Summary: Mr C complained at the service he received from the Council and its contractor both before and after he became homeless in January 2022. We upheld the complaint, finding a series of failings by the Council’s contractor centred around its record keeping, decision making and communications. These failings caused injustice to Mr C including that he received no offer of suitable temporary accommodation for six months while he was homeless. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement we set out a series of actions it has taken, or agreed to take, to remedy Mr C’s injustice and improve its services.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr C’. He complains at the service provided by the Council after he became threatened with homelessness in Autumn 2021 and then subsequently when he became homeless in January 2022. In particular Mr C complains the Council:

• lost documents he presented in support of his application for help with re-housing when threatened with homelessness;
• failed to award his case the highest ‘platinum’ banding for re-housing in January 2022 after he lost his private tenancy;
• failed to offer him suitable interim or temporary accommodation while he was homeless;
• wrongly labelled him as being abusive and provided less favourable treatment as a result.

2. Mr C says as a result he suffered distress, in particular between January and July 2022 when he had no fixed address. Mr C had to sleep in his shop, which was unsuitable and rely on visits to family and friends for washing and meals. He was at risk of harm due to a medical condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr C’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided, including that gathered in telephone calls.
• Correspondence exchanged between Mr C and the Council’s contractor about the matters covered by the complaint, which pre-dated this investigation.
• Information provided by the Council and its contractor in response to my written enquiries.
• Any relevant law and Government guidance as referred to in the text below.
• Any relevant guidance published by the Ombudsman. This includes our guidance on good administrative practice and remedies. Also, our Focus Report published March 2023 ‘More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homeless Reduction Act’.

8. I gave Mr C, the Council and its contractor a chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement and invited comments. I took account of any comments they made before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Introduction

9. The events covered by this complaint took place over the time period of July 2021 to July 2022. In this time, Mr C went from private rented housing to having no fixed address to finding a social housing tenancy. I have considered relevant law and guidance that sets out the duties and powers given to councils to support those:

• living in private rented accommodation in disrepair;
• living in private rented accommodation who experience harassment by their landlord;
• threatened with, or who become, homeless; and
• who need re-housing (whether homeless or not).

10. I will then go on to set out the key facts in this case before setting out my findings and actions agreed by the Council’s contractor further to this investigation.

The law around disrepair in private housing and the role of councils

11. The law expects private landlords to ensure rented accommodation meets certain standards. This includes carrying out repairs and making sure appliances are safe to use.
12. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair. Council have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (or HHSRS - introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1). They can take enforcement action against a private landlord where there is a hazard which puts the health and safety of a tenant at risk. When a council has reason to believe there is serious risk to the health and safety of an occupier, it must inspect the property.
13. Councils will look to see whether there are category 1 or 2 hazards present in the property. Category 1 hazards are the most serious.
14. If a council considers a category 1 hazard exists it must take the appropriate enforcement action. This means doing one of the following:

• serving an improvement notice;
• making a prohibition order;
• serving a hazard awareness notice;
• taking emergency remedial action;
• making an emergency prohibition order;
• making a demolition order;
• declaring the area a clearance area.

15. For category 2 hazards, councils have similar powers to take action (although they cannot take emergency remedial action, make a demolition order or declare a clearance area). However, such action is at the council’s discretion.
16. Where a council serves an improvement notice or an emergency remedial action notice a landlord cannot serve a notice under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988. This is a notice served by landlords when they want to end an assured shorthold tenancy. Such notices are ‘no fault’ notices. Landlords can use different sections of the Act if they wish to evict for other reasons. For example, because of anti-social behaviour or damage to property.

Protection from Eviction

17. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 makes it an offence for a landlord to interfere with the peace or comfort of a tenant ‘intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe’, this will cause the tenant to leave their home.
18. Local authorities have the power to start legal proceedings for offences of harassment and illegal eviction under the Protection from Eviction Act. If the evidence justifies it, they can carry out an investigation and prosecute a landlord if they believe they have committed an offence.

The law and national guidance on Homelessness

19. The law considers someone ‘threatened with homelessness’ if, when asking for assistance from the council:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• their landlord has served them with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

20. To decide what duties they have, councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
21. If councils are satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance then the prevention duty applies. This says the council must help the applicant to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. So, they should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and applicant to take, in order to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. The council should tailor steps to the household and must provide the applicant with personalised housing plan in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A & 195 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
22. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
23. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The duty ends after 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
24. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority). This is known as the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
25. A ‘priority need’ includes where people are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
26. If a council cannot end the main duty straight away, then it must provide temporary accommodation.
27. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim or temporary accommodation. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
28. The main duty will not apply if a council decides that someone is ‘intentionally homeless’. This means they have acted in a way that has caused them to lose their home. For example, for anti-social behaviour or damaging the property; or not paying rent when it was affordable. Government guidance says that councils should “in each case […] form a view in the light of all their inquiries”.

The law on housing allocations

29. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
30. If a council accepts someone is eligible for rehousing under an allocation scheme, then it will add their name to its housing register or ‘waiting list’. The allocations scheme will then determine their priority on the list. By law, an allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

The Council’s housing allocations policy

31. The policy explains an application for housing only becomes active when the applicant provides certain information. This includes having two forms of ID; a reference from a current or previous landlord and ‘any evidence to support a priority’.
32. The Council prioritises applicants accepted under the policy into one of five bands. Platinum is the highest band for those with the greatest need, followed by gold, silver, bronze and a ‘general’ banding.
33. The Council places any applicant who is homeless and where it owes the main duty, in the platinum band.
34. The Council places any applicant who lives in a house with category 1 housing hazards in the gold band. It also gives this priority to those with medical priority who live in homes that are ‘substantially unsuitable’ for them.
35. The Council places homeless households who are not in priority need (i.e. to whom it does not owe the ‘main duty’) in the silver band.

Key facts

General Background

36. The Council delegates some of its housing services to a housing association. In this statement, I will refer to the housing association as ‘the contractor’. The contractor acts for the Council when approached for help by households who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The contractor also administers the Council’s housing allocation policy and manages the waiting list.
37. The complainant, Mr C, is a single man who lives alone. He has a pet and runs a retail business. He has a medical condition that requires medication he must keep refrigerated. He also needs to eat regularly to manage his condition. He must follow a special diet.

Chronology of events

38. The beginning of the events covered by this complaint is July 2021. At the time Mr C rented a house from a private landlord. The landlord had recently increased Mr C’s rent. Mr C could not afford this. Mr C made a housing application, wanting to join the Council’s housing waiting list, fearing he would become homeless.
39. On 19 July 2021 the contractor wrote to Mr C wanting more information to process his application. It asked him to provide contact details, ID, a reference from his landlord and details about disrepair in his property.
40. In August 2021 Mr C gave the contractor proof of his ID, a copy of his tenancy and “a number of receipts for rent payments”. He did not provide a landlord reference.
41. In September 2021 Mr C made a complaint to the police that his landlord had threatened him because he was in arrears. Mr C also reported this to the contractor. He also told it about disrepair issues with his home. The contractor says that it spoke to Mr C and told him it would not consider him homeless. After the call, the officer who spoke to Mr C undertook several actions which included requesting that Mr C have a paper copy of his application form to join the housing waiting list.
42. Another action taken by the contractor was to refer Mr C to the Council’s Environmental Health service, which responds to enquiries about private rented property. That service spoke to Mr C and gathered details of the landlord’s alleged harassment, involving threats made by a third party. It contacted Mr C’s landlord. They agreed they were looking to repossess the property but had not yet served a Section 21 notice. They denied threatening Mr C. In their conversation Mr C told the Council about disrepair to the property. The Council said it would be looking into this and advised Mr C’s landlord of this.
43. In mid-October 2021 the contractor closed Mr C’s application to join the housing waiting list. It says this was because he had not provided all the information it asked for in mid-July. It did not write to Mr C to tell it of this action. During this investigation it told us initially that it did not think it needed to, as the letter it sent in July explained the consequence of not replying.
44. The contractor says in mid-November 2021 it closed Mr C’s case to consider if he was homeless. It says this follows the advice it gave him in September that it did not consider he was threatened with homelessness at the time.
45. Around the end of October 2021, a Council Environmental Health Officer (EHO) visited Mr C’s home. They identified it had two category one hazards and several category two hazards. In mid-November the EHO sent a hazard awareness notice to Mr C’s landlord. This set out the hazards and the work needed to fix them. It said the Council would consider taking formal enforcement action if the landlord did not carry out the repairs. It also sent a letter explaining its actions to Mr C.
46. Soon afterwards, the landlord served a Section 21 notice on Mr C. It said he must leave the property by 20 January 2022. The landlord told the Council they would carry out the repairs when the property became vacant. The Council EHO made further enquiries in February 2022 and established Mr C had left. They made a further inspection in April 2022 and found the repairs completed.
47. Following the service of the Section 21 notice Mr C got back in touch with the Council’s contractor. He gave it a copy of the notice on 2 December and 9 December 2021. Around the same time, Mr C’s local Councillor also contacted the Council saying Mr C wanted to bid on properties under the allocation policy but could not do so. The contractor replied to the Councillor saying it had asked Mr C for a copy of his rent book in August 2021 and a reference from his landlord.
48. The contractor also noted three phone calls with Mr C around this time. One said the contractor ‘required’ a landlord reference or proof of rent payments. They recorded Mr C telling the Council he had provided a copy of his rent book. Another note said the contractor told Mr C it had a copy of the front page of his rent book but that it “not processed” this due to a backlog. The contractor also said it needed proof of Mr C’s national insurance number and that he needed to complete a medical assessment form. Two of the notes refer to Mr C ‘shouting or swearing’ or using foul and abusive language. The contractor terminated one of the calls. In mid-December 2021 the contractor also wrote to Mr C asking him to provide his national insurance number and inviting him to complete a medical assessment form. It wanted this information to consider his request to join the housing waiting list.
49. I asked the contractor if, after it received a copy of the Section 21 notice, it had considered if Mr C was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It told me it had a backlog of enquiries at the time and it prioritised cases dependent on when the Section 21 notice was due to expire. It says “at the time we did contact [Mr C], but he initially refused to engage with a homeless application”
50. On 19 January 2022, Mr C contacted the contractor explaining his Section 21 notice expired the following day. He said he had packed his belongings and would have to ‘sofa surf’. The conversation included discussion of temporary accommodation (see below).
51. On 21 January Mr C contacted the contractor to say he had now left his home. He had slept in his shop the previous night. Mr C explained in both this and his previous call that he wanted to bid for properties but could not do so. His application was not active and / or in bronze banding only.
52. Around this time Mr C also made a complaint about the lack of help he received from the contractor. In February 2022, the contractor replied saying it had difficulties communicating with Mr C because he was irate. It said it had been trying to contact his landlord. And that it had “attempted to engage with you on several occasions regarding a homeless assessment to progress your homeless application” but that he had “refused to do an assessment”. It said it had now awarded Mr C’s case ‘gold band’ status and backdated this to December 2021. It did this on 4 February 2022, after confirming Mr C’s privately rented home had disrepair.
53. I asked the contractor to clarify when it considered it had tried to assess Mr C’s homelessness. It pointed towards the record of eight calls including those on 19 and 21 January I referred to above.
54. I summarise the records of the other calls as follows.

• On 27 January the contractor recorded what information it had on file from Mr C. It said it had a copy of the Section 21 notice, evidence of the hazards in the property and Mr C’s ID. The contractor said that it told Mr C it now needed a copy of the property’s energy performance certificate, a gas safety certificate; more details of Mr C’s deposit and confirmation he had received a ‘how to rent’ guide. The contractor also wanted evidence of Mr C’s medical condition. The Council says it was wrong to ask for records of documents connected to the property such as the energy performance certificate and so on, given Mr C no longer lived there. The notes do not suggest the officer was carrying out a homeless assessment nor that they advised Mr C of this.
• On 28 January the contractor talked to Mr C about the housing allocation policy and why he could not bid for properties. It said the officer told Mr C they “would take a homeless application from him” but the Council could not offer him housing immediately. The officer ended the call when they said Mr C became abusive.
• The notes of the next call on 17 February, began with the statement the officer said they were calling Mr C to begin a homeless application. The officer recorded they began their assessment. During the call the officer asked Mr C to provide evidence of his medical condition such as his prescription record. Mr C said he had already done this. The contractor says Mr C gave a copy of his prescriptions on 10 February. However, it had wrongly recorded this information. So, the officer who spoke to Mr C on 17 February did not know this.
• The contractor recorded calling Mr C twice on 18 February. In the first call Mr C wanted to challenge the contractor on its record keeping. The officer said the line went dead. In the second call, the officer say they went to voicemail and left a message.
• On 23 February 2022 the contractor noted further documents it had on file for Mr C including the medical evidence he provided on 10 February. The same day the Council called Mr C to explain the ‘relief duty’. It says Mr C became abusive and hung up.

55. On 24 February the contractor decided Mr C was in priority need for re-housing. It drew up a personal housing plan. This set out that Mr C should bid for properties via the Council’s housing allocation policy and look for alternative private rented sector housing. It also said it might help Mr C with a deposit if he found private rented accommodation. The contractor sent Mr C a letter saying it accepted the relief duty.
56. On the same day the contractor wrote to Mr C saying it was ‘minded to’ consider him intentionally homeless and so it would not owe him the ‘main duty’. It did this after speaking to Mr C’s former landlord who made allegations about how Mr C conducted his tenancy, which the Council referred to in its letter. The letter also said Mr C had fallen into rent arrears despite being able to afford his rent. The letter invited Mr C’s comments on these assertions.
57. Mr C replied. On 27 April 2022, after considering his comments, the contractor decided Mr C was not intentionally homeless. It decided it owed the ‘main duty’ to him and gave his case ‘platinum banding’.
58. In mid-July 2022 Mr C was successful in bidding for a one-bed flat in an area of his choice. Having accepted this tenancy, the contractor wrote to Mr C saying it had now discharged the ‘main duty’ to him.
59. Between 20 January and mid-July 2022 Mr C slept in the back of his shop, where he had basic cooking facilities and a fridge. He relied on family and friends for washing facilities. He says the Council did mention the prospect of temporary hotel accommodation. However, he says any discussion was about accommodation that would not provide refrigeration for his medication; would not allow him to prepare or cook food if needed because of his medical condition; did not have transport links to his place of business and would not allow pets.
60. I summarise the Council’s notes where temporary accommodation is referred to, as follows.

• On 19 January 2022, Council recorded Mr C saying that temporary accommodation would be of ‘no use’ to him, because of his medication needs and need to eat regularly to manage his health condition.
• In mid-February 2022 an officer recorded that Mr C did not have “priority need” for temporary accommodation. They noted that Mr C would want such accommodation in the area where he lives and would need access to a refrigerator and cooking facilities.
• A week later the contractor said Mr C refused an offer of temporary accommodation because it did not have cooking facilities and he could not afford to travel to his business.
• A few days later the contractor checked a B&B local to Mr C but recorded this would not accept pets.
• In early April 2022, the contractor recorded temporary accommodation was unsuitable for Mr C as it did not have a fridge or “access to food in the night”.
• In mid-April 2022 the contractor recorded Mr C refusing the offer of temporary accommodation in a hotel.

61. Except for the B&B local to Mr C, none of the contractor’s notes refer to the names or location of hotels or other accommodation discussed with Mr C. At no point did the contractor put any offer of interim or temporary accommodation in writing to him.
62. In May 2022 the contractor provided its final response to Mr C’s complaint. It said this followed consideration of his case by an independent appeal panel which included a housing officer, technical adviser and two tenant representatives. I summarise its comments as follows.

• The contractor said it could not activate Mr C’s application to joint the housing list before February 2022. This was because it needed a reference from his landlord or a statement he had paid rent for a year.
• It had not received information to complete a full medical assessment that might have impacted on the banding to give Mr C’s application.
• That while it had spoken to his landlord, it had not taken his word alone in deciding if Mr C might be intentionally homeless. It did not ignore any documentation Mr C provided showing his landlord would not give him a reference.
• It had not called Mr C a liar when he challenged it that he had provided information the contractor said it had no record of. It listed when he had provided information in August and December 2021.
• It said it gave help and advice to Mr C in telephone calls on 9 September 2021, 19 January, 27 January and 17 February 2022.

63. I noted that as part of the submissions he made with his complaint, Mr C provided copies of letters sent to his landlord in Autumn 2022 where he asked for a reference. He says the landlord would not reply or agree to provide one.
64. At the end of its reply to his complaint, the contractor told Mr C he could complain to the independent Housing Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with the response. When Mr C did this, he learnt he had contacted the wrong Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman referred him to this office instead.

Findings

65. I considered Mr C’s contacts with the Council in turn, beginning with those with its Environmental Health service. This considered his reports about disrepair in his property and threats made by a third party acting for his landlord.
66. I do not find fault in how that service responded to either report. In response to the disrepair, the Council carried out a suitable inspection of Mr C’s home in reasonable time. It wrote to him and his landlord with its findings. As I explained above the Council has a menu of choices open to it, when it finds a property has hazards under the HSRSS. I found it served a hazard awareness notice on the landlord, something it could do in response to a category one hazard.
67. I found the Council did not consider the urgency of the repairs justified taking a more urgent approach. Also, it took account that Mr C’s landlord agreed to undertake the repairs when approached. I consider the Council could give weight to these factors, in deciding what action to take in response to the disrepair.
68. I also note the Council took suitable follow up action to ensure the landlord completed the repairs. I understand Mr C still has concerns that some problems with the property may remain, based on his sight of it from outside. However, I do not think it would be proportionate to ask the Council to do more here. It will be open to the current tenants of the property to make the Council aware of any ongoing or new disrepair.
69. Turning to the report of harassment, as I noted above the Council can potentially prosecute landlords it considers have broken the law. Mr C’s description of the landlord’s conduct met this test. But the Council faced a conflict of evidence. Because while Mr C said his landlord threatened him via a third party, the landlord denied this.
70. Where the Council has a conflict of evidence, I understand that it may not be able to build a case to satisfy a court that harassment has occurred. I consider the Council was not at fault therefore for not pursuing any action for harassment.
71. Turning to the actions of the Council’s contractor in responding to Mr C’s housing need, I note the contractor carries out two distinct roles. One, to assess and support those who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Two, to help assign social housing for all those entitled to it under the allocation policy. This will include those it has assessed as homeless, as well as others in need of rehousing.
72. I have found a series of failings by the contractor in how it dealt with Mr C’s contact which engaged both these roles.

• First, I considered the contractor’s decision not to accept Mr C on to the housing waiting list in mid-October 2021. It took this decision because it says Mr C did not provide information it asked for in July 2021. It is correct to say Mr C did not provide all information asked for. He did not provide a landlord reference. However, evidence he later provided suggested this was because he could not supply such a reference as the landlord was non cooperative.
• But clearly Mr C reacted in response to the July 2021 letter. He gave the contractor evidence of his ID, tenancy and rent in August 2021. He also spoke to it on 9 September. I find this call must have included discussion of Mr C’s application to join the housing waiting list. Because after the call the officer requested Mr C have a paper copy of his housing application. But there are no details of what discussion took place specific to this issue. Further, the contractor knew that Mr C’s relations with his landlord were poor to the point where Mr C said his landlord threatened him. Yet, despite these contacts and this knowledge, the contractor chose to close down Mr C’s application without making further enquiries or reviewing this evidence. I consider this was a decision taken without due consideration of the evidence available to the contractor at the time. That was a fault.
• Second, even if there was no fault in this decision, there was fault in the contractor failing to tell Mr C that it had taken it. This breached a basic principle of fairness in decision making – that councils (and those acting on their behalf) should tell people what they have decided and why. Without this information Mr C did not know the contractor had refused his application to join the waiting list. Therefore, he could not seek a review of the decision. I was concerned the contractor sought to defend this practice during this investigation, although as I explain below it now no longer does so.
• Third, the contacts from Mr C in September 2021 led the contractor to consider, briefly, if Mr C might be homeless. But it says it did not close that enquiry until mid-November 2021. However, there are no records of what action the contractor took during these two months. And just as when it ‘closed’ its enquiries into Mr C’s housing application, the contractor did not put its ‘decision’ to close its consideration of his homelessness in mid-November 2021 in writing. Giving Mr C no opportunity to make representations or request a review. I consider that was also a fault.
• Fourth, the contractor failed to act in December 2021 when Mr C got back in touch and provided a copy of a Section 21 notice. Clearly this should have triggered enquiries into whether Mr C was threatened with homelessness. Yet the contractor took no action on receiving this information. The delay in acting on this information was fault.
• Fifth, linked to the above the Council therefore failed to consider at any point if it owed the prevention duty to Mr C. It failed to prepare a personalised housing plan with him at the correct time. This was a fault.
• Sixth, despite the delay, the contractor still spoke to Mr C twice in December 2021 and replied to an enquiry from his Councillor. It also wrote to him asking for more information on 9 December 2021. Yet none of these contacts resulted in Mr C receiving any clear explanation from the contractor about its duties towards homeless applicants nor how it considered his housing application. I accept Mr C’s tendency to lose his temper on the telephone will have hampered officers. But the notes do not suggest they even tried to explain such matters. The Council’s communications here were confusing, incomplete and as a result, ineffective. That was a fault.
• Seventh, even after Mr C contacted the Council on 19 and 21 January 2022, the contractor did not begin to assess if he was homeless. The contractor has said that it tried to undertake an assessment around this time, but I find it was not until 17 February 2022 this began. The notes of the call on 21 January do not suggest the contractor was considering Mr C’s case as that of homelessness, despite what it knew of his circumstances. While the notes of the call on 27 January do not indicate an assessment had begun. This further delay was a fault. By now, the Council should have been acting under the relief duty.
• Eighth, the contractor asked for unnecessary information from Mr C on 27 January. This was a fault.
• Ninth, when the contractor began its assessment of Mr C’s homelessness on 17 February, it failed to acknowledge Mr C had provided evidence of his medical condition – a copy of his prescriptions. This was because the contractor had wrongly recorded this as something else (a copy of his rent book). This was a fault.
• Tenth, I consider the letter sent to Mr C advising the contractor was ‘minded to’ find him intentionally homeless was inappropriate. The Code of Guidance makes clear that if a housing authority believes intentional homelessness has occurred then this should be further to such enquiries it has made on a case. I accept a ‘minded to’ letter does not require a decision maker to have the same level of certainty as a decision. But it should not be confused for a letter making enquiries. In this case the contractor had failed to make any enquiries with Mr C about the circumstances where he left his former address including his conduct and its affordability. It relied solely on the word of Mr C’s landlord about the conduct of his tenancy and gave no reason for why it considered the rent affordable. It had also not recorded how it reconciled the actions of Mr C alleged by the landlord with their decision to serve a Section 21 notice, which is a ‘no fault’ notice seeking repossession of a property. Sending a letter saying it was ‘minded to’ find intentional homelessness was therefore fault.
• Eleventh, I consider the contractor did not properly consider its duty to provide suitable interim or temporary accommodation to Mr C. There is some agreement between the contractor’s notes and Mr C’s account that it offered something in the way of temporary accommodation to him. But the contractor cannot tell me where this accommodation was nor what it consisted of. Its notes suggest officers were dismissive when Mr C told it of his need to refrigerate medication and dietary needs. There is a note which also suggests the contractor did not understand it had a legal duty to try and provide such accommodation, as it referred to Mr C not having ‘priority need’ for interim accommodation. And despite knowing Mr C had no fixed address for six months, at no point did the contractor put an offer of interim or temporary accommodation in writing. All of this is enough to find fault with its consideration of this matter.
• Twelfth, there was fault in how the contractor dealt with Mr C’s complaint, at the second stage of its procedure. Significantly the contractor failed to correctly signpost Mr C to this office if dissatisfied with its response.

73. In addition to the above, I am minded to consider the contractor also at fault for finding its ‘relief duty’ to help Mr D did not start until 24 February. This is the day it completed its homeless assessment. But it is not the day it learnt Mr D had left his tenancy which was on the expiry of the Section 21 notice on 20 January 2022. This was the date Mr D became homeless and eligible for assistance and so should have been the date when the relief duty began. However, I do not consider a separate finding on this point will impact on my considerations of the injustice caused to Mr D nor my recommendations.
74. Turning to the injustice caused to Mr D I find the following.

• He was caused distress by several of the faults identified above. I consider on balance, its contractor could have registered his housing application in Autumn 2021 had its systems worked more efficiently and had it worked with Mr C to process his application. I do not consider this would have resulted in Mr C’s application being given a high priority banding. But it would have saved time and distress later, when Mr C’s circumstances worsened, and he was fighting on two fronts – both to register a housing application and seeking support as he was homeless.
• The pattern of inadequate and ineffective communication by the contractor caused further distress. This was alongside a system of record keeping that was at best chaotic and sometimes appears to have not been fit for purpose. The contractor delayed in scanning records Mr C provided and then mis-recorded those on occasion. It asked him for incomplete or unnecessary information, and made decisions without telling him – actions bound to add to his frustration and confusion at a stressful time in his life.
• The impact of the sixth fault listed above was that no help or assistance was provided to Mr C that may have delayed him becoming homeless. It may not have been necessary for Mr C to vacate his private tenancy on 20 January had the Council sought to prevent this. For example, in considering ways it might support Mr C with his rent and negotiating with his landlord accordingly.
• The impact of the seventh and eleventh faults listed above was also significant. They meant the contractor failed to discharge its duty to ensure that Mr C had suitable interim or temporary accommodation. He was instead left in unsuitable circumstances – required to stay in his shop which is not intended for habitation. It also led to a delay of a month in when Mr C became eligible for platinum banding. If the Council had not delayed in assessing Mr C’s homelessness then the relief duty would have applied sooner – from 20 January when Mr C vacated his tenancy.
• The impact of the tenth fault was again that of distress. The Council raised, unnecessarily, the prospect that it might refuse the full duty to Mr C. Had it made enquiries properly then it would have reached the conclusion it did – that Mr C was not intentionally homeless. But it would have done so without the unnecessary distress caused by this letter.
• The twelfth fault caused Mr C some further unnecessary frustration, time and trouble. Thankfully he was signposted to our office by the Housing Ombudsman. But this should not have been necessary.

75. I am unable to find, that but for the faults above, Mr C would have secured permanent accommodation sooner. I have checked the properties that Mr C bid on once the Council registered his housing allocation. I find that even if the Council had awarded Mr C platinum banding sooner, which at the earliest would have been on 17 March 2022 (56 days after 20 January) he would not have succeeded in bidding successfully on a property. As those he was interested in between 17 March and 27 April 2022 were allocated to others who had a higher priority under the Council’s allocation policy.
76. In deciding on what action the Council should take to remedy Mr C’s injustice, I considered his own behaviour. At times this was counterproductive. Had Mr C not sometimes lost his temper then I think it likely the contractor could have completed its homeless assessment sooner. But only by around a week. I also find some of Mr C’s conduct will have caused distress to officers. So, I did not find fault in calls being terminated at times, which otherwise may have led to a more productive outcome for Mr C.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. The Council and its contractor accept the findings set out above. They have agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused Mr C. The contractor has also undertaken a series of service improvements subsequent to us reaching draft findings in this case. I welcome this constructive approach which should reduce the chances of anyone else experiencing the poor service received by Mr C.

The personal remedy

78. To remedy the injustice caused by its contractor’s actions to Mr C, the Council will ensure that within 20 working days of this decision Mr C receives an apology accepting the findings of this investigation.
79. In addition, the contractor has made a symbolic payment to Mr C of £3600. This comprises a payment of £500 for the cumulative distress caused to Mr C (£300 for the handling of his contacts in Autumn 2021 and £200 for the distress caused in its contacts between December 2021 and February 2022 and for the inappropriate ‘minded to’ letter); £500 for its failure to help Mr C under the prevention duty; £2500 for its failure offer him suitable interim accommodation when he became homeless resulting in him living in unsuitable accommodation for six months; and £100 for his time and trouble in complaining by signposting him to the wrong Ombudsman.

Service Improvements

80. Further to the draft decision statement I issued the contractor told me of a number of service improvements it had now made to try and prevent a repeat of the faults identified in this case. It told me that it had now:

• introduced a policy to ensure that when it rejects applications to join the housing waiting list, applicants would be told of this in writing. They would also receive reasons for the decision and told about their right to seek a review of the decision;
• begun a process of moving to one IT system to improve its record keeping. It provided detail about how this would result in information being recorded more quickly and in a single location;
• briefed relevant staff on the importance of not making unnecessary or incomplete requests for information;
• introduced a policy that it would not disadvantage homeless households where it was late in completing an assessment of homelessness and found it owed the relief duty. It will now calculate the date for applying platinum banding (in cases where it owes the main duty) from the date the relief duty would have begun but for its delay;
• issued advice to relevant staff on the use of ‘minded to’ letters for intentional homelessness, to avoid doing so where it has yet to make enquiries to determine if this might apply;
• issued instructions to staff on recording offers of interim or temporary accommodation to homeless applicants. It will now ensure it always confirms offers in writing. It will also keep a record of how it considers suitability when offering accommodation; for example, where someone needs to travel to work, education or to give care; or where someone is disabled or has particular medical needs.

81. I also received assurance the contractor had a pre-existing policy which should clearly signpost complainants to the correct Ombudsman service when complaining about decisions taken in respect of the discharge of homeless duties or management of the Council’s housing allocation policy.

Back to top

Final decision

82. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council and its contractor caused injustice to Mr C. The Council’s contractor took, or agreed to take, actions that I considered would remedy that injustice and help prevent a repeat of the fault. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman