Summary: The Council took sufficient action to assist Mr X with finding accommodation after he became homeless. But it is at fault as it delayed in sending Mr X’s personalised housing plan to him, did not notify him of the ending of the relief duty and how he could challenge that decision and delayed in deciding if it owed the main housing duty to him. These faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr X. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing and destroying his van as the Council was acting on behalf of DVLA so the matter is outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to provide him with adequate help since he approached it as homeless on 3 April 2019. Mr X also complains the Council unreasonably removed and destroyed a van he owned which he was using to sleep in.

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. 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)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:
• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

What the Council should do

7. 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. 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)
8. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
    
9. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The Council can end its relief duty in a number of circumstances. These include if the Council has made an offer of accommodation that would be available for at least six months or if more than 56 days have passed since the Council was subject to the relief duty whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation.(Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. An applicant can challenge the steps to be taken by the Council in a personalised housing plan and Council’s decisions such as a decision to end the relief duty and the decision as to whether the Council owes a main housing duty which is the duty to provide suitable accommodation. The applicant can seek a review of the decision and then appeal to the county court if they disagree with the Council’s decisions. Councils should notify applicants of how they can challenge decisions.
12. The Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997 provide that the DVLA can authorise other organisations, such as councils, to take enforcement action against vehicles that are not taxed. The Council is carrying out the functions of the DVLA rather than the Council.

What happened

Email to senior councillor

13. Mr X says he sent an email to a senior councillor on 20 November 2018 requesting assistance with his housing situation. The Council sent a letter to Mr X on 1 August 2019. In this letter the Council thanked Mr X for his enquiry of 20 November 2018 to the senior councillor. Neither the Council nor Mr X can provide a copy of the email of 20 November 2018. The Council considers it referred to Mr X’s email of 20 November 2018 in error in its letter of 1 August 2019 and this letter was in response to Mr X’s email of July 2019 to the senior councillor. In his email of July 2019 Mr X raised concerns about his homelessness and that the Council had offered a viewing on a private rented property some distance from the area. The Council says it does not have any evidence to show it received an email from Mr X in November 2018 and it has no record of contact from Mr X before April 2019.

Mr X’s homelessness application

14. In early April 2019 Mr X visited the Council to make a homelessness application. The Council’s records show Mr X told the Council he was sofa surfing and sleeping in his car after leaving his property. The Council considered there was no evidence of homelessness and advised Mr X to ask his friends if he could stay for longer. The Council’s records note it provided details of Homefinder UK which finds housing for applicants who are willing to move outside their home area. The Council also referred Mr X to a night shelter.
15. Mr X attended the Council on 16 April 2019 for an assessment of his housing circumstances. The Council considered it owned Mr X a relief duty as he was homeless. Officer A drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) to set out the actions Mr X and the Council should undertake to relieve his homelessness. The PHP noted Mr X would set up a Homefinders UK account. He would also search for properties using suggested accommodation websites. The Council would verify Mr X’s Homefinders account once he provided his pin number. It would also refer Mr X to the Council’s rent bond scheme to help Mr X cover the cost of securing a property and for employment advice.
16. Officer A was unable to print the PHP and provide a copy for Mr X at the assessment due to an IT problem. The Council’s records note she tried unsuccessfully to send a copy by email. Officer A tried to call Mr X to check the email address but was unable to contact him. The records note officer A would try to contact him again but there is no evidence she did so.
17. The Council did not offer interim accommodation to Mr X as it did not believe he was in priority need. Mr X had advised the Council about his mental health problems but the Council did not consider Mr X to be vulnerable as he attended his assessment on his own, engaged well and showed he was listening to advice offered. Mr X also said he was resilient and resourceful.
18. Mr X visited the Council again in early May to obtain a copy of the PHP and spoke to officer B, housing officer. This was three weeks after Mr X’s interview with officer A. Officer B sent an email to officer A. He advised Mr X had requested interim accommodation which officer B declined to offer as he did not believe Mr X was in priority need. Officer B also advised Mr X on his options and explained there was no guarantee the Council would decide it had a duty to accommodate him when the relief duty ended. Officer B asked officer A to progress the referral for employment advice. He also suggested she contact Mr X as he had told officer B that he had sent details of private rented properties to officer A and to manage his expectations. Officer A made the referral for employment advice in July 2019.
19. The Council’s relief duty ended in June 2019 as 56 days had passed since the duty arose. There is no evidence the Council notified Mr X of the ending of the relief duty.
20. In July 2019 the Council offered Mr X a property under its rent deposit scheme. Mr X refused the property as it was outside of London and he would not be able to start work on time.
21. In September 2019 the Council decided it did not have a main duty to secure accommodation for Mr X as he was not in priority need. The Council’s decision letter notified Mr X of how he could request a review of this decision.

Removal and disposal of Mr X’s van

22. In April 2019 the Council’s contractor removed Mr X’s van as it was not taxed. Mr X has said he was living in the van. The Council has devolved powers from the DVLA to remove vehicles which are not taxed. On 16 April 2019 the DVLA authorised the Council to dispose of Mr X’s van.

My assessment

Mr X’s email to a senior councillor

23. On balance, I cannot conclude the Council received an email of 20 November 2018 from Mr X. Neither Mr X nor the Council can provide a copy of the email. I have considered Mr X’s email to the Council of 15 July 2019 and I consider it is likely the Council’s letter of 1 August 2019 is a response to Mr X’s email of 15 July 2019. This is because the letter responds to the points Mr X raised in his email of 15 July 2019. I therefore cannot conclude the Council received an email of 20 November 2018 from Mr X.

Homelessness application

24. Mr X’s PHP sets out the Council will refer Mr X to the rent deposit scheme and provide a deposit for private rented accommodation that Mr X finds. The evidence shows the Council referred Mr X to the rent deposit scheme and advised Mr X that it will provide a deposit. It also referred Mr X for a viewing on a property. So, on balance, I consider the Council has taken the action set out in the PHP and has taken sufficient action to assist Mr X with finding accommodation.
25. Mr X has said officer A undertook to provide him with details of his benefits entitlement but she did not do so. Mr X has said this meant he could not make informed decisions about seeking accommodation. I cannot know what officer A said at the interview. But the PHP shows one of Mr X’s actions was to complete a benefit entitlement calculation using a specific website. So, I am satisfied the Council provided information to Mr X about how he could work out his benefit entitlement and he would have been aware that he needed to do this.
26. The evidence shows the Council delayed in referring Mr X to the employment advisor as it did not do this until July 2019. This is fault but this delay did not cause significant injustice to Mr X as he is in employment.
27. Mr X considers the Council should have offered interim accommodation to him. Councils have a duty to offer emergency accommodation to applicants if they believe they could be in priority need. On balance, the evidence shows the Council considered if there was reason to believe Mr X was in priority need. There is no evidence of fault as the Council considered if it should offer interim accommodation to Mr X.
28. The Council is at fault as it did not provide Mr X with a copy of the PHP and assessment shortly after the interview or explain he could challenge the steps to be taken by the Council. I am mindful the Council could not print Mr X’s PHP and assessment at his interview and could not send it by email or contact him on that day. But there is no evidence to show the Council attempted to contact Mr X again to send the PHP and assessment to him. So, there was a three week delay in providing Mr X with a copy of the PHP and assessment.
29. The delay in providing the PHP and assessment to Mr X meant he did not have written information about the steps he should take, and the action the Council would take, to secure accommodation for three weeks longer than necessary. Prompt issuing of the PHP would have managed Mr X’s expectations about what the Council would do to assist him. But I do not consider this caused significant injustice to Mr X. The Council’s records show Mr X was aware he needed to find private rented accommodation when he visited the Council to obtain the PHP.
30. There is also no evidence to show the Council notified Mr X of his right to challenge the steps to be taken by the Council set out in the PHP. This is fault. But I do not consider this caused significant injustice to Mr X as it is unlikely the Council would have undertaken different steps if he had been able to challenge the PHP. Mr X has said he cannot afford private rented accommodation. The housing supply is limited so it is usual for councils to refer applicants to their rent deposit scheme to assist in finding private rented accommodation or offer private rented accommodation. Mr X was not eligible for the housing register so he could not bid for council housing. So, on balance, I do not consider the outcome would have been any different for Mr X if he had been able to challenge the steps to be undertaken by the Council in the PHP.
31. There is no evidence to show the Council notified Mr X of its decision to end the relief duty in writing and notify him of his right to challenge this decision. This is fault. However, I do not consider this caused significant injustice to Mr X as it is unlikely the Council would have changed its decision that the relief duty had ended. Mr X had refused an offer of accommodation and more than 56 days had passed since the Council accepted the duty. But the Council should ensure it notifies applicants in writing of the ending of the relief duty and their right to challenge that decision.
32. The homelessness code of guidance also provides the Council should not delay in making a decision as to whether it owes the main housing duty when the relief duty ends. The Council’s relief duty ended in June 2019 but it did not make a decision as to whether it owed the main housing duty to Mr X until September 2019. This is fault. But I do not consider this caused significant injustice to Mr X as the delay meant the Council continued to assist Mr X for a longer period of time.
33. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision that it does not owe the main housing duty to him. I have not investigated this complaint as Mr X has the right to request a review of this decision and appeal to the county court if his review request is unsuccessful. The Council notified Mr X of how to challenge its decision. It is therefore reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right of appeal.

Removal and disposal of Mr X’s Van

34. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint and come to any decision on whether the Council is at fault for removing and destroying his van. The Ombudsman investigates the administrative actions of the Council. We cannot investigate actions carried out by the Council on behalf of another organisation. The Council acted on behalf of the DVLA when it removed and destroyed Mr X’s van. So the removal and destruction of the van was not an administrative action of the Council. We also do not have jurisdiction to investigate the DVLA.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. That the Council:
1. Reviews its procedures to ensure the Council notifies applicants in writing of significant decisions regarding their homelessness application including what duty it owes to the applicant, the ending of a duty, the right to challenge the ending of the duty and the steps to be undertaken by the Council in a PHP.
2. Reviews its procedures to ensure it promptly makes a decision on whether it owes the main housing duty to an applicant when the relief duty ends. The Council should take the action at a) and b) within two months of my final decision and explain to the Ombudsman how it will improve its practice in this area.

Final decision

36. The Council took sufficient action to assist Mr X with finding accommodation after he became homeless. But it is at fault as it delayed in sending Mr X’s personalised housing plan to him, did not notify him of the ending of the relief duty and how he could challenge that decision and delayed in deciding if it owed the main housing duty to him. These faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr X. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing and destroying his van as the Council was acting on behalf of DVLA so the matter is outside our jurisdiction. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman