Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homeless application. Miss X complains the Council did not process her application when she applied in February 2017, closed her application without telling her, and failed to update her on the progress of her application. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its handling of Miss X’s homelessness application and complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homeless application. Miss X says she made a homeless application because she was at risk of domestic violence from her husband. She complains the Council:

• Did not process her application when she first applied as homeless in February 2017;
• closed her application without telling her, and;
• continuously failed to update her on the progress of her application.

Miss X says the Council’s handling of her homeless application has put her and her children at risk.

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. 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

4. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
5. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
6. I sent two draft decision to Miss X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996, where a housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make inquiries to satisfy itself whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty is owed to them. The authority will need to establish whether the applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, whether he or she became homeless, or threatened with homelessness, intentionally and whether they have a priority need for accommodation. (Chapter 6, paragraph 6.12)
8. The guidance notes housing authorities should deal with inquiries as quickly as possible. Housing authorities are obliged to begin inquiries as soon as they have reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. It should aim to carry out an initial interview and preliminary assessment on the day an application is received.
9. Wherever possible, it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within 33 working days of accepting a duty to make inquiries. (Chapter 6, paragraph 6.16)

What happened

10. Miss X has two young children. In February 2017, she completed an online homeless application. Miss X said she was living in fear of violence from her ex-husband and therefore could not continue to live at her current property. Miss X said she submitted documents with this application and that when she checked the status online, it said the Council was working on the case. Miss X said she contacted the Council in the summer to ask for an update, but the Council did not respond.
11. The Council closed Miss X’s application in September 2017 because she had not contacted the Council for over three months.
12. Between September 2017 and January 2018, Miss X wrote to the Council to ask for an update on her application. The Council told her in January 2018 her case had been closed.
13. In March 2018, Miss X complained about the Council’s actions. The Council upheld her complaint and reopened her homeless application. In April 2018, the Council allocated a caseworker to deal with Miss X’s application. Miss X saw her caseworker in May and June 2018. Miss X told her case worker she was in fear of violence from her ex-husband towards her and her children. She also told the case worker she was concerned about financial abuse. She provided the caseworker with documents to support her case. The documents she provided in 2019 were the same documents she provided in 2017.
14. In August 2018, Miss X’s application was given to a new caseworker. The Council did not tell Miss X about this change.
15. In November 2018, Miss X made a further complaint as the Council had still not decided whether it owed her the homelessness duty.
16. In January 2019, the Council accepted it owed Miss X the homelessness duty. The Council said Miss X’s caseworker completed an emergency booking form and passed it on for approval.
17. In February 2019, Miss X complained again as she could not contact her caseworker for an update. The Council contacted Miss X in February 2019 to offer her emergency accommodation. Miss X said she asked the Council to see if they could find another property as the property offered was too small for her son’s piano. Miss X said she told the Council if they could not find anything, she would accept the emergency housing offered. Miss X said the Council did not contact her after this.
18. The Council offered emergency housing again in June 2019. Miss X accepted this offer.

Complaint handling

19. Miss X first complained to the Ombudsman in December 2018. The Council said it had not finished investigating Miss X’s complaint. The Ombudsman referred the complaint back to the Council to investigate in March 2019.
20. In June 2019, Miss X contacted the Ombudsman as she had still not received a final response from the Council on her complaint. We reopened Miss X’s complaint and made enquiries with the Council.
21. In July 2019, the Council provided me with a copy of its final response letter. In this letter, the Council accepted fault for the following.

• Failing to act promptly following Miss X’s online homeless application in February 2017.
• Poor communication with Miss X. The Council accepted it did not always respond to Miss X’s enquiries and did not tell Miss X of the change of caseworker.
• Not completing detailed enquiries regarding whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her property.
• Closing Miss X’s application for no contact for three months even though she had been in contact with the Council. The Council accepted it had made no attempt to contact her.
• Poor complaint handling.

22. The Council made the following offer to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X:

• A sincere apology for the poor service received and for the Council’s failure to deal with her homelessness application promptly.
• Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to her.
• The Council now considered the homelessness enquiries were insufficient to confirm the decision made to accept a homelessness duty towards Miss X. However, it was prepared to offer Miss X compensation from when her caseworker referred her to the rent deposit scheme in June 2018. The Council will pay her £2100, made up of £175 for each month between June 2018 and June 2019.
• The Council will backdate the effect date of Miss X’s housing register application to June 2018.

23. The Council said it was reviewing its homelessness services to improve the way it handles enquiries from those experience domestic abuse. Future cases involving domestic abuse will also not be closed for no contact without discussion, and sign off, with a team leader or manager. The Council said it reminded staff an applicant might have good reason for not making contact.
24. The Council also made several changes to its case management to improve case tracking and reporting. The Council will also implement a new complaint process and tracking system to improve complaint handling times.
25. In response to my first draft decision, the Council explained the test it should have used when it assessed Miss X’s application. The Council explained it needed to be satisfied that it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence or other violence. The fact there has been historical violence is not the deciding factor, the assessment should consider whether it is likely to happen again fi the applicant continues to occupy the accommodation.

Analysis

26. It is clear the Council was at fault for how it handled Miss X’s homelessness application. It is recognised the Council identified and accepted fault during its complaint investigation, though it is disappointing its response was delayed. I agree with the Council’s findings of faults.
27. The Council has offered Miss X £175 for each month between June 2018 and June 2019. The Council said this was because it was unclear whether it did owe Miss X a homelessness duty as the enquiries it completed were insufficient.
28. In my first draft decision, I was of the view it was not relevant that the Council now feels it completed insufficient enquiries. However, having considered the Council’s comments to my draft, I now accept the Council’s view and agree the evidence suggests the assessment in January 2019 was not properly carried out.
29. However, it is not possible to say, even on balance, what decision the Council would have made in 2017 had it made proper enquiries. This is because if the Council had decided to reject the application, Miss X might have been able to produce new evidence for the Council to consider or she might have won an appeal against a negative decision.
30. Therefore, because I do not know what decision the Council would have made in 2017, I cannot say Miss X was in unsuitable accommodation for two years. However, the fault still caused Miss X an injustice because she was in an unacceptable state of uncertainty for two years. Miss X was also caused frustration and distress because of the Council’s lack of response to her complaints.
31. Having considered the injustice caused to Miss X, the Council’s remedy offer of £2600 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council should complete the following:

• Provide a sincere apology to Miss X for the faults identified and for the injustice caused.
• Pay Miss X £2100 in recognition of the state of uncertainty Miss X was in for two years. This is made up of £175 a month between June 2018 and June 2019.
• Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the distress, frustration, and inconvenience caused.
• Backdate the effect date of Miss X’s housing register application to June 2018.

33. The Council should complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find fault with the Council for its handling of Miss X’s homelessness application and complaint. The Council has accepted my recommendations. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman