Summary: There was delay by the Council in responding to an email from a resident threatened with homelessness. There is no evidence that this fault alone caused injustice. The Council offered temporary accommodation, details of a home finders scheme and then decided it had no main duty to provide accommodation. There was no fault in the Council’s response to a request for it to pay for a month’s travelcard for work related travel.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains there was delay in dealing with his homelessness application. He also complains the Council has not helped him to secure permanent housing.
2. Mr X also says that he did not get a travelcard he was promised on a scheme to help him to get a job.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about delay and about the travelcard.
4. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
7. 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

8. I read the papers put in by Mr X.
9. I considered the Council's comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
10. I gave the Council and Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing complaint

Key facts

11. Mr X emailed the Council’s housing options service on 5 April 2018 to ask about the support available to him as he was homeless.
12. Mr X emailed again on 1 May and the Council sent him an initial assessment form. Mr X filled in the online assessment form on 2 May and the housing officer made an appointment for him for 15 May. Mr X told the Council on 14 May he did not have the money to visit the Council offices and asked to be contacted. The housing officer tried to contact him twice. Mr X says the housing officer did not try to contact him.
13. On 18 May 2018 Mr X emailed the Council to say that he was due to start work but this would only be possible if he received financial support to obtain a travelcard to get to and from the new job.
14. Mr X went to a housing interview at a Council offices on 23 May 2018. Mr X declined the Council’s offer to pay for his travel costs.
15. The Council said that a housing solutions caseworker then contacted Mr X three times in June 2018 to arrange an appointment to complete a Personal Housing Plan (PHP). Mr X says he declined the appointments as Council staff failed to say what new information they needed and did not send him notes of the last meeting.
16. Mr X emailed the Council on 22 June to say he could attend an interview that day. The caseworker agreed to the interview. Mr X then said he could not attend but could speak on the telephone. The caseworker said that he needed Mr X to sign a Data Protection Act (DPA) form so he would need to rearrange the interview.
17. Mr X visited the Council and spoke to an officer on 28 June 2018. Mr X did not want to give medical details. The Council offered temporary accommodation in two areas but Mr X declined.
18. Mr X emailed the Council on 7 July 2018. He said he had found a place to stay and could move in a few days if the Council would provide £1500 to support his deposit and first months rent. The Council said it could not do this, but sent him a form to register on a Home Finders Scheme to get private accommodation.
19. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint on 27 July 2018. The Council apologised for the four week delay at the start of the process as the email went to an officer who was on leave. The Council also said there was a further delay before an appointment was made for him at the office.
20. A new housing caseworker was assigned on 2 August 2018. She offered to meet Mr X, who declined, so agreed to correspond by email.
21. The home finders scheme contacted Mr X on 6 August. The letter said that Mr X needed to decide on a property, then send a draft copy of the tenancy agreement for approval.
22. Mr X emailed the caseworker the same day to say he needed accommodation from tonight. The caseworker provided details of who to contact for emergency accommodation and asked Mr X to sign a DPA form. The Council explained that without the DPA form the home finders scheme officers and caseworkers cannot contact landlords on his behalf.
23. On 1 October 2018 the housing caseworkers submitted a relief notification and housing advice letter to Mr X.
24. Mr X’s lawyer sent an amended DPA form to the Council on 31 October 2018. Mr X also declined a property in north west London.
25. On 15 January 2019 the Council sent a non-priority decision letter and end of relief notification to Mr X.

Homelessness Reduction Act 2017

26. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018 he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days.
27. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
28. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
29. The relief duty says Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
30. When the relief period ends the housing authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. The main duty says that 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 under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
31. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

My analysis

32. There was a four week delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s email saying he was threatened with homelessness. There was a further delay of two weeks till the Council could meet with Mr X. This is fault. However, Mr X did not attend this meeting so I cannot say with any certainty there was injustice caused to him by the delay, as there is no evidence he would have attended an earlier meeting.
33. Mr X completed the online assessment on 23 May 2018.
34. It is clear that Mr X struggled to attend appointments and did not return calls to complete the PHP in June 2018. There is a copy of the PHP on file which the Council said it completed on 3 August 2018 and sent to Mr X on 1 October 2018.
35. Mr X spoke to the housing officer at the end of June 2018 and the Council offered interim accommodation. Mr X refused this offer as the accommodation was unsuitable as it was in the wrong area.
36. Mr X said that he needed to remain in Westminster as he was due to start up a business and he also felt the areas suggested were homophobic. As the offer of accommodation was interim accommodation, there was no right of appeal to its suitability.
37. The Council took some time to send Mr X the relief notification on 1 October 2018, which was sent 5 months after he first told the Council he was threatened with homelessness. From an administrative point of view, the Council could have sent this document much sooner but I cannot say there was fault. Mr X did not attend appointments or complete the DPA form so I can see why it took longer than normal. The Council’s decision in October 2018 to formalise the process after trying to work informally was sensible and it told Mr X of his right to a review of the decision on the relief duty at this point. If the relief notification had been sent earlier, this would have meant the Council’s duty to Mr X would have ended sooner, so this did not disadvantage him.
38. After 56 days, the Council did correctly notify Mr X in writing of its decision on his main housing duty and told him of his right to a review. I find no fault on this point.

Travelcard complaint

39. Mr X complains the Council initially offered to pay for a travelcard to help him travel to start a new job but then did not provide it.
40. The Council has said that it could provide a one month travelcard but needed details of Mr X’s future salary so it could check the travel costs were sustainable. There is no email evidence that Mr X provided the details the Council asked for. The Council said the next contact it had was when Mr X told officers he had turned down the job.
41. Mr X asked for compensation for loss of income as he could not take the job. The Council declined this request, as it said that it would have offered the travelcard if it had received employment and salary details.
42. The Council has said that it has provided fares to interviews and three payments towards Mr X’s travel expenses in October and November 2018.
43. I can find no fault in the Council’s actions regarding the travelcard. It is clear the Council was willing to offer the travelcard if Mr X had supplied reasonable details of his employment. I cannot see any reason that Mr X could not have supplied these details.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. I have found evidence of fault by the Council but I do not consider that this caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

45. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not provided him with permanent housing. Mr X had a right of review of the Council’s decision of January 2019 that it did not have a duty to find him a home. This process (which Mr X was informed of in writing) is designed specifically to challenge the Council’s decision he complains about and so I do not intend to exercise discretion on this point.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman