Summary: Miss C complains about the Council’s handling of her request for housing help when she was made homeless after fleeing domestic violence. We find the Council was at fault. The Council did not meet the Relief duty it owed Miss C and took over one year to decide her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to take a range of actions to put right this injustice. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss C, complains about the Council’s handling of her request for housing help when she was made homeless. Miss C, who suffers from several mental health conditions, approached the Council as homeless in May 2018 when she was staying at a refuge after fleeing domestic violence.
2. Specifically, Miss C complains:
• Her caseworker did not contact her again or provide updates after the homelessness interview in May 2018.
• The Council has not made a decision on her homelessness application.
• The Council’s response to her complaint wrongly said the Council had decided her homelessness application and that she had sent further medical information in response to this decision (Miss C says she only re-sent medical information she had previously provided to her caseworker in May 2018).
• Placed her in unsuitable hostel accommodation while it considered her application and ignored her concerns about this. (Miss C says she cannot afford to pay the service charge from her universal credit, it is mixed accommodation which is not suitable for her as the victim of domestic violence, and the hostel is in a poor condition).
3. Miss C says because of the lack of help from the Council her mental health has got worse and she has felt suicidal. Miss C would like the Council to make an informed decision on her homelessness application and pay compensation for the service charge she cannot afford to pay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)
6. Miss C’s complaint has not completed the Council’s complaints procedure. But, we have exercised our discretion to accept the complaint. Because of Miss C’s housing situation we do not consider it is reasonable to expect her to complete the Council’s complaints procedure first.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered Miss C’s complaint and have discussed the complaint with her. I have made enquiries to the Council and have considered the comments and information the Council provided in response. I have also sent a draft version of this statement to Miss C and the Council. I have considered the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

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. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 was amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 with effect from 3 April 2018. This changed the law on homelessness and introduced new duties on councils.
9. Miss C asked the Council for housing help after 3 April 2018. So, the changes introduced by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 apply.
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4))
11. 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.
12. 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)
13. 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 called the Prevention duty.
14. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
15. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. The Relief duty will come to an end in any of the following circumstances:
• The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months.
• 56 days have passed since the authority became subject to this duty, whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation.
• The applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months.
• The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section.
• The applicant is no longer eligible.
• The applicant has withdrawn the application.
17. The duty can also be brought to an end where the applicant is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
18. Any decision that the duty has come to an end must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.
19. The code of guidance says the following about extending the Prevention and Relief duties.
• The housing authority can continue to deliver the Prevention or Relief duty with any applicant for longer than 56 days and issue a notice to end it under this subsection at any point after this date; as long as no other duties take precedence (for example, the Relief duty takes precedence where an applicant previously owed the Prevention duty becomes homeless). 14.15
20. 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)
21. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

What happened

22. In February 2018 Miss C moved into a women’s refuge after fleeing domestic violence. Miss C also suffers from mental health conditions.
23. Miss C’s licence agreement for the refuge says the aim of the refuge is to provide accommodation for women and their children, with a view to securing alternative accommodation within six months. Miss C was required to pay a weekly licence charge. The licence says the refuge would not normally give less than 28 days notice before terminating the licence.
24. In April 2018 Miss C approached the Council for housing help as someone who was homeless. Miss C provided a letter from her support worker. The letter said the Council should treat Miss C as homeless because it was not reasonable for her to continue to stay at the refuge.
25. Miss C completed an application form and provided a supporting statement. The Council arranged a homelessness interview for 15 May.
26. The interview went ahead on 15 May. Miss C says her caseworker told her it would take 56 days for the Council to make a decision on her homelessness application. The caseworker said the Council could arrange interim accommodation but because Miss C was already staying at the refuge it was agreed she would stay there. The Council wrote a Personalised Housing Plan. The Council told Miss C in writing that it owed her the Relief duty. The Council said the Relief duty would end on 10 July. The Council also says it made referrals to the Council’s procurement team, no first night out team, and it gave Miss C a self help pack.
27. The Council says the caseworker called Miss C on 1 June to chase documents and the progress she had made looking for accommodation.
28. Miss C says during this period she received no support or communication from her caseworker. Miss C says because her mental health got worse she was confined to her room at the refuge.
29. On 28 August Miss C put in a complaint to the Council.
30. The Council says the caseworker called Miss C again on 17 and 19 September.
31. On 19 September the Council wrote a letter to Miss C. The letter said the Council had ended the Relief duty. It appears the Council did not send this letter to Miss C.
32. On the same day the caseworker wrote a decision on Miss C’s homelessness application. The decision was Miss C was not in priority need so the Council did not owe her the main housing duty. On 25 September the caseworker’s manager authorised the decision, but the Council did not send the decision to Miss C. The Council says this was because new information was received which it sent to a medical advisor for consideration. The Council says it called the refuge and left a message on Miss C’s phone saying that if she needed to leave the refuge the Council would provide temporary accommodation while the additional information was being assessed.
33. In October Miss C instructed a solicitor.
34. On 25 October Miss C’s solicitor wrote to the Council. On the same day, the Council completed a referral form for medical advice. The Council enclosed medical letters provided by Miss C dated 17 May 2018, 4 June 2018, and 9 August 2018.
35. The Council says the Council’s medical advisor told the caseworker that further information from a psychiatrist was needed.
36. The caseworker says she phoned Miss C the next day and left a message asking her to provide further medical evidence from her psychiatrist.
37. On 26 October the Council responded to Miss C’s complaint. The Council said a decision on Miss C’s homelessness application had been made since Miss C put in her complaint. The Council said it received medical information in response to this decision which it had sent to its medical advisor. The Council said it would then make a final decision on Miss C’s application for housing help.
38. Miss C says she had not received a decision on her homelessness application. Also, she did not send new medical information, she just re-sent all the information she had already sent to the caseworker’s manager.
39. On 29 October Miss C sent an email to her caseworker. Miss C said she had requested more information from her psychologist which she would send once it was received.
40. On 5 November the caseworker sent an email to Miss C asking for any new medical evidence she wanted the Council to consider.
41. On 12 November Miss C sent two letters to the Council. The caseworker told Miss C that she was happy to send these letters to the medical advisor but it was not the information they asked for. The Council says Miss C confirmed this was all she wanted to send.
42. On 21 November Miss C’s solicitor sent a further letter to the Council.
43. On 19 December the Council sent a letter to Miss C saying the Prevention duty had now ended because she had become homeless. The Council said it now owed Miss C the Relief duty. The Council said it had updated Miss C’s Personalised Housing Plan. Miss C says she did not receive this letter and did not know the Council had updated her Personalised Housing Plan
44. On the same day the caseworker told Miss C’s solicitor if no further information was received by the Council by the close of business that day it would send the information on file to the medical advisor for a decision.
45. On 20 December the Council offered Miss C interim accommodation, which Miss C accepted. It is a mixed hostel. Miss C shares bathroom and kitchen facilities with other residents. As a victim of domestic violence Miss C says she does not feel comfortable in the mixed hostel. Miss C says the living conditions are disgusting and her mental health has got worse. Miss C also says she cannot afford the service charge she is required to pay.
46. The caseworker phoned Miss C on 21 January because she had not received any further medical information from Miss C. The Council says Miss C said she had more to provide, so the caseworker advised her to send it as soon as possible.
47. On 26 February the caseworker phoned Miss C saying she would be sending the information the Council had to the medical advisor for an assessment.
48. Also in February, Miss C complained to us.
49. On 21 March the Council received a medical assessment from its medical advisor. This took into account letters provided by Miss C dated May, June, August, and November 2018.
50. The Council says Miss C sent another supporting letter to the Council on 27 April.
51. When the Council responded to my enquiries in early June, the Council said:
• it had not made a decision on Miss C’s homelessness application yet. But, it now had all relevant information on file to make a decision.
• It accepted the homelessness application had taken a long time to decide. But, the Council followed all procedures required by the Homelessness Reduction Act. At no point has Miss C been at a disadvantage or without the knowledge and confirmation that temporary accommodation would be provided at any point.
• Miss C’s housing officer visited her on 15 May 2019. Miss C did not have any major concerns about the property. No repair issues were raised. The property seemed to be in good condition, and Miss C had made herself very comfortable.
• When Miss C was interviewed in May 2018 the Council accepted a Prevention duty rather than a Relief duty. This was because it was agreed that Miss C was able to continue to stay at the refuge while attempts were made to prevent her homelessness.
52. Miss C disputes the housing officer’s comment that she has not reported problems at the hostel. Miss C says she has raised multiple repair issues with the Council’s repairs service. Miss C also says she spoke to her housing officers several times on the phone. Miss C says one of her phone calls resulted in a deep clean of the communal bathroom and kitchen.
53. I spoke to Miss C on 7 August. Miss C had still not received a decision on her homelessness application. Miss C was still living at the hostel accommodation provided by the Council.
54. On 8 August I sent a draft version of this statement to Miss C and the Council.
55. On 19 August the Council decided Miss C’s homelessness application. The Council told Miss C it did not owe her the main housing duty because it did not consider she was in priority need for housing. The Council told Miss C she could ask for a review of this decision. The Council also said it would continue to provide the hostel accommodation for Miss C for a further month.

Analysis

56. I will first address the Council’s handling of Miss C’s request for housing help. I will then address Miss C’s complaints about the Council’s response to her complaint and the hostel accommodation it provided.
57. When Miss C approached the Council for housing help the Council acted promptly by arranging an interview with her for 15 May 2018. The Council did an assessment and wrote a Personalised Housing Plan. The Council suggested offering interim accommodation for Miss C but this was not needed because Miss C was being accommodated at a refuge. The Council told Miss C in writing that it owed her the Relief duty because she was homeless. The Council said this duty would end after 56 days, which was 10 July 2018. The information does not suggest the Council was at fault for the way it initially handled Miss C’s request for housing help.
58. However, the Council’s Personalised Housing Plan does not include the steps both Miss C and the Council would take to try to find housing for her. The plan includes a completed section on the options available to Miss C and the advice the Council had given. Also, it says Miss C had agreed to look for a room in shared accommodation.
59. But, the section of the Plan setting out a summary of the steps both the Council and Miss C would take has not been completed. This is important because Miss C had a right of review against the steps the Council said it would take. Also, the Council could decide to end the Relief duty if it decided Miss C had not taken the steps she agreed to take – I note the headings in this section include both mandatory and recommended steps. In addition, the agreed steps provide a clear framework for both parties to try to help a homeless person find accommodation.
60. It is not clear from the plan what steps the Council and Miss C agreed to take. This is evidence of fault.
61. The Relief duty would normally end 56 days after the duty has been accepted. This was on 10 July 2018. The Council says on 1 June the caseworker phoned Miss C to chase documents and to check on her progress looking for accommodation. I have not seen any other evidence of contact by the caseworker with Miss C during the Relief stage.
62. Also, the Council has not provided any evidence to show the caseworker was taking action during this period to try to find alternative accommodation for Miss C to comply with the Relief duty. This is also evidence of fault.
63. In addition, the Council did not write to Miss C on 10 July 2018 to say the Relief duty had ended. If the Council could not decide whether it owed Miss C the main housing duty, it could have extended the Relief duty and told Miss C this. But, the Council did not do this. The information suggests the Council was not aware of the significance of the 56 day Relief period coming to an end.
64. The Council has provided a letter to Miss C dated 19 September 2018 in which the Council said the Relief duty had now ended.
65. But, this letter appears to have been written at the same time as the Council’s unsent decision on Miss C’s homelessness application. So, it seems likely the letter - saying the Council had ended the Relief duty - was also not sent to Miss C.
66. Confusingly, when Miss C later moved into interim accommodation provided by the Council in December 2018, the Council told her the Prevention duty had now ended because she had become homeless. The Council said it now owed Miss C the Relief duty. In response to my enquiries the Council also said it decided in May 2018 that it owed Miss C the Prevention duty rather than the Relief duty.
67. But, it is clear from the documents the Council sent to Miss C in May 2018 that the Council had already accepted it owed Miss C the Relief duty.
68. The inconsistent information provided by the Council to Miss C and us about the duties it owed Miss C is evidence of fault. The information strongly suggests the Council did not fully understand or apply the new duties introduced by the Homelessness Reduction Act.
69. The Council’s fault regarding the Relief duty it owed Miss C was made worse by the Council’s delay deciding Miss C’s homelessness application.
70. The current code of guidance does not provide a timescale for a local authority to make enquiries and decide a homelessness application. However, the previous code of guidance said 33 days was a reasonable amount of time. Also, I have placed some weight on Miss C’s comment that at the interview on 15 May 2018, her caseworker said a decision would be made within 56 days. This makes sense because this is when the Relief duty would normally end.
71. The Council decided Miss C’s homelessness application on 19 August 2019. The Council took 15 months to make a decision. This is a considerable amount of time.
72. I do not consider there were good reasons for the Council’s delay. The Council says it was ready to issue a decision in September 2018. But, this was still four months after it received Miss C’s application.
73. The Council says it asked for medical advice because Miss C sent in new medical information. Miss C disputes this. Miss C says she just re-sent the information she had previously provided. It is not clear from the information provided by the Council what medical information the Council received. The Council has not provided a record from its case management system to show the action taken by the Council at every stage.
74. But, even if the Council was entitled to decide in September 2018 that it needed medical advice, this does not explain the Council’s significant delay making a decision.
75. The Council’s account of what happened suggests there were some issues getting medical information from Miss C to pass to its medical advisor in late 2018. But, there were several opportunities for the Council to refer the case to the medical advisor before it did so in March 2019. Also, the Council received the medical advisor’s assessment in March 2019, but did not make a decision until August 2019. I find there has been unreasonable and excessive delay by the Council.
76. I consider Miss C has suffered a significant injustice because of the fault I have identified.
77. If the Council had fully engaged with its Relief duty to Miss C to help her find accommodation which would be available for at least six months it is possible Miss C would have found suitable accommodation. However, the Relief duty did not require the Council to secure accommodation for Miss C. So, I cannot say it is more likely than not Miss C would have found alternative accommodation.
78. But, I consider Miss C has suffered some uncertainty about what would have happened had there been no fault by the Council. Also, Miss C has been caused some distress by the lack of meaningful action and contact from her caseworker between May and September 2018. In addition, the Council’s inconsistent information to Miss C about the Prevention and Relief duties added to Miss C’s confusion and uncertainty.
79. I also consider Miss C has been caused distress and uncertainty by the Council’s delay deciding her homelessness application. Miss C is the victim of domestic violence and has mental health conditions. I can fully understand why the Council’s delay has made Miss C’s mental health worse.
80. Miss C has been provided with accommodation while waiting for the Council to make a decision. If the Council had made a prompt decision on Miss C’s homelessness application, the Council would not have offered any accommodation to Miss C. This is because the Council decided it did not owe Miss C the main housing duty. So, Miss C would have suffered a greater injustice if the Council’s decision was in her favour. But, I find Miss C suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty waiting for the Council to make a decision. Also, Miss C could not use her statutory review and appeal rights to challenge the Council’s assessment of her housing need until now.
81. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Agreed action’ section below.
82. I will now address Miss C’s additional complaints under separate headings.

The Council’s response to her complaint wrongly said the Council had decided her homelessness application and that she had sent further medical information in response to this decision

83. I find the Council was at fault for the way it handled Miss C’s complaint. Miss C complained to the Council on 28 August 2018. The Council did not respond until 26 October 2018. The Council did not say why it delayed providing a response. The Council told Miss C it had sent to her a decision on her homelessness application. This was wrong because the decision letter drafted by the Council in September 2018 was not sent to Miss C.
84. In addition, the Council’s response to Miss C’s complaint did not tell her how she could escalate her complaint to the next stage.
85. I have also not seen any evidence to show the Council responded to the two letters sent by Miss C’s solicitor in October and November 2018.
86. So, I find the Council was at fault for the way it handled Miss C’s complaint. I have already addressed Miss C’s point about the medical evidence above.
87. I consider the Council’s mishandling of Miss C’s complaint added to the ongoing distress and uncertainty Miss C has suffered regarding her housing situation. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Agreed action’ section below.

The Council placed her in unsuitable hostel accommodation while it considered her application and has ignored her concerns about this

88. Miss C has been staying at the hostel accommodation since December 2018. I have been provided with conflicting information about whether Miss C reported disrepair issues to the Council. I have placed some weight on Miss C’s comments. I have also placed some weight on the comments of the housing officer who visited Miss C at the accommodation in May 2019. Also, I have not seen any records which show Miss C reported issues at the property.
89. From the information available I cannot say the Council was at fault for offering the accommodation to Miss C or not responding to her concerns. I have considered whether to investigate this part of Miss C’s complaint further. But, I have decided that further investigation is not justified. This is because it is possible further investigation may not help me form a view on what happened. Also, Miss C is now required to leave the accommodation. In addition, any problems with the accommodation must be balanced against the fact the Council would not have offered Miss C any accommodation at all if it had promptly decided her homelessness application.

Back to top

Agreed action

90. To put right the injustice suffered by Miss C because of fault I have identified, I recommend that within two months of the date of my final decision, the Council:
• Writes and sends to Miss C an apology for the fault I have identified and the injustice she suffered;
• Pays Miss C £200 for the distress and uncertainty she suffered because of the Council’s failure to clearly communicate and meet the Relief duty it owed her;
• Pays Miss C £300 for the distress and uncertainty she has suffered because of the Council’s delay deciding her homelessness application;
• Pays Miss C £100 for the distress she suffered because of the Council’s mishandling of her complaint and its failure to respond to her solicitor’s letters; and,
• Writes an action plan setting out its learning from this complaint and the action it will take to avoid such errors happening in future.
91. The Council has agreed to these recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

92. The Council was at fault and Miss C suffered a significant injustice as a result. The Council has agreed to take action to put this right. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman