable for someone with her medical needs to sleep on a sofa. She also lived in the property with her ex-partner who had verbally abused her.
69. The main obstacle Ms X faced was that the Council's housing allocations scheme says applicants with significant outstanding rent arrears from any former tenancy have reduced priority. They remain in the Bronze band until the debt is cleared. So Ms X did not qualify to move to the Silver band until she paid off the arrears in February 2021.
70. There was no fault in the Council’s decisions not to award higher priority. It correctly applied the rules in its housing allocations scheme and properly considered Ms X’s requests for a review. It promptly reviewed her priority and moved her to the Silver band in February 2021 within one week of her providing evidence that the rent arrears had been cleared.
71. The Council properly informed Ms X of her right to request a review each time it notified her of a decision affecting her priority band or the outcome of a medical assessment.
72. Ms X asked for a banding review on 22 February. The Council decided to move her to the Gold band ten weeks later on 7 May. The Council should have made that decision within eight weeks. But I do not consider taking two extra weeks was fault in this case, particularly when the Council needed time to consider new evidence Ms X provided in late April.
73. Ms X believes she had to wait far too long for an offer of social housing. The principal reason was that she had reduced priority until February 2021 when she cleared the rent arrears. Her priority increased when she moved into the Silver and Gold bands. However she had very specific preferences about the type of property that would meet her needs which meant she made fewer bids. The evidence shows that the time taken to make an offer of social housing was not due to any fault by the Council.

Ms X’s concern that Council employees may have accessed her housing records

74. Ms X used to work for the Council. She was not employed in the Housing Options service but says staff she worked with in the past sometimes transferred to work in Housing Options. She was worried that former colleagues might have access to her personal records and see sensitive and confidential information. She does not know if that happened.
75. After Ms X complained to us, the Housing Options Manager audited the documents in Ms X’s housing records. In May 2021 he wrote to tell her he had found no evidence of unauthorised access by officers, including any of Ms X’s former colleagues.
76. Ms X told me she does not know whether to believe this statement and it has been preying on her mind. She said some staff she worked with in the past were indiscreet and did not always respect confidentiality.

My analysis

77. The Housing Option Manager interrogated Ms X’s records to check which officers had accessed them. He found no improper or unauthorised access by officers outside the service. As a former Council employee, Ms X was worried about this possibility. But there is no evidence that this actually happened so I have not upheld this complaint. I also consider we could not add any more to the Council’s own investigation.

Checking Ms X’s sleeping arrangements at the flat

78. The Council says it is a standard anti-fraud measure to make a home visit to any applicant who says they are sofa-surfing to verify their circumstances. Officers also had concerns that although Ms X had stressed the urgency of her situation, and the risk of becoming homeless, she would not consider moving to emergency accommodation and did not bid frequently for social housing.

What happened

79. On 24 February 2021 a Visiting Officer in the Home Options service tried to contact Ms X by making a voice call and sending text messages. Ms X only managed to speak to him briefly because of her anxiety. While she was out attending an appointment, the Visiting Officer called the tenant of the flat who confirmed Ms X was staying there.
80. He also did a “virtual visit” on a video call. He saw Ms X’s belongings in the living room and documents addressed to her. Based on the information given by the tenant, and observations from the video call, he was satisfied Ms X was staying in the flat and sleeping on the sofa. Ms X was not present. The Council has confirmed that the officer did not keep a recording of the call but made notes in the case records.

My analysis

81. It was not fault for the Council to contact the tenant to check Ms X was staying in his flat and verify her housing circumstances.
82. Although Ms X may have considered it intrusive, the Council needed to check her sleeping arrangements at the flat to decide whether she qualified for the Silver priority band as a sofa-surfer. The Council was in an area subject to Tier 4 COVID-19 restrictions at the time so the officer could not visit the property. Instead he did a virtual visit by video call. Given the circumstances, it was not fault for him to do that.

Reasonable adjustments

The legal duty

83. The duty to consider making reasonable adjustments is set out in the Equality Act 2010. It applies to any body that carries out a public function. Its aim is that, as far as reasonably possible, people who have disabilities should have the same standard of service as non-disabled people.
84. Service providers have to consider removing or preventing obstacles to people with disabilities accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
85. The duty is anticipatory. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

86. The Council’s records show that, after the telephone interview to complete the housing assessment in March 2020, most of the subsequent communication between Ms X and the Housing Adviser was by email.
87. On 22 February 2021 Miss X made a written request to the Council for a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act 2010. She asked officers to contact her by email only. She explained she could not use the telephone because it triggered physical symptoms due to her severe anxiety and depression.
88. It seems the Council did not have time to process this request before the Visiting Officer called Ms X two days later. Ms X repeated the request for email contact when she briefly spoke to him. The Visiting Office communicated with her by text message after that.
89. Ms X repeated her request for the Council to contact her by email as a reasonable adjustment in an email sent on 9 April 2021.
90. Ms X first complained to us on 15 April 2021. On the complaint form she said the Council had ignored her request for a reasonable adjustment.
91. We decided Ms X’s complaint was premature then because it had not been through the Council’s complaints procedure first. We asked the Council to investigate it.
92. On 6 May 2021 the Housing Options Manager replied to Ms X’s complaint. He agreed to her request and said staff would communicate by email in future.

My analysis

93. Ms X has a severe anxiety condition. Due to this disability, she finds it very difficult to engage in telephone conversations. The Council therefore had a duty to consider her request for a reasonable adjustment. It did not respond to the first request she made in February 2021. She repeated the request in April 2021. In May the Council confirmed it would make this reasonable adjustment.
94. Although there was initial delay in responding, the Council has agreed to make the reasonable adjustment Ms X requested and so there is nothing more we can achieve for her.

Back to top

Agreed remedy

95. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Ms X for failing to respond to the emails she sent in late 2020 and early 2021 requesting further homelessness assistance;
• pay her £200 to recognise the uncertainty and frustration caused by its failure to respond and consider whether it should take a new homelessness application then. This payment is in line with our guidance on remedies for distress.
• send a briefing note to staff in the Home Options team to remind them to identify and pass on any requests for homelessness assistance made in correspondence about Home Options applications.

Back to top

Final decision

96. The Council’s failure to respond to Ms X’s further requests for homelessness assistance in late 2020 and early 2021 was fault. I have completed the investigation because the Council has accepted my findings and agreed to provide the recommended remedy.
97. I found no fault in the way the Council assessed Ms X’s Home Moves application for social housing or in the conduct of the Housing Adviser who handled her homelessness case between March and July 2020.
98. The Council has taken satisfactory action to resolve the other parts of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman