Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. The Council is at fault for not carrying out a review of its decision to end its housing duty. It has agreed to offer a late review and will consider offering Mr X temporary accommodation whilst it does so.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness application and, in particular:
• its discharge of its section 193 housing duty in June 2018;
• his eviction from temporary accommodation in July 2018; and
• the changing of his housing register priority band from 1 to 2.
2. Mr X says, as a result of the Council’s actions, he is now forced to sleep in his car whilst undergoing cancer treatment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council, and the law and guidance as set out below.
7. I have written to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and given them an opportunity to comment. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, a number of duties arise, including:
• to make enquiries;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries; and
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.
10. 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 decision 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)
11. If the council offers an applicant accept suitable accommodation and the applicant unreasonably refuses the offer, the council may end its housing duty. This means the homelessness application is concluded and the council can ask the applicant to leave any temporary accommodation it has provided. The applicant can ask for a review of the decision to end the housing duty.

Housing allocations

12. This Council’s policy says when people apply to join its housing register it places them in one of five bands. Band 1 is for those who need “urgent rehousing”. This includes those who are homeless and in priority need. Band 2 is for those who need “priority rehousing”. This includes those who are homeless but not in priority need, for example, those who the Council say are intentionally homeless.

What happened

13. Mr X contacted the Council to say he was homeless in July 2017. He explained he had a serious health diagnosis and provided evidence of this. The Council accepted he was homeless and vulnerable. He was placed in band 2 on its housing register. It provided temporary accommodation in a hostel.
14. The Council accepted a full housing duty in September 2017, at which point Mr X was placed in band 1 on the housing register. The Council’s letter explained that its duty would end in certain circumstances, including if Mr X refused an offer of suitable accommodation.
15. In May 2018, the Council placed a bid for Mr X on a one bedroom flat at address 1. The Council’s allocations policy allows it to do this. Mr X was the first applicant on the list for this property. The Council sent him a letter by email formally offering him the flat at address 1. It asked him to view the property but Mr X did not attend the viewing. He refused the offer. The Council asked him to explain his reasons. Mr X said he wanted to stay at the hostel for another three months to sort some things out.
16. In June 2018, Mr X was shortlisted for another one bedroom flat at address 2. The Council sent him a letter formally offering him the accommodation. It sent the letter by email to the hostel where Mr X was living. Mr X says he did not see this. It said the housing association would be in touch to arrange a viewing. The housing association asked Mr X to attend a viewing on 21 June at 11:30 a.m. Staff at the hostel told the Council that Mr X was aware of the date and time of the viewing.
17. Mr X says he was only given two hours’ notice of the viewing and this was unreasonable. He did not attend the viewing. The Council emailed him to ask why he had not attended. Mr X replied he was (then) on his way to the GP and could not respond to emails that afternoon. During the evening, he emailed to say he was a victim of organised crime committed by individuals within various authorities and could not live at address 2.
18. The same day as the viewing (and before Mr X emailed in the evening) the Council wrote to Mr X to say it was ending its housing duty because he had refused a suitable offer of accommodation. It explained he could ask for a review of this decision. It also said he would need to leave the hostel by 23 July 2018.
19. Mr X wrote to the Council to say its decision was unrealistic. In July 2018 he wrote a further letter, this time to the Chief Executive, asking for a detailed investigation of the way his case had been handled. The Council explained it had ended its duty because he had refused two offers of suitable accommodation. It said as a result of the refusals he had been moved from band 1 to band 2 on its housing register because he was now regarded as being intentionally homeless.
20. The Council says it did not treat the letters in June and July 2018 as requests for a review because Mr X did not set out his reasons for believing the decision was wrong. However, it says even if it had carried out a review its position would have been the same because Mr X had refused two offers of suitable accommodation. It says it checked with the police but the police had no information about Mr X being a victim of crime. Mr X says the Council should not have contacted the police.
21. In August, Mr X contacted the Council. He said he was sleeping rough and this was affecting his benefits. The Council offered him a meeting to discuss options for resolving his homelessness. Mr X attended the meeting but then left because officer 1, the housing officer he had previously seen, was not available as she had moved to a new role. He says officer 1 was aware of her new role when the appointment was made so should have agreed to see him. I understand the Council did try to arrange another meeting with officer 1 but due to communication difficulties this meeting did not take place.
22. Mr X contacted the Council again in September. The Council sent a detailed response to the issues he had raised. It said it was satisfied the correct process had been followed. There were further letters between Mr X and the Council in October 2018. In early November 2018, the Council advised him to complain to us if he was still unhappy with the way it had handled his case.
23. Mr X’s housing register application was suspended after he left the hostel with no forwarding address but was reinstated in September 2018. He is currently in band 2 and is able to bid for properties.

My findings

24. The Council accepted a full housing duty. It provided temporary accommodation and placed Mr X in band 1 of its housing register. It offered him a one bedroom flat on two occasions and explained to him why it thought these were suitable for him. Mr X refused to accept the offers.
25. I have seen a copy of the Council’s letter offering him the property at address 2 and warning him that if he did not accept it, the Council may ask him to leave the hostel and end its housing duty. Mr X says he did not see this letter. I am satisfied it was sent and that, on a balance of probabilities, it was passed on to Mr X by hostel staff.
26. Mr X said he did not know he needed to view the flat at address 2 in June 2018. The Council sent me a copy of an email from staff at the hostel confirming he was aware of the date and time of the viewing. Mr X says this should not be replied on but has confirmed he was aware of the viewing but only two hours before the appointment time. The Council later emailed to ask him why he had not attended the viewing and Mr X replied he was “on his way” to his medical appointment. Therefore, I am satisfied he was aware of the viewing on the morning of the appointment and well before he attended the medical appointment. If he could not attend the viewing for any reason he could have asked the Council or the housing association for an alternative appointment. He did not do so.
27. The Council was not at fault for issuing a decision letter in these circumstances. I am unable to comment on the decision itself. Mr X had the right to request a review of the decision and the Council has now agreed to carry out a late review. The review process is the appropriate method for considering whether the decision was correct in the specific circumstances of the case.
28. When the duty ended, the Council no longer had to provide Mr X with temporary accommodation. In its letter ending the duty, it told Mr X he would need to leave the hostel by 23 July 2018. The Council gave Mr X a month to leave the hostel. It was not at fault.
29. Because Mr X had refused two offers of suitable accommodation the Council decided he was now intentionally homeless. This meant his band on the housing register changed from band 1 to band 2. This was in line with the Council’s housing allocations policy. When the Council wrote to formally offer him address 2, it warned him the priority may change if he refused it. The Council is not at fault.
30. I consider the Council should have treated Mr X’s letters in June and July 2018 as a request for a review. The review process was more appropriate for addressing his housing case than dealing with his concerns through its corporate complaints process. The failure not to carry out a review is fault.
31. Mr X says he suffered physically, emotionally and financially as a result of the Council’s decision. I cannot say whether the outcome would have been different if the review had been carried out in June or July 2018. The Council has agreed to carry out a review now and I consider this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
32. If the Council had accepted either of the letters was a request for a review it should then have considered whether to extend the temporary accommodation whilst it carried out the review. The Council will also consider whether to offer a further period of temporary accommodation whilst it carries out the review.

Agreed action

33. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, apologise to Mr X for not carrying out a review when he complained about its housing decision in June and July 2018.
34. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, offer Mr X a late review of this decision and will consider offering Mr X temporary accommodation whilst it does so. It will ask Mr X if he wants to send it any additional information or documentation for it to consider.
35. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, remind all relevant staff of the need to consider whether a review is more appropriate where a housing applicant complains about a decision the Council has made.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice and have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent a reoccurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman