Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has failed to help him find accommodation despite his long-term homelessness. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in failing to make further enquiries when Mr B sought assistance with housing in March 2018 and in failing to contact him to complete an assessment following the introduction of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Ombudsman has recommended a remedy for the injustice caused to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council has failed to help him find accommodation despite his long-term homelessness.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. I have written to Mr B and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. In March 2018 Mr B contacted the Council stating he was homeless and sleeping in his vehicle. An officer met with him to try to understand the cause of his homelessness and if/how he had sustained a homeless lifestyle for 10 years as he claimed. The Council offered Mr B a place at the night shelter which he declined. It says that, during the meeting, Mr B refused to provide information and left the meeting before all his housing options could be explained to him so it did not pursue the issue of his homelessness further. But it placed him on the housing register in Band B under the category ‘applicants who are sharing facilities (bathroom, kitchen etc) with a separate family household’.
7. The Council wrote to Mr B on 17 April 2018 confirming his housing application had been placed in Band B and that he was eligible to bid for one-bedroom flats or bedsits. It also notified him of his right of appeal against this decision. Mr B did not appeal.
8. Northampton Partnership Homes placed regular bids on properties for which Mr B was eligible. In February 2019 he was successful in bidding for a one-bedroom property. He refused the property when it was offered to him because he wanted his daughter to live with him. The Council explained that, if Mr B wanted to add his daughter to his application, he would need to complete a change of circumstances form and provide her birth certificate and proof of child benefit. Mr B has not done this. The Council’s understanding is that Mr B’s daughter lives with her mother so Mr B would not be eligible for two bedroom accommodation. It explained this to Mr B.

Analysis

9. The Council says that, when Mr B approached it for assistance with housing in March 2018 it did not “open a formal homelessness application” because, when an officer met with him to discuss his situation, he was uncooperative and refused to answer questions, becoming aggressive and leaving the meeting before all his housing options could be explained. It also says that, after the meeting, Mr B’s primary concern was to secure social housing through the housing register and the Council supported him to achieve this by placing bids on his behalf.
10. The relevant legislation at the time was the Homelessness Act 2002. Section 175 of the Act states “a person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation, in the UK or elsewhere, which is entitled to occupy”.
11. Section 184 states “If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such enquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves-
1. whether he is eligible for assistance, and
2. if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him”.
12. There is no such thing as “a formal homelessness application”. The Council had a duty to investigate when an applicant sought accommodation and there was ‘reason to believe’ he may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. It was obliged to make enquiries to decide whether that person was eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty, if any, was owed to him. The threshold for triggering this duty is low. Mr B indicated he was homeless and sleeping in his vehicle so the Council had reason to believe he may be homeless and had a duty to make enquiries and reach a decision. Despite Mr B’s difficult behaviour, the Council should have followed the matter up and attempted to obtain further information from him. It should also have issued a formal decision even if that decision was that it had not been able to obtain enough information to reach a view on whether any duty was owed to him. Failure to make further enquiries and issue a formal decision was fault.
13. On 3 April 2018 the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (“the HRA”) came into force and imposed certain duties on the Council. One of these duties is to complete an assessment which must include:
1. the circumstances causing the applicant to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
2. the housing needs of the applicant; and
3. what support would be necessary to enable them to retain suitable accommodation.
14. After carrying out an assessment, the Council must prepare a personal housing plan with the applicant to prevent or relieve their homelessness, depending on circumstances. The Council should try to agree with the applicant what steps he must take and what steps will be taken by the Council.
15. Where the Council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months (the relief duty).
16. The relief duty will come to an end if, amongst other things, the Council is satisfied:
1. 56 days have passed since the Council became subject to this duty, whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation;
2. the applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months; or
3. the applicant has withdrawn the application.
17. The duty can also be brought to an end where the applicant:
1. is deliberately and unreasonably failing to cooperate with the Council; or
2. has refused a suitable offer of accommodation under part VI of the Housing Act 1996 (through the Council’s allocation scheme) or an offer of an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term of at least six months.
18. Where the Council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, is eligible for assistance and is in priority need, it must provide interim accommodation. If the applicant is not in priority need there is no requirement to do so.
19. The Council accepts that, since the introduction of the HRA, it has not carried out a formal assessment of Mr B. It says Mr B refused all assistance offered to him (including working with the street outreach team, a place at the night shelter and access to supported housing) and his focus was solely on securing his own accommodation from the housing register. So, the Council focused its assistance on ensuring his housing application was activated and bids were placed on properties on his behalf.
20. The Council says Mr B has not expressed a wish to make a homelessness application. But Mr B is not obliged to do so. He contacted the Council for help with housing and it had reason to believe he may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. It should therefore have contacted him when the new legislation came into force to offer an assessment. In any event, on 1 November 2018, in an email to the housing options and advice manager Mr B said “I am still homeless… You can start the homeless process as you should have done immediately a long time ago”. So, by then it was clear Mr B wished to make a homeless application and the Council should have completed an assessment. Failure to do so was fault.
21. The Council says Mr B is not street homeless but is sofa surfing with friends/family. In an email dated 21 August 2018 the housing options and advice manager stated “You claim to be sleeping rough although you have never been found sleeping rough and you have not engaged with the Council’s Street Outreach Team.… you confirmed that you did not want to be referred to Northampton’s Night Shelter.”
22. It is irrelevant whether Mr B was street homeless or sofa surfing. The fact is the Council had reason to believe Mr B was homeless in April 2018 and should have carried out enquiries into what duty, if any, was owed to him. Its failure to do this was fault.

Injustice

23. I do not consider Mr B suffered a significant injustice because of the Council’s failings. I cannot say that, if the Council had made further enquiries in March 2018 or carried out an assessment following the introduction of the HRA, the outcome would have been any different.
24. The Council considers it unlikely that Mr B would have engaged with it in relation to any enquiries. It also says his accommodation needs could have been met in March 2018, or any time afterwards, if he had accepted a place at the night shelter. It says all guests of the night shelter are assigned a Street Outreach Worker who will work with them to design a plan taking into account their accommodation and support needs. Guests can remain at the night shelter until they are ready to move on in accordance with their plan which can include access to supported or private rented housing through a range of providers. Guests usually spend about four weeks at the night shelter before moving on to settled housing. Providers will then support them to apply to join the housing register when they are ready to live independently.
25. The Council says, even if it had made further enquiries, Mr B would not have been provided with interim accommodation because it had no reason to believe he had a priority need for accommodation.
26. If the Council had made further enquiries, it may have obtained information which suggested Mr B did have a priority need. But, even if this was the case, I consider it is unlikely Mr B would have accepted any interim accommodation the Council offered. He stated, “I wouldn’t want to sleep in a dump i.e. the night shelter, [or supported accommodation]”. He refused a place at the night shelter and an offer of permanent accommodation.
27. I also consider it is unlikely Mr B would have received an offer of permanent accommodation any sooner than he did. He would not have been awarded any additional priority on the housing register than he already has even if the Council made a formal decision that he was homeless.
28. I am therefore satisfied the outcome would have been no different but for the Council’s fault because Mr B has refused the accommodation and assistance available to him, including an offer of permanent housing.

Agreed action

29. The Council has agreed that, within one month of this decision, it will:
• apologise to Mr B for failing to make further enquiries in March 2018 and in failing to carry out an HRA assessment;
• offer Mr B an HRA assessment and comply with its duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017; and
• review its procedures to ensure that, in future, anyone who is potentially homeless is dealt with as such.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I find the Council was at fault in failing to make further enquiries when Mr B sought assistance with housing in March 2018 and in failing to contact him to complete an HRA assessment in April 2018. But Mr B did not suffer a significant injustice because of these failings for the reasons set out above.
31. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman