Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness applications and discharged it duties. The Council’s delays and failures to properly advise Mr X amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness applications and discharged it duties. Mr X complained the Council did not fully explain matters and refused to assist him when he complained about the suitability of accommodation. He also complained the Council refused to assist him when a Category 1 HHSRS hazard was identified at the property and wrongly determined he was suitably housed.
2. In addition Mr X complained the Council failed to progress his application to join the housing register.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr 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

Homelessness

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. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries to establish if the council has a duty to assist them.
8. Councils should work with the person to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the person to take to help them keep or find suitable accommodation. These steps must be tailored to the household and provided to the person in a personalised housing plan (PHP). The PHP must be kept under review and updated as circumstances change. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. If a council is satisfied someone is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is known as the council’s prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, Section 195)
10. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. (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)

What happened here

12. According to the Council’s chronology Mr X first approached the Council as homeless in September 2020. He contacted the Council again in November 2020 to say he was at risk of homelessness. And then contacted the Council again in early January 2021. He reported he was homeless and had been sofa surfing with friends since January 2020 but his friend had now asked him to leave. Mr X told the Council he had agoraphobia, anxiety, panic attacks and high blood pressure. The Council carried out a telephone assessment on 3 February 2021.
13. On 5 February 2021 Mr X told the Council he had to leave his friend’s property that day. The Council arranged for Mr X to view a property on 8 February 2021. Mr X states the Council told him the accommodation would be temporary. He told the Council he needed a property with a bath for his health and wellbeing. The Council’s records state an officer advised Mr X they could not guarantee the property had a bath and that property was being offered as permanent accommodation.
14. Between 5 and 8 February 2021 Mr X sent the Council several emails regarding the viewing. He repeatedly asked whether there was a bath at the property and for confirmation that if there was no bath the placement would be temporary until a property with a bath could be found. There is no record the Council responded.
15. Mr X states that when he attended the viewing he was unable to access the property as the keys did not work. The agent offered him alternative accommodation which he accepted. Mr X states he signed the contract as he assumed the property was temporary accommodation, but the agent then told him the properties were all permanent accommodation. Mr X contacted the Council the following day and asked the Council to help him find alternative accommodation. He complained the property was cold, in a noisy, busy area and did not have a bath. The Council advised Mr X to contact the landlord regarding any issues of disrepair.
16. On 10 February 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X accepting a relief duty and confirming it would take reasonable steps to help relieve his homelessness. On the same day it sent Mr X a letter ending the relief duty as he had accommodation available for his occupation for at least six months. This letter advised Mr X of his right to request a review of the Council’s decision.
17. Mr X did not request a review, but on 8 April 2021, he made a formal complaint about the service he had received. Mr X felt his requests for assistance had been ignored and that rather than help him the Council had provided accommodation which was detrimental to his mental health and then closed its file. He believes that before closing is case, the Council should have viewed the property.
18. The Council’s response set out the action it had taken to assist him. It stated that during the assessment the officer had outlined the reasonable steps he was required to take to resolve his housing issue and how the Council would assist him. This included searching for suitable accommodation in the private rented sector. It stated the officer had not at any time advised Mr X that the property was temporary accommodation.
19. The Council also noted it had advised Mr X of his right to request a review of the decision to end the relief duty, but he had not taken up this option. Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of the property was now outside the 21 days timeframe for a review. It suggested Mr X contact his landlord regarding and problems with the accommodation. The Council acknowledged it should have explained to Mr X in February 2021 what it meant for his case to be closed and have provided him with details of other services that may have been of assistance. It apologised this did not happen.
20. In addition, the Council noted that although it had accepted Mr X’s application to join the housing register there was no record of his application on its system. It confirmed it would look into the matter and update Mr X.
21. Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked his MP for assistance. Mr X’s MP contacted the Council regarding the suitability of Mr X’s property. The Council suggested Mr X make a further homeless application.
22. Mr X also asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaint process. He stated the property was not suitable for his mental health and that he had been in hospital as a result of the living conditions. Mr X stated he was almost constantly in the property due to his agoraphobia, but the room had no proper ventilation or windows he could look out of. During the warm weather the room had reached temperatures of over 30 degrees and made him ill. Mr X provided a report from an environmental health officer confirming they had visited and identified a significant hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
23. The Council arranged an appointment to consider Mr X’s housing situation in early July 2021. The records of this assessment state an officer suggested Mr X check with his landlord whether they had any alternative properties available. They also confirmed they would refer evidence of Mr X’s medical conditions to the Council’s medical advisor for their advice on the suitability of the property.
24. The Council then wrote to Mr X on 7 July 2021 accepting a prevention duty. It also arranged for Mr X to view an alternative property, but Mr X was unable to attend as he was unwell and could not afford to travel to the viewing. The Council provided Mr X with details of private rented accommodation and links to websites and encouraged him to look for suitable accommodation.
25. Later that month, in responding to Mr X’s stage two complaint the Council noted Mr X had declined the offer of alternative accommodation as he wanted a one bedroom flat with access to a balcony or garden. It confirmed the Council was carrying out enquiries into the suitability of his accommodation and would notify him of the outcome in due course. Mr X was unhappy the Council had misrepresented his reasons for not viewing the alternative accommodation.
26. The Council’s medical advisor considered Mr X’s medical evidence and the environmental health officer’s report and determined Mr X’s accommodation was suitable on medical grounds. They did not consider the property getting hot and air not circulation, or traffic noise and pollution were predominately medical matters.
27. On 13 August 2021 the Council wrote to Mr X ending the prevention duty as it was satisfied the accommodation was suitable for Mr X’s occupation. It again set out Mr X’s right to request a review of this decision.
28. Mr X remains dissatisfied with the way the Council has dealt with his housing situation and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He maintains the property was not suitable for his needs and he has not renewed the tenancy. Mr X is currently staying with a friend. Mr X states he did not receive the Council’s letter ending the relief duty and advising him of his right of review. He also states he has not heard from the Council regarding his application to join the housing register.
29. In response to my enquires the Council states it advised Mr X of his right to request a review when it ended the relief duty in February 2021 and when it ended the prevention duty in August 2021. Mr X did not request a review on either occasion.
30. The Council acknowledges Mr X initially contacted the Council in September 2020 but did not receive a response for two months. It states at that time, at the height of the pandemic, the housing inclusion service received a high volume of emails while many officers were working from home. Its service was reduced, and applicants were advised to email or call the team. The Council states this had a huge impact on the delays in response to emails which would have impacted on the delayed response to Mr X.
31. In relation to Mr X’s application to join the housing register, the Council states Mr X completed an application on 26 January 2021, which it assessed in June 2021. The Council states this was due to a backlog in processing applications. It states Mr X did not miss out on the offer of accommodation due to this delay as he did not fulfil the residency criteria.

Analysis

32. The documentation available suggests there were failings in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s requests for assistance and his homelessness application.
33. The Council acknowledges it did not respond to Mr X’s initial emails in the autumn of 2020. Nor did it respond to his emails in February 2021 regarding the offered accommodation. The Council accepts it should have explained what it meant for his case to be closed in February 2021 and should have provided him with details of other services that may have been of assistance.
34. It is unclear why Mr X did not receive the Council’s letter informing him it was ending the relief duty and of his right of appeal. There is no evidence this was due to fault on the part of the Council. However, had Mr X received the letter and the Council responded to his emails regarding the closure of his case, I consider it likely that he would have requested a review of the Council’s decision and the suitability of the accommodation.
35. I recognise the Council has since considered the suitability of the property and sought advice from its medical advisor. The Council’s referral to the medical advisor notes that Mr X’s accommodation does not have an opening window he can look out of and get fresh air which was affecting his mental health. It also notes the property gets extremely hot and there is insufficient air circulation; and that Mr X does not leave the property due to his agoraphobia. The medical advisor told the Council these were not predominantly medical matters.
36. However excess heat and lighting are potential hazards assessed under the HHSRS. If a hazard is a serious and immediate risk to a person's health and safety, this is known as a Category 1 hazard.  If a hazard is less serious or less urgent, this is known as a Category 2 hazard.
37. The Homelessness code of guidance states that when determining the suitability of accommodation secured under homelessness legislation, housing authorities should, as a minimum ensure that all accommodation is free of Category 1 hazards.
38. An environmental health officer at a neighbouring council advised the Council they had visited Mr X’s property and noted a significant hazard under the Housing Act 2004. There is no evidence the Council visited Mr X’s property to verify the level of the hazard, or that it sought further information from the environmental health officer to confirm whether the hazard was Category 1.
39. Mr X had a right of review against the Council’s decision to end its duty as the property was suitable, but I note he had already left the property by the date of the decision.
40. I also consider there to be fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s application to join the housing register. Mr X states he is still unaware of the outcome of his application. Mr X applied to join the register in January 2021, but the Council did not assess his application until June 2021. I consider the delay in assessing Mr X’s application to be fault. The Council’s records state Mr X’s application was rejected as he was not eligible to join the housing register. The Council has now provided a copy of its letter to Mr X in June 2021 advising that he cannot join the housing register as he has not been resident in the borough for five years.
41. Having identified fault, I must consider whether this has had a significant impact on Mr X. It is not possible to say whether or how the outcome would have been different but for the delays and failings identified above. However, the delays in accepting a homelessness application and in assessing his housing application, and the failure to properly advise him caused Mr X unnecessary distress and uncertainty at what was already a difficult time.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 in recognition of the distress, and uncertainty he has experienced as result of the Council’s delays and failures to properly advise him.
43. The Council should take this action with in one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council’s delays and failures to properly advise Mr X amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman