Summary: Mr C complains that the Council failed to assist him with his homelessness problem. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the issues Mr C has raised. Furthermore, Mr C had the opportunity to appeal the Councils homelessness decision in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains that the Council failed to help him with his homelessness problem. Mr C says his ban from the Council’s civic centre has been a barrier to resolving the issue.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the support offered to Mr C with his homelessness problem and its decision to ban him from the civic centre.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. 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

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr and Ms C's comments; and
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; and
• communicated with Mr C about his complaint.
8. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

9. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 6.6)
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. After completing enquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing (which I refer to as a ‘Section 184 notice’). 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)
17. Reviews should be requested within 21 days of receiving the Council’s decision letter. The relevant legislation is Section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
18. Where an applicant requests a review of a council’s decision this must be completed within eight weeks. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the review decision they may appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days of receiving the outcome of the review. If a council fails to reach a decision within eight weeks the applicant can also appeal to the County Court on a point of law. The relevant legislation is Sections 202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996.

What happened

19. In August 2018, Mr C completed a homelessness application. Mr C had been released from prison earlier that year and was subject to immigration proceedings so was living at his sisters flat as per his bail conditions.
20. The Council’s assessment concluded that Mr C was threatened with homelessness and started working on a Personal Housing Plan (PHP).
21. The PHP at the prevention stage recorded that that Mr C should attend interviews and engage with assessments for accommodation, as and when required.
22. The PHP at the relief stage recorded that Mr C should seek private accommodation. It went on to say the Council would provide Me C with information to assist his search and information on how he could be eligible for financial assistance. The Council subsequently wrote to Mr C with this information.
23. After receiving Mr C’s medial information, the Council concluded that Mr C did not have a priority need for housing. It wrote to Mr C to inform him of this, advising him how it had come to this decision and how he could first request a review and then could appeal the decision through the courts.
24. Upon contacting the Council, it told the Ombudsman that it had not received a request for an appeal from Mr C. There is also no reference to any appeal request in Mr C’s case notes.
25. Mr C told the Ombudsman that he thinks he did request an appeal but has not provided any evidence to confirm this.
26. Subsequently, Mr C was evicted from his sister’s accommodation. He contacted the Council who provided him with emergency accommodation for one night. Upon making enquiries with the Council, it told the Ombudsman that Mr C was not eligible for emergency accommodation and this was an oversight by the out of hours team.
27. Records show that Mr C then attended the Civic Centre, during which time he became aggressive and threatened a member of staff. The Council wrote to Mr C informing him that he was banned from visiting the Civic Centre and further correspondence would have to be carried out over the phone.
28. Records show the Council subsequently spoke with Mr C with a view to providing him with advice and support regarding his homelessness, but Mr C would not engage and became verbally abusive to staff.

Analysis

29. Mr C remains dissatisfied with the support he received from the Council after he completed a homelessness application. Mr C says this was made worse when he was banned from the Civic Centre.
30. The Council assessed Mr C’s application and made its decision that he did not have a priority need. I have not investigated this matter for the reasons detailed below.
31. After Mr C completed his homelessness application, the Council completed PHP’s and provided Mr C with suitable advice and information on how he could apply for financial assistance. I therefore do not find fault with the assistance provided by the Council.
32. Because the Council did not conclude that Mr C had a priority need it had no duty to secure accommodation for him. It did provide him with temporary accommodation when it was not required to. However, I do not consider that because it did this once, it had a duty to continue to offer this service. I also do not consider that this mistake caused Mr C an injustice.
33. Mr C complains that the Council’s decision to ban him form the Civic Centre impeded him gaining homelessness support. However, I have reviewed the case notes that detail the reasons for Mr C’s ban and conclude that the Council had justification for the decision it made. Furthermore, the Council allowed Mr C to continue contact over the telephone therefore I am unable to find fault with this aspect of his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was no fault with how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

35. I have not investigated the Council’s decisions on Mr C’s homelessness applications. This is because Mr C had the right to ask the Council for a review of its decision. If the Council did not change its decision at review, Mr C would have had a right of appeal to the County Court on a point of law.
36. I find it was reasonable for Mr C to use his review and appeal rights. This is the statutory process to challenge such a decision and I am satisfied the Council correctly notified Mr C of his review and appeal rights.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman