Summary: We found fault on Mr K’s complaint about the Council failing to properly deal with him when he contacted it about being homeless. There was also fault on his complaint about how it dealt with him when he applied to join the housing register. It failed to show decision letters were sent, which also set out review rights, or provide records of its decisions. It did not consider his local connection properly for his homeless application. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr K complains about the way the Council failed to properly deal with him when he:
1. contacted it about being homeless; and
2. applied to join its housing register.
2. As a result, he remained without accommodation which affected his health and ability to see his son.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

Council Housing Allocation policy (September 2018)

7. To join the housing register, an applicant must complete an application. An applicant cannot join the housing register if they do not have a ‘local connection’. Having a local connection includes having a close family connection with someone who has lived in the area for two years or more. A family connection is usually defined as being with a parent, child, or legal guardian.
8. An eligible applicant is placed in one of five housing bands. These are Bands 1 to 5 with Band 1, the highest, for applicants with severe housing needs and Band 5, the lowest, for those with no housing need.

• Band 1: where an applicant is owed a statutory homelessness duty; or has a severe medical need; or has a severe welfare need.
• Band 2: where an applicant is threatened with homelessness within 3 months or is homeless and is actively working with the Council to prevent or relieve their homelessness. They must be in priority need and losing their accommodation through no fault of their own; or an applicant with moderate medical need; or moderate welfare need; or been rough sleeping for 4 weeks or more.

Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (June 2022)

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) 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.
10. When a housing authority makes inquiries to decide whether a person who presents as homeless is eligible for assistance and owed a duty, it may also make inquiries under s184(2) Housing Act 1996 to establish an applicant’s local connection.
11. The law says a person has a local connection with the district of a housing authority if they have a connection with it because:
1. they are, or were in the past, normally resident there, and that residence was of their own choice; or
2. they are employed there; or
3. they have family associations living there; or
4. of any special circumstances. (s199(1))
12. Family associations may extend beyond partners, parents, adult children, or siblings. They may include associations with other family members such as stepparents, grandparents, and aunts or uncles, for example. Family associations should be decided considering the fact-specific circumstances of the case. To qualify as a local connection, the family members should have been resident in the district for a period of at least 5 years at the date of application.
13. Special circumstances might include the need to be near special medical or support services which are available only in a particular district.
14. Decisions must be based on the facts at the date of the decision (or review) not the date of the application.
15. The overriding consideration should always be whether the applicant has a connection ‘in real terms’ with an area and the housing authority must consider the applicant’s individual circumstances, particularly any exceptional circumstances, before reaching a decision.

Back to top

Relevant law and guidance on homelessness

16. The 1996 Act says someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days or, he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. Serving of a section 21 notice is a landlord’s first step in evicting a tenant.
17. The Act also says where a housing authority has reason to believe a person asking the council for help with accommodation may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness, it must make enquiries as to whether the person is eligible for help and what, if any, duties are owed to that person. These enquiries take the form of an assessment undertaken by the council and should usually include an in-person interview.
18. Assessments must include details of the circumstances which caused the applicant to either become homeless or be threatened with homelessness, the applicant’s housing needs, and what support they would need to have and keep suitable accommodation. The Act is clear an applicant should not be treated as having accommodation unless it is reasonable for them to occupy it. Councils decide what is reasonable to occupy based on what they find out.
19. If, after completing inquiries, the Council decides it does not owe a duty to an applicant, it must give them a decision in writing and fully explain the reasons for its decision. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. Grounds for requesting a review include a decision an applicant is not eligible for assistance.
20. Councils have a relief duty where they are satisfied an applicant is homeless (as opposed to threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. Under the relief duty the council is required to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least 6 months. Again, it does not have to secure the accommodation itself, though it may choose to do so. When the council decides an applicant is in priority need, and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days. The Council must then decide if a main housing duty is owed.
21. If, after completing an assessment, the Council considers it owes an applicant a duty it must draw up a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) with the applicant to either prevent or relieve their homelessness. This details the actions both the council and the applicant will take to try to resolve the threatened or actual homelessness. The PHP must be kept under review.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

22. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are 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)
23. Mr K complained to us in May 2023 which means we would usually only look at the Council’s actions from May 2022. As he has been rough sleeping, and has health issues, we exercised discretion to investigate the Council since September 2021.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

24. I considered all the information Mr K sent, including the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr K and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

25. Mr K has slept rough since September 2021. He complains about how the Council dealt with his homeless and housing register applications, his Banding, and its decision about whether he had a local connection.
26. Mr K’s son lives in the Council’s area with his mother. Mr K lives in another council area where he stays in a caravan in a relative’s garden which has no water or electricity. He has physical and mental health problems.

Complaint b): Housing register application

2021:

27. Mr K applied for housing in April, but the Council suspended it the same month as he provided no information about having a local connection. I have not seen a copy of this application or whether the Council told him it suspended it and why.
28. In July, Mr K gave information about his local connection. This was after calling the Council who then sent him an email about the need for local connection information.
29. As a result, Mr K could now join the housing register. The Council accepted his application and placed him in Band 5 under its housing allocation scheme. This is for those who are in accommodation which meets their needs. The Council explained as his son lived within its area, Mr K had a local connection under its housing allocation scheme.
30. In September, the Council placed him in Band 3 after contact with the homelessness team. Mr K now said he was living with friends. The Council placed him in this Band as he had no settled accommodation. Band 3 includes those with ‘No Fixed Address’.
31. In November, the mental health team wrote to the Council in support of Mr K’s housing application. The letter said he was living with his ex-partner and son but was not emotionally involved with her. His moving there was a more practical arrangement, but the living arrangements were cramped and chaotic. Having his own property was important.
32. The Council placed him in Band 3 (medical priority) after a medical assessment.

2022:

33. In May, he completed an online form and told the Council he was now living in a caravan without electric or lighting on a relative’s garden. He had recently separated from his ex-partner. He explained about his health problems and difficulty using stairs. He wanted to be nearer to his son who lived within the Council’s area. He also wanted to get medical support there too and said his ex-partner would provide care for him, and he could help look after their son.

2023:

34. In February, Mr K spoke to a Council officer about still living in a caravan. He was asked to send identity, details of income, and other information.
35. After he sent medical information, proof of identity and bank statements, the Council placed him in Band 2 (moderate welfare needs). A medical letter, a copy of which I have seen, said Mr K wanted to remain in the Council’s area. A letter sent to Mr K in response to his complaint said the award took account of ‘your health and the welfare of your son’. He was told he did not reach the criteria for Band 1.
36. A couple of months later, his son was removed from his application as he did not live with his dad, only visiting at weekends.
37. His application was closed as he has since been allocated a property.
38. The Council was unable to provide copies of any decision letters sent to Mr K.

My findings

39. I found fault on this complaint. The Council was unable to provide copies of any of the decision letters sent to Mr K. Without these letters, or a record showing the decisions themselves and their basis, I am unable to say the Council properly explained its decisions to Mr K about his Banding, so he understood why each had been made. Nor did it explain how he could challenge each decision.
40. The injustice this caused him includes the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Banding decisions were correct as he was not given a reasoned decision. He also lost the chance to challenge them if he disagreed.

Complaint a): Homeless application

2021:

41. In September, an officer spoke to Mr K’s former partner about his homelessness and recorded he intended to stay with her temporarily. The Council decided he was in the correct housing register Band.

2022:

42. In May, the records show Mr K was rough sleeping in a caravan, had given details of his mental health, and had difficulty climbing stairs.
43. Between March and September 2022, the Council decided he had a local connection because of his address history but, it assessed him as not having a priority need.
44. The Council could not provide a copy of the letter sent to Mr K explaining its decision that while he had a local connection, he had no priority. Nor could it show how it reached this decision or the evidence it considered when doing so.
45. In June, he told the Council he would not move to shared accommodation so was given private rented accommodation advice and told the Council could help him financially if he found suitable private rented property. It also referred him to hostel accommodation in Mansfield at his request. I have seen no evidence to support what the Council said it did.

2023:

46. In February, an officer asked Mr K for evidence in support of his claim, such as identification, proof of income, and support letters, for example. This information was sent over the following four days. The Council asked him for more information about his address history and told him he had no local connection under homelessness law. This was because he had not lived in the area for six out of the last 12 months or, three out of the last five years. His 12-year-old son was not considered a local connection as he was a minor.
47. The Council explained for his homeless application, the fact his son lived in the area did not mean he had a local connection. It also explained why the homeless team and housing team were unable to exchange information about it.
48. The Council decided he had no local connection from September 2022 because he had not lived within its area for six months of the last 12 months or three years out of the last five years.

My findings

49. When looking at whether Mr K had a local connection, the Council had to consider four factors as required by the law. I consider each:

• Whether Mr K is, or was, in the past normally resident there and that residence was of their own choice:

50. The Local Authorities Agreements (the Agreement) suggests this means being in residence at least six months in the area during the last 12 months or, for 3 years during the previous five-year period.
51. I found the following:
1. Mr K did not live in the Council’s area when it contacted his former partner in September 2021.
2. The Council then had to decide if he was normally resident there in the past. The evidence showed in September 2021, he had lived in the accommodation he had just left for 18 months. This accommodation was not within the Council’s area. The Council correctly decided he was not normally resident in its area during the previous 12 months or for three years on the previous five-year period.
3. Mr K then lived in a property within the Council’s area from December 2021 to March 2022.
4. The Council accepted Mr K had a local connection from March to September 2022. This was because he would have been living in the Council’s area for six months out of the last 12 months. I found no fault with this decision.
5. While he had a local connection for this seven-month period, the Council decided he had no priority. The Council was unable to send the evidence it considered when reaching this decision or a record of the decision itself. This failure is fault as it means I cannot check whether the Council properly considered his individual circumstances when reaching this decision. This was an important failure as Mr K was a vulnerable person with physical and mental health problems. Nor can I say Mr K was told about his right to challenge this decision by way of a review.
6. When considering the injustice caused, I am satisfied he lost the chance to have a reasoned decision communicated to him so he could understand the basis on which it was reached. He also lost the opportunity to challenge it had he wished to do so.
7. As time passed, Mr K lost this local connection.

• Whether Mr K was employed in its area:

52. To qualify under this, Mr K would need to work in its district.
53. I found no evidence which showed Mr K worked within the Council’s area when he applied.

• Whether he had family associations living there:

54. To qualify under this, Mr K needed to show the family associations should have been in resident in the area for at least 5 years at the date of application.
55. The Agreement refers to ‘adult children’ and states only in exceptional circumstances would the residence of relatives, other than those listed, be taken to show a local connection. It goes on to state the residence of dependent children in a different district from their parents would not be residence of their own choice and so would not establish a local connection with that district.
56. I am satisfied the Council correctly considered Mr K’s family associations. This is because the connection he had was with his son, a child, which was not recognised under the Agreement.

Whether he had any special circumstances:

57. This required the Council to consider whether Mr K had any need to be near special medical or support services which were only available in a particular district, for example.
58. On his application form, Mr K mentioned he was receiving help from the local mental health team in the Council’s area but, he had a community psychiatric nurse and associate who monitored him. He explained he could also get care from his former partner who lived in its area.
59. There is no evidence of the Council taking this information into account when deciding whether Mr K had a local connection. This is fault. The injustice this caused him was the uncertainty of not knowing whether the local connection decision was correctly considered and reached.
60. I have also seen no evidence of the Council considering whether it owed Mr K the relief duty. This was not dependent on him having a priority need. It applied if the Council considered him homeless and eligible for assistance.
61. A person is homeless if they have no accommodation available for their occupation which they have a legal right to occupy. A person with accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy it. Under section 175 (3), the Council needed to consider whether it was reasonable for Mr K to continue to occupy the caravan. When considering reasonableness, it had to consider its physical characteristics and whether it was suitable because of his health issues, for example.
62. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it was reasonable for Mr K to remain living in a caravan without heating and electric, for example, considering his health needs. This is fault.
63. The relief duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
64. The Council would then need to take reasonable steps to help him secure suitable accommodation with a reasonable prospect of it being available for occupation for at least six months.
65. The reasonable steps would include those set out in the PHP drawn up and reviewed as set out by section 189A. After carrying out an initial housing assessment, the council must prepare a PHP with the applicant. The PHP sets out the steps both the authority and the applicant will take to try to resolve the applicant’s homelessness. 
66. Councils must give every applicant a written copy of their PHP setting out the reasonable steps each party should take.
67. This should be kept under review when there are changes to the applicant’s housing situation and at a minimum, with every change in duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A(8) and the Code, paragraph 11.24)
68. I consider the failure to consider whether it owed him the relief duty was fault which caused him an injustice. Mr K has the uncertainty of not knowing whether this was properly considered. He also lost the opportunity to have the benefit of this duty and a PHP, for example.

Back to top

Agreed action

69. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also took account of Mr K’s vulnerabilities.
70. I also considered the action the Council said it has already taken. It said it has:
1. introduced a training and development programme for the Homeless team with training sessions repeated annually as a minimum or where a training need is identified, for example.
2. carried out an internal review of this case to identify training needs with individual officers;
3. used this case for reflective practice sessions to learn from it and implement changes; and
4. monthly development sessions with the team to address such issues.
71. The Council agreed to carry out the following actions within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr K a written apology for its failures to: provide any decision letter it sent explaining its Banding and homelessness decisions and review right information; show it considered whether he had a local connection on his homelessness application under ‘special circumstances’; show it had considered and decided whether it owed him a relief duty on his homeless application.
2. Pay £500 for the injustice caused by the identified fault.
3. Review why decision letters were unavailable and act to ensure there is evidence on future cases of them being sent to applicants with full reasons, legal duties owed, along with review and appeal rights.
4. Remind relevant officers of the need to make and keep records of decisions and evidence considered when reaching them.
5. Remind relevant officers of the need to consider, assess, and make and keep evidence of the consideration of local connection special circumstances on homeless applications.
6. Remind relevant officers of the need to consider, assess, and decide whether the relief duty is owed on cases where no priority need is found.

72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

73. I found fault on Mr K’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman