Summary: The Council failed to take an application when Mr C approached it as homeless. The Council has apologised and offered an appointment to assist should Mr C still need it. This is appropriate action in response. In addition to this the Council will remind its staff to keep adequate records of advice it gives, as it had no record of how it dealt with Mr C’s approach.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr C, says the Council refused to help him when he was homeless and sent him to Lambeth Council. Mr C says he is disabled and of an ethnic minority and that the Council treated him less favourably than it would other service users. Mr C says he suffered severe depression and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr C, including the Council’s response to his complaint.
• The Housing Act 1996.
• The Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities.
• Responses to a draft of this statement.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C approached Croydon Council as homeless after already approaching Lambeth Council.

What should happen

7. The Housing Act 1996 does not limit the number of homelessness applications a person can make, and applicants can apply to more than one council at the same time. A council can ask the applicant if they have applied to any other councils. If so, one council might contact the other to agree who will be responsible to carry out the enquiries.
8. If you don’t have a local connection to the area, the council you have approached may refer you to another council for help. A local connection means you have links to the area based on:
• Living or working in the area
• Close family in the area
• Other special reasons
9. When you approach a council as homeless it should carry out enquiries and reach a decision on your application. If the enquiries determine that you have a local connection with another council, you may be referred there. You may have a local connection with the council where you applied, but it might determine you have a stronger local connection elsewhere. If that is the case the council cannot refer you but can ask that council for assistance in accommodating you. The other council must help in providing this assistance as far as is reasonable in the circumstances.
10. If you are already homeless, but don’t have a local connection in the area you apply, that council can refer you to a different council if you have a local connection to the other area, and are not at risk of domestic abuse or violence in that other area. The council you approach can make a referral at an early or later stage. The council must give you a letter explaining that a referral has been made. The other council then decides whether to accept the referral.

What did happen

11. Mr C first approached Lambeth Council as homeless, it did not take an application; he says it told him to go to Croydon Council (the Council).
12. The Council had a telephone conversation with Mr C, but has kept no notes and the officer no longer works at the Council. The Council explains it appears it told Mr C that any duty owed would be referred to the council where Mr C’s local connection lies, which in this case it said was Lambeth Council. Therefore, it told Mr C he may be better off approaching Lambeth Council directly.
13. The Council accepts it should have taken a homelessness application from Mr C, regardless of its advice about local connection.
14. The Council has apologised to Mr C that it did not take an application from him and said it can make an appointment to determine how it can help going forward if required.
15. Mr C returned to Lambeth Council and it accommodated him. Therefore, he no longer needs support from Croydon.

Was there fault causing injustice?

16. The Council was at fault for not accepting a homelessness application when Mr C approached it for help. The Council also failed to keep a record of the advice it gave and how it dealt with Mr C’s homelessness approach.
17. There is no evidence of the advice the Council gave Mr C, but it seems accepted by both parties that the Council told Mr C he could approach Lambeth Council as that appeared to be where his local connection lay. There is no evidence the Council treated Mr C less favourably because of a protected characteristic, such as his disability or ethnic background. It is more likely than not the Council treated Mr C the same as anyone else who had been living elsewhere before recently becoming homeless. There is no evidence the Council’s poor record keeping was because of discrimination towards Mr C because of his disability or race.
18. Mr C says he has a local connection to Croydon as he has close family in the area. We do not know whether Croydon would have assessed Mr C to have a local connection, and if it did whether it would conclude he had a stronger local connection to Lambeth. It is possible that regardless of this the Council still might have referred him to Lambeth, or asked Lambeth to assist in accommodating Mr C.
19. Mr C did not challenge the advice Croydon Council gave him at the time, he returned to Lambeth and was accommodated there. Mr C first approached Lambeth, and it seems that was his preferred location despite any local connection he might also have in Croydon.
20. If the Council had correctly taken Mr C’s homelessness application, it would then have made enquiries into his situation and issued him with a formal decision. The Council may have given Mr C interim accommodation while making its enquiries, so its possible he may have been accommodated rather than street homeless. However, Mr C’s injustice of being street homeless stems from Lambeth Council’s initial error in not taking a homeless application when he first approached it. That is what led him to then approach Croydon; that would not have happened if not for Lambeth Council’s initial fault. The Ombudsman has recommended a financial remedy on a case against Lambeth Council to acknowledge that Mr C was street homeless for longer than necessary. It would be unjust to ask Croydon to remedy the same period of injustice.
21. The Council has apologised for not taking an application and offered an appointment should Mr C still require any assistance from it. This is appropriate action in response to the complaint and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Agreed action

22. Although the Council has taken appropriate action to respond to Mr C’s complaint, it will also remind staff of the importance of keeping accurate and contemporaneous records of contacts with those approaching as homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Council should be able to show what advice it has given, and how it has complied with the law and national guidance.
23. The Council should complete the agreed action within one month, and evidence its compliance to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council has taken appropriate action to respond to Mr C’s complaint, and the agreed action will prevent future problems.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman