Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his housing applications and the delay in providing him a decision. Mr X says this caused him uncertainty as he continued to live in unsuitable accommodation. From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council and has made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has agreed to.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council handled his homelessness and housing register applications. Mr X says the Council:
• Did not provide him with accommodation when he initially approached as homeless.
• Used an Agency to send him a not homeless decision then provided a non-priority need decision.
• Did not take a homeless application from him in December 2018 and provide a decision following an assessment.
• Did not correctly process his application to join the Council’s housing register.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated Mr X’s homeless application made in April 2018 and his subsequent housing register application made in December 2018. I have outlined at the end of this statement the parts of the complaint I have not investigated.

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. 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

5. As part of this investigation:
• I considered the complaint made and the Council’s responses.
• I considered the relevant parts of the Housing Act 1996, the Homelessness reduction Act 2017, the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities and the Allocation of Accommodation: Guidance for Local Authorities in England.
• I made enquiries to the Council and considered its response.
• I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Homeless Code of Guidance 2018 (the Code) says if there is reason to believe a person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether the person is eligible for assistance. The housing authority must then carry out inquiries into what duty, if any, is owed to the applicant.
7. Paragraph 11.7 of the Code says applicants who are eligible and homeless or threatened with homelessness must have an assessment of their case, which includes assessing:
• the circumstances that have caused them to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• their housing needs, and what accommodation would be suitable for them, their household and anybody who might reasonably be expected to live with them; and,
• the support that would be necessary for them, and anybody who will be living with them, to have and sustain suitable accommodation.
8. The local authority must notify the applicant in writing of the outcome of the assessment and try to agree with the applicant the steps the applicant and local authority should take to prevent the applicant from becoming homeless. The local authority should record this in a PHP.
9. The Code says local authorities must keep assessments and PHP’s under review. In addition, local authorities will wish to establish timescales for reviewing plans.
10. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty.
11. 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)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
13. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. This period can be extended but only if the applicant agrees in writing. If the applicant wishes to challenge the review decision, or if a council takes more than eight weeks to complete the review, they may appeal on a point of law to the County Court. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and 204)

Relevant law and guidance – Housing register application

14. The Housing Act 1996 says every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme which sets out how it prioritises applicants and its procedures for allocating housing. A local authority must allocate accommodation in accordance with its scheme.
15. The Allocation of Accommodation: Guidance for Local Authorities in England (the Guidance) says housing authorities must inform applicants in writing of any decision that he or she is ineligible for an allocation of accommodation or is not a qualifying person.
16. The Guidance says notification needs to give clear grounds for the decision based on the relevant facts of the case. Where an authority considers that an applicant may have difficulty in understanding the implications of a decision on ineligibility or disqualification, it would be good practice to make arrangements for the information to be explained verbally in addition to providing a written notice.
17. Applicants must be informed of their rights to request a review of any decision they are not eligible or do not qualify to join a local authorities housing register.

The Council’s complaints procedure

18. At stage one the Council says when a complaint is made it goes directly to the manager of the department being complained about. The Council aims to reply within 10 working days and if it needs longer will let the complainant know.
19. If a complaint is not satisfied with the stage one response, they can appeal to the Chief Executive by making a stage two complaint. The Council aims to reply within 10 working days and if it needs longer will let the complainant know.

Background

20. In April 2018 Mr X made a homeless application to the Council. Mr X told the Council he had rented accommodation but left this as the landlord had drug issues and he did not feel safe there being a recovering drug addict himself. The Council said Mr X told it he rented the property illegally, however Mr X disputes this. After he left the accommodation, Mr X spent some time sleeping on the streets and in temporary hostels.
21. At the beginning of May 2018, the Council interviewed Mr X and found reason to believe Mr X was homeless but not in priority need. Mr X attended a further interview with the Council on 15 May 2018 where the Council completed a PHP with Mr X. The Council sent the PHP to Mr X shortly after. The Council agreed steps with Mr X to help him secure accommodation. This involved the Council making a referral to an Agency who find private rented homes for housing applicants and following up with the organisation helping Mr X with addiction issues.
22. The Agency wrote to Mr X in late May 2018 saying the Council could fund a deposit for him of up to £1,000 if Mr X is able to find private rented accommodation. However, it told him as he was not threatened with homelessness it could not consider housing for him as a homeless person.
23. The Council wrote to Mr X shortly after to clarify the Agency was separate from the Housing team at the Council and the letter Mr X received saying he was not threatened with homelessness did not relate to the investigations the Council was carrying out to see whether it owed Mr X a homelessness duty.
24. The Agency contacted Mr X however, when he explained he needed support for addiction to drugs the Agency told him it may not be the most suitable service for him and would tell his caseworker.
25. In July 2018 the Council sent Mr X a decision on his homeless application saying Mr X was not in priority need. The Council also ended the relief duty.
26. Mr X asked for a review of this decision at the beginning of August 2018. He said the Council did not consider his mental health issues and his difficulties understanding English. He also mentioned trauma he suffered in the past.
27. The Council wrote to Mr X to invite him to supply any further information. Mr X sent the Council certificates showing his GP had signed him off work due to depression. The Council also wrote to Mr X’s GP to enquire about his mental health issues. Mr X’s GP responded to say he had been referred to the community mental health team due to his mental health issues.
28. In early October 2018 the Council sent Mr X its review decision. This upheld the original non-priority need decision.
29. In early December 2018 Mr X’s representative telephoned the Council to ask to make a new homeless application for Mr X. The Council sent Mr X an application form to complete, however this was for a housing register application. Mr X completed the form and his representative emailed this to the Council. The email states Mr X is seeking to make a homelessness application under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Mr X’s representative says she telephoned the Council a few days later and it confirmed it received the homelessness application.
30. Mr X says he attended an assessment at a Voluntary Sector Resource Centre in January 2019. The Council say it has no record of this assessment and did not commission this for Mr X.
31. As Mr X had not heard anything about his housing application he made a formal complaint to the Council in February 2019. The Council responded shortly after to apologise and said it had misplaced Mr X’s application. It said it would pass Mr X’s application to the relevant team to provide a decision.
32. In late February 2019 Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two.
33. On 29 March 2019 the Council issued Mr X with a decision saying he could not join its housing register. The decision mentioned Mr X was living in a hostel and listed different groups the Council usually provides housing for. The letter did not advise Mr X of his right to request a review.
34. In June 2019 the Council provided its final response to Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. The Council said Mr X had in fact made a housing register application, not a homeless application. The Council had scanned his housing register application to his closed homeless case in error and only discovered when Mr X raised a formal complaint in February 2019. The Council offered £100 for the delay in processing the application.
35. The Council also said it did not provide Mr X with accommodation when he applied as homeless in April 2018 as it did not have reason to believe he was in priority need. The Council said it completed a PHP with Mr X and issued the correct homeless decision based on the information it had for Mr X.

Back to top

Analysis

36. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr X following his approach for help in April 2018. The Council then completed a PHP with Mr X and sought to decide whether it owed him a statutory duty to house him.
37. I have found fault with how the Council completed the assessment and PHP. The assessment does not go into much detail about Mr X’s circumstances and does not explain what accommodation would be suitable for him. The Council did not review the PHP, nor can I see evidence the Council followed up with the organisation helping Mr X with addiction issues. There is also no evidence the Council tried to contact Mr X to update the plan after the Agency told Mr X he was not a suitable referral.
38. On balance, I cannot say whether Mr X would have obtained suitable accommodation for at least six months had the Council carried out the assessment and PHP properly. However, Mr X did obtain accommodation at a hostel shortly afterwards.
39. Mr X says the Council used an Agency to provide him with a not homeless decision in late May 2018. From the evidence seen, this letter was from an officer from the Agency. I appreciate this would have been confusing for Mr X to receive however, the Council clarified to Mr X shortly afterwards this letter only related to the support from the Agency with finding accommodation. It did not relate to Mr X’s homeless application which the Council were still considering. I do not think this amounts to fault.
40. I have not found fault with the way the Council handled Mr X’s homeless application and review. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body. We cannot question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made.
41. After providing Mr X with a non-priority need decision and accepting his review request, the Council contacted Mr X’s GP about his mental health condition. The Council also addressed the points Mr X made in his review request in its decision letter. Based on the information at the time I cannot find fault in the Council’s decision.

Housing application in December 2018

42. Mr X says he made a homeless application in December 2018 and attended an assessment at a Voluntary Sector Resource Centre shortly after. The Council say Mr X did not make a homeless application and applied to join its housing register.
43. From the evidence provided, I can see Mr X’s representative emailed the Council asking to make a homeless application for Mr X. She also telephoned the Council on 13 December 2018. I do not have a record of this call but on balance I am satisfied Mr X’s intention was to make a homeless application and not a housing register application. I am also satisfied on balance that Mr X believed he was making a homeless application when completing the housing register form the Council sent to him.
44. The fact the Council provided a housing register application form and processed a housing register application amounts to fault. The Council could have clarified with Mr X’s representative whether she was seeking to make a homeless application as stated in her email.
45. This caused Mr X injustice as his expectation was he would receive a decision on whether the Council owed him a duty to house him under homelessness legislation and the possibility of accommodation being provided in the short term. However, I can see Mr X has made a further homeless application in April 2019 which the Council has processed.
46. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had no record of Mr X attending an assessment at a Voluntary Sector Resource Centre at its request and a staff member from the Voluntary Sector Resource Centre may have assisted Mr X following a visit to the day centre. Without further evidence I cannot say why Mr X attended the Voluntary Sector Resource Centre at this time.
47. I have found fault in the way the Council dealt with the housing application submitted in December 2018. There was a significant delay in providing Mr X with a decision. The Council did not adequately explain its reasoning for not allowing Mr X to join the housing register in its decision letter. The Council did not tell Mr X about his right to review the decision.
48. This caused Mr X injustice as he lost the opportunity to ask for a review of his housing register decision and send further evidence.
49. I accept the Council recognised the delay in providing the decision and offered Mr X £100 payment in recognition of this delay. I consider this a reasonable remedy for the delay.
50. However, from the evidence provided to me Mr X has made a further housing register application and received a negative decision. The decision letter is similar to the previous application and does not advise Mr X of his right to ask for a review.

Complaint handling

51. The Council delayed in providing its stage one and stage two responses. There was a significant delay in providing the stage two response. I can see no evidence the Council kept Mr X updated during this process or provided an explanation for the delay.
52. I therefore find fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint. This resulted in Mr X having to wait much longer than necessary for the Council to offer a remedy to his complaint.

Agreed action

53. The Council has agreed to carry out the following within one month of my final decision and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults in the assessment and PHP from May 2018.
• Apologise to Mr X for not taking a homeless application from him in December 2018 and pay Mr X £100 for the distress this caused.
• If the Council has not done so already, pay Mr X £100 for the delay in processing his housing register application that it previously offered.
• Re-look at Mr X’s housing register application and provide him with a decision in writing. If the Council is minded to not allow Mr X to join, ensure it clearly outlines its reasons taking into account Mr X’s circumstances and provides him with the option of requesting a review.
• Remind staff to include on all relevant decision letters an applicant’s right to request a review.
• Pay Mr X £100 for time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to carry out the above actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

55. I have not investigated Mr X’s further homeless application made in April 2019. Mr X did not include this in his complaint to the Council and he was pursuing a review of this decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman