Swale Borough Council (17 019 143)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 29 Apr 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The complaint concerns what happened when Ms X sought help with housing from the Council when she was experiencing domestic abuse. There were some faults by the Council. Those faults caused Ms X uncertainty, anxiety and missed opportunity. The Council has agreed to apologise and review what happened.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains there was fault in the way the Council dealt with her requests for housing assistance, the Council failed to give adequate advice and support and it delayed dealing with the complainant’s housing register review and homelessness application.
  2. Ms X says that, as a result, she was delayed in being able to make a homelessness application, she remained where she was at risk of domestic abuse, she felt suicidal and she later had difficulty paying to store her belongings because the Council delayed helping with this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  3. 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)
  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

  1. I considered the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response and Ms X’s comments on its response. I also considered the law and statutory guidance that applied at the time of the relevant events. I gave the Council and Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
  2. The events complained of began just over 12 months before Ms X complained to the Ombudsman so the restriction in paragraph 5 applied to the earlier events. The earlier events were only slightly out of time and were relevant to the later events that I could investigate anyway. So I exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion described in paragraph 5 to investigate the whole complaint.

Back to top

What I found

  1. If the Council has ‘reason to believe’ someone who asks it for accommodation or assistance obtaining accommodation ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness, the council must make enquiries to decide whether it owes a homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, sections 183 and 184) So the threshold for treating a matter as a possible homelessness situation is low. The Council need not be satisfied someone actually is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
  2. Someone does not have to ‘make a homelessness application’ to trigger the Council’s duty to make enquiries and reach a decision. People can contact any department of the Council, need not express their need for accommodation in any particular form and need not expressly state that they are seeking homelessness assistance. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities July 2006, paragraph 6.6) So the onus is on the Council to recognise situations that trigger its duty to make enquiries into possible homelessness.
  3. Someone who has accommodation is legally homeless if it is not reasonable to continue occupying the accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3)). This includes if continuing occupying accommodation will probably lead to domestic or other violence against the person. (Housing Act 1996, section 177(1) and (1A)) Statutory guidance said ‘violence’ should not be given a restrictive meaning and should include threatening behaviour, violence and abuse, including psychological and emotional abuse. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities July 2006, paragraph 8.21) Someone fleeing domestic violence can apply for help to any council in the country, not just their own local housing authority.
  4. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However, councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make enquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to make homelessness enquiries at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities July 2006, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)
  5. If the Council has ‘reason to believe’ that an applicant ‘may be’ homeless, eligible for assistance (which mostly concerns immigration status) and in ‘priority need,’ the Council must, if the person wants it, provide interim accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 188(1)) People with dependent children have ‘priority need.’

Ms X’s application on 28 February 2017

  1. On 28 February 2017, Ms X, who lived outside the Council’s area, applied to join the Council’s housing register. Ms X’s application stated she had children and she was experiencing domestic violence and emotional and psychological abuse. She stated for these and other reasons she wanted to move to the Council’s area.
  2. The Council emailed Ms X the next day stating she did not qualify for its housing register because she had not lived in Swale for four of the last five years. The Council’s response did not refer to what Ms X had said about domestic violence.
  3. Ms X had completed a housing application. That meant she was seeking accommodation or assistance obtaining accommodation (paragraph 9 above refers). Ms X had stated she was experiencing domestic violence. That is one of the circumstances in which someone with accommodation might legally be homeless. I consider the housing application clearly gave the Council ‘reason to believe’ Ms X ‘may be’ homeless. Yet the Council made no homelessness enquiries then.
  4. In response to my enquiries, the Council referred to its later contact with Ms X from 10 March 2017 onwards. This misses the point that Ms X had given the Council ‘reason to believe’ she ‘may be’ homeless on 28 February 2017. From then, the Council had a duty to make enquiries in order to reach a decision about its homelessness duties.
  5. There should have been close enough liaison between the Council’s housing register and homelessness sections for the Council to realise the significance of what Ms X said about domestic violence and to act. Yet the Council simply rejected the housing application on 1 March 2017 with no evidence of any consideration of the homelessness aspect. Had Ms X not pursued the matter, the Council would have done nothing more. The Council was at fault.
  6. Later on 1 March 2017, Ms X emailed the Council, stating, ‘I need to get away from my ex before the abuse escalates any more.’ On 6 March, the Council received a letter from Ms X’s psychotherapist. The letter referred to Ms X experiencing ongoing psychological abuse from her ex-partner and wanting to move. The Council did not reply.
  7. Those communications added to the Council having ‘reason to believe’ Ms X ‘may be’ homeless due to domestic abuse. The Council’s failure to react compounded its earlier fault.
  8. On 10 March, Ms X telephoned the Council and described continuing abuse by her ex-partner. A Council officer noted,

‘I advised on if she had to flee the property and we would seek police evidence…I explained presenting as homeless/staying with [a relative who lived in the Council’s area]…’

The note added that Ms X had agreed to think about her options and to receive a telephone call from an officer specialising in domestic abuse cases.

  1. It is not clear what the reference to ‘police evidence’ meant. It might relate to evidence needed to join the Council’s housing register. However, such evidence is not needed for a Council to act on its duty to begin homelessness enquiries where it has reason to believe someone may be homeless due to domestic abuse. It is not clear if the officer who spoke to Ms X about presenting as homeless appreciated the Council’s duty to make enquiries and reach a homelessness decision had already been triggered. Ms X did not additionally have to ‘present as homeless’ to trigger that duty. Nor is it clear if the Council explained it could give Ms X interim accommodation as well as mentioning that Ms X could stay with a relative.
  2. The officer specialising in domestic abuse telephoned Ms X in mid-March. I have not seen a contemporaneous note of that call from the Council’s system, unlike other system notes the Council sent me. Instead, there is a note seemingly made later stating the officer would always advise that an applicant could make a homelessness application at any time. The note states generally what such conversations cover but is vague about what precisely was said to Ms X apart from saying Ms X decided to remain in her current property and did not need ‘temporary accommodation at that point’. I assume this means section 188 interim accommodation, not section 193 temporary accommodation.
  3. Meanwhile:
    • Later in March 2017, Ms X told the Council: she had called the police because of a domestic abuse incident; her fixed-term tenancy had another month to run; and she ‘would appreciate any further advice that you can offer me’. The Council said if Ms X felt in danger she should call 999 and, ‘You can approach your own local authority for help if you need refuge urgently.’

In the context of Ms X wanting to move to the Council’s area and having mentioned domestic abuse before, I consider the Council should have mentioned in writing that it could investigate whether Ms X was already homeless and could provide interim accommodation immediately while doing so. Only mentioning the possibility of Ms X contacting her own local authority for refuge accommodation was inadequate.

    • On 20 March, Ms X told the Council she had applied for a court order and was meeting a domestic violence organisation to discuss an escape plan. On 28 March, the Council noted Ms X was ‘thinking of making a homeless [sic] application’. On 31 March Ms X said, ‘I still want to flee to Kent to be away from my abuser’ and would take legal advice.
  1. The Council says it advised Ms X of her rights, she chose not to apply as homeless for several months and as soon as she did so, the Council took and progressed a homelessness application.
  2. Ms X maintains the Council did not make clear she could apply as homeless while still living in her current property. She says instead she was advised she could seek accommodation in a refuge but that might be anywhere in the country. Ms X told me she assumed from speaking to the Council she could only apply as homeless once she was physically homeless and:

‘If they had informed me that I could make a homelessness application whilst living in [previous location] then I would have done so. I was desperate to leave the area to get away from the abuse.’

  1. Ms X says she remained at her previous home, believing she had to wait till her tenancy term ended and unaware the Council could already deal with her as possibly homeless, until she became suicidal and relatives persuaded her to leave. In early May, she asked to apply as homeless. The Council then provided interim accommodation and made homelessness enquiries.
  2. Ms X’s various contacts with the Council more than met the threshold for giving ‘reason to believe’ Ms X 'may be' homeless. In such circumstances, the onus is on the Council to make homelessness enquiries and then make a homelessness decision. Ms X did not have to additionally ‘make a homelessness application’ or ‘present as homeless’ for the Council’s enquiries duty to arise.
  3. So the starting-point in considering this is that the Council had to make enquiries after Ms X’s contacts on 28 February and after, unless there were strong reasons not to. One such reason would be if the Council clearly explained Ms X’s rights and Ms X clearly stated she did not want the Council to treat her situation as a homelessness matter yet.
  4. Ms X and the Council have different versions of what happened on that point and the records are not conclusive about what precisely was explained to Ms X. I can reach a view on the balance of probabilities.
  5. I have taken account of everything the Council and Ms X have said. I give weight to the Council not making any homelessness enquiries, or even recognising the need for that, when Ms X’s housing register application mentioned domestic violence and abuse. I also give weight to the Council referring to the need for police evidence. Both those points suggest some of the officers dealing with the matter did not fully appreciate the Council’s homelessness duties in such cases. I also give weight to Ms X’s seemingly saying consistently that she was experiencing abuse and wanted to flee to the Council’s area. Nothing substantive changed there between late February and early May.
  6. On balance, I am satisfied Ms X would have wanted the Council to make homelessness enquiries and a homelessness decision at the outset if she had properly understood: the Council’s homelessness responsibilities were additional to and separate from its role managing the housing register; the domestic abuse meant the Council might treat her as homeless although she had accommodation; and she could offer have interim accommodation, not necessarily in a refuge and not only in her previous local authority’s area, while the Council investigated.
  7. So, on balance, I prefer Ms X’s account that she only did not ‘make a homelessness application’ sooner she was unaware of her rights. On balance, I consider the Council did not give Ms X effective advice on which she could make a fully informed decision about how to proceed.

Time taken dealing with homelessness application

  1. There are no statutory time limits for completing inquiries. However, the Homelessness Code of Guidance at the time recommended councils aim to complete their inquiries within 33 working days. The Council took 49 working days to decide Ms X’s homelessness application.
  2. The interim accommodation the Council gave Ms X included some assistance from an organisation helping people who had experienced abuse. The Council says it took longer than 33 working days to decide Ms X’s homelessness application because ‘Due to the restrictions in place by the landlord of this interim accommodation we are unable to accept a duty whilst placed there.’ The Council’s internal notes from June 2017 support this.
  3. The Council told Ms X her homelessness decision had not been delayed. However, that does not match the records referred to in the previous sentence or the Council’s response to me. On balance, I am satisfied the Council delayed deciding the homelessness matter for the reason it gave me.
  4. However, Ms X’s licence to live in the accommodation was a legal agreement between her and the Council, not her and the accommodation provider. The licence was headed ‘Non-secure temporary accommodation licence’. It stated: the Council was providing interim accommodation under the homelessness legislation; there was no security of tenure; the accommodation was ‘for a temporary period only’ and was not intended to create a tenancy; and the Council had appointed a managing agent (whom Ms X dealt with) ‘to manage your home on the Council’s behalf.’
  5. In later correspondence, the Council said this accommodation was only available as interim accommodation for the Council’s use, unlike refuges or other types of supported accommodation that people can access by various routes.
  6. When people are in some kinds of supported accommodation, councils will not progress homelessness applications until the person is ready to leave. However, the accommodation where the Council sent Ms X was different. It was expressly provided by the Council as homelessness interim accommodation while the Council made enquiries in order to reach a decision about whether it owed a homelessness duty.
  7. It is not clear what the landlord’s ‘restriction’ is that the Council refers to. However, the landlord cannot change the Council’s legal duty. The Council provided the accommodation as interim accommodation under section 188 of the Act. Such accommodation can only be provided while the Council makes homelessness enquiries and reaches a decision about its homelessness duties. I do not see the Council had the power in the circumstances to postpone making a homelessness decision just because of the nature of this particular accommodation. I consider the Council was at fault here.
  8. When the Council decides it owes someone the main homelessness duty, it places them on the housing register. Ms X suggests any delay making the decision meant she joined the register with a later priority date so would take longer to obtain long-term housing.
  9. However, as I shall explain below, had the Council decided the application, say, a few weeks earlier, Ms X’s housing register priority would still likely have increased to Band B by 12 July 2017. At that time, her priority date would have changed, too. So, even if the Council might have decided somewhat earlier it owed Ms X the main homelessness duty, I do not consider any potential delay disadvantaged Ms X significantly in practical terms.

Suitability of temporary accommodation

  1. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
  2. Applicants have a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. The right lasts for 21 days. If the applicant disagrees with the review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204) Statutory guidance at the time said councils should advise applicants of their right to request a review of the suitability of any accommodation offered. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities July 2006, paragraph 19.3)
  3. The Council moved Ms X to another property in July 2017. A few days later, the Council decided it owed Ms X the main homelessness duty.
  4. The Council’s decision letter to Ms X on 12 July 2017 said, ‘If you are dissatisfied with the Council’s decision, you have the right to request a review.’ However, that only referred to the right to request a review of the homelessness decision. Ms X was unlikely to be dissatisfied with that decision, which was wholly in her favour. The letter did not mention the separate right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation. That was fault.
  5. That fault deprived Ms X of her right to request a suitability review. That review right, and the subsequent right to go to court, are important legal rights.
  6. Ms X told me she was dissatisfied with the accommodation but, unaware of her review right, was reluctant to complain at the time. She states the property had dry rot and penetrating damp, which were eventually resolved, and the second bedroom was so small she decided against having a child sleep there.
  7. I do not consider it a straightforward matter whether the accommodation was unsuitable. Temporary accommodation can be far from ideal without being legally unsuitable. Some disrepair, or rooms being small, would not necessarily make a property unsuitable. It would depend on matters such as how the nature and extent of any disrepair affected daily living and the size of the bedroom compared with minimum standards and whether a child or adult should occupy the bedroom.
  8. For these reasons, I shall not reach my own view about whether the accommodation was actually unsuitable. The key point here is that the Council’s fault deprived Ms X of the opportunity to request a suitability review. That missed opportunity and the resulting uncertainty about what might have happened are injustices resulting from the Council’s fault.
  9. Ms X also says the property’s managing agent repeatedly visited and inspected the property without notice, whether Ms X was there or not. Ms X says she raised this with the agent, explaining her vulnerability because of her experience of domestic abuse but the visits continued. Ms X accepts this cannot be resolved now but hopes this aspect will improve in future.
  10. This point is about conduct, not about whether the property itself was unsuitable. Depending on the details of the legal agreement allowing someone to occupy temporary accommodation, the owner or manager can be entitled to enter without giving the notice an assured or secure tenant would be entitled to. However, we consider such actions should be reasonable. For someone who had fled domestic abuse, events of the kind described would seem insensitive. I agree the Council could usefully reconsider its advice to providers of temporary accommodation on this point.

Ms X’s belongings

  1. Where a council owes a homelessness duty, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for this. (Housing Act 1996, section 211.)

Storage of Ms X’s belongings up to November 2017

  1. On 29 June 2017, Ms X emailed the Council saying storing her belongings was costing £125 a month and asking, ‘I wondered if you knew of any cheaper options or if there was any help I could get with this?’ The Council accepts it took no action on this. That was fault.
  2. Ms X raised this matter again in September 2017. The following month, the Council took over paying the storage company, with Ms X to repay the Council at £3.50 per week. The evidence suggests the Council chose that repayment level after Ms X supplied income and expenditure details. The Council told me it considers this a reasonable repayment arrangement for a low-income household.
  3. From what happened later, it is likely that, had the Council acted on Ms X’s email in June 2017, it would have taken over the payments soon afterwards. Ms X says affording £125 a month herself during that period was difficult. So I consider the Council’s fault caused Ms X some financial difficulty and stress from July to September.
  4. I understand Ms X had paid for the storage from May 2017. Ms X says she mentioned this matter to the Council before her email of 29 June 2017 but I do not have evidence of such contact. So I am not able to decide whether, before 29 June 2018, Ms X gave the Council clear reason to believe her belongings might be at risk because of the storage costs while she was homeless. So I do not consider the Council was at fault before the email of 29 June 2017.
  5. Ms X argues the Council could have awarded her discretionary housing payments (DHPs) for storage costs. In effect, that would have meant the Council not recovering some or all of the cost from Ms X. The Council does not have to give DHPs for that purpose. The law allows the Council to make a reasonable charge for protecting belongings. I consider that can include recovering the whole cost in instalments. So I do not consider the Council was at fault for not awarding DHPs for this purpose.
  6. The Council asked for payments of £3.50 a week based on its knowledge of Ms X’s circumstances and its entitlement to make a reasonable charge. That decision appears properly reached so I cannot criticise it, as paragraph 4 explained.

Storage of Ms X’s belongings from November 2017

  1. On 10 November 2017, the Council told Ms X it might be advisable to make alternative storage arrangements as, while the Council would keep paying the storage costs till she could move, Ms X might find it difficult repaying the Council. Ms X then told the Council she had found a garage to store her belongings more cheaply but would struggle with the advance payment required and the garage company would not invoice the Council.
  2. The Council replied on 30 November 2017 that it would be unable to pay for the garage. It gave no reason. Ms X told me she did not challenge this ‘because I’d had enough by this point’. She considered moving all her stored belongings into her temporary accommodation instead but she understood that would breach her licence to occupy the accommodation. Ms X states she used garage at a cost of £13 a week for nearly five months.
  3. As the Council suggested Ms X look for cheaper storage, I consider it was fault for the Council not to explain why it would not agree the cheaper storage arrangement Ms X found. I cannot say whether the Council would have considered this a suitable way of protecting Ms X’s belongings or might have had other reasons for not agreeing to pay. The Council’s fault here leaves Ms X with avoidable uncertainty about what might have happened had the Council explained its decision properly.

The Council’s decision that Ms X did not qualify for its housing register

  1. When the Council decides someone does not qualify for its housing register, it must tell the applicant of their right to request a review of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 166(1A)) The Council’s email of 1 March 2017 told Ms X she did not qualify but did not tell her of her review right. That was fault.
  2. In the event, Ms X knew of the review right because she had read the Council’s housing allocations policy. She requested a review promptly. So the Council’s fault did not disadvantage her significantly. Nevertheless, people should not have to read the policy to learn of this important right. The Council should ensure it explains the review right when it sends the decision.

Ms X’s priority on the housing register

  1. Between Ms X’s housing register application on 28 February and her homelessness application on 3 May 2017, the Council could have:
    • Used its discretion to allow Ms X onto the housing register despite not having lived in Swale for four of the last five years; and
    • Awarded Ms X band A priority, which includes people needing to move ‘due to domestic abuse, extreme violence or extreme harassment.’
  2. The Council says it uses its discretion in exceptional circumstances, for example, if the police state it is not safe for someone to remain where they are or if there has been a multi-agency risk assessment conference. The Council is entitled to treat domestic abuse differently in terms of its housing register compared with under homelessness law.
  3. The Council states it did not consider Ms X’s circumstances sufficiently exceptional. I am mindful the housing allocations policy also gives Band C priority to homeless people, which naturally includes people from outside the Council’s area who are homeless due to domestic abuse. So, from the context, extra priority is clearly reserved for particularly extreme cases.
  4. Ms X argues that, as the Council did not check the police incident numbers she supplied, it did not know whether her situation was exceptional. I note that. However, I also note Ms X later gave the Council details of what she had experienced as part of her homelessness application. I consider it unlikely that, had the Council obtained details earlier, it would have considered those incidents the same as the kind of incidents it says it treats as exceptional. So I do not consider there was any fault here that is likely to have caused significant injustice.
  5. Between 3 May and 12 July 2017 Ms X’s housing register application was not active while the Council considered the homelessness matter. That was not fault.
  6. The Council accepted a homelessness duty to Ms X on 12 July 2017. It says it put Ms X on the housing register that day in Band C, the normal band for homelessness. The Council also says due to the pressure on temporary accommodation, it also gives increased priority (Band B) to homeless people who have conducted themselves satisfactorily in their accommodation. The Council says in Ms X’s case it did this the same day as its homelessness decision.
  7. Ms X was told of the move to Band B but not about the earlier move to Band C. However, the Council owing the main homelessness duty would normally only result in Band C priority. The fact that Ms X was in Band B is in line with the Council saying it made a second decision on the same day, increasing her priority. Ms X suggests this was not transparent or consistent. However, as the increased priority was in Ms X’s favour, I shall not pursue this further.
  8. Within each band, applicants who have been waiting longer have more priority. When the Council accepts the main homelessness duty, it can backdate the Band C priority to the date of the homelessness application. Ms X’s promotion to Band B was with the effective date of 12 July 2017, the date the Council decided to give her Band B, not May 2017 when the Council took the homelessness application. The Council says this is its practice when banding is increased. This is in line with other schemes, in our experience.
  9. The evidence suggests there were two decisions about banding. So I see no fault in the second decision, which increased Ms X’s priority, having the effective date of the day that decision was made.
  10. Ms X contrasts her experience with someone else she knows whose date priority was apparently awarded differently. However, those circumstances appear different, with the other person moving on from external supported accommodation. As I see no fault in the Council’s approach to Ms X’s priority date, I shall not pursue this further.

Time taken dealing with housing register review

  1. As explained above, on 1 March 2017 Ms X asked the Council to review its decision that she did not qualify for the housing register. It seems the Council did not send a review decision until 6 December 2017, nine months later. It has apologised for the delay.
  2. The Council had done nothing about the review request by 3 May 2017, when it noted Ms X was applying as homeless that day so her housing register application would be reassessed with her homelessness application due to change of address. On 30 May, the Council told Ms X her housing register application was on hold until her homelessness application was decided.
  3. Ms X leaving her address was a change of circumstances that justified the Council putting the housing register application on hold pending a homelessness decision. After the homelessness decision in July, Ms X was on the housing register so there was no ongoing injustice from the 1 March decision that she could not join the register.
  4. That leaves the period from 1 March to 3 May 2017. I consider the Council was at fault for neither deciding the review request nor explaining the delay in that period. I cannot know what decision the Council would have made about whether to admit Ms X to the housing register despite her not living in its area. Even had the Council used its discretion to allow Ms X onto the housing register then (and I am not saying it would have), the pressure on social housing and the length of time Ms X later had to wait for permanent housing make it unlikely she would have obtained permanent housing before the Council started dealing with her in the homelessness system in early May 2017.
  5. So I do not consider the lack of action between March and May 2017 disadvantaged Ms X significantly in terms of her housing in that period. However, it did caused Ms X some avoidable uncertainty and anxiety, which were injustices.
  6. On a connected point, Ms X’s housing register application and review request both mentioned domestic abuse. As I have explained above, that should have alerted the Council to make homelessness enquiries. The lack of action on the review request between March and May 2017 meant there was a further missed opportunity to realise the implications of what Ms X had said.
  7. By 6 December 2017, circumstances had changed since March. Ms X had been in the homelessness system, living in the Council’s area since May and on the housing register since July. So the eventual review decision dealt with matters related to the priority banding that had arisen after 1 March.

Agreed action

  1. At my recommendation, the Council has:
      1. Apologised to Ms X for the injustice resulting from the faults I have identified.
      2. Reviewed all the faults I have found here and made any necessary changes to procedures or staff training to minimise the chances of the identified faults recurring.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation because the Council’s agreement to my recommendations above is a satisfactory remedy for Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings