Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his homelessness application, causing him to lose the chance to review his homeless decision. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council as it did not provide Mr X with assistance to relieve his homelessness and delayed in providing Mr X with a decision on his application. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the way the Council handled his homeless application. Mr X says the Council:
• Did not send him its decision on his homelessness application.
• Wrongly refused his request for a review of this decision and told him his request was late.
• Did not send Mr X its stage one response to his complaint.

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. As part of this investigation:
• I considered the information provided by Mr X.
• I discussed the complaint with Mr X via telephone.
• I made enquiries to the Council and considered the response received.
• I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

5. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
6. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty (the relief duty) for 56 days to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
7. Councils must also complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The assessment should include the circumstances causing the applicant to become homeless, the housing needs of the applicant and what support is necessary to help the applicant retain suitable accommodation. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance 11.6 and 11.18)
8. The Housing Act 1996, section 189B says councils may give notice to bring the relief duty to an end in any of the following circumstances:
• The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months;
• The Council has complied with the relief duty for at least 56 days (whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation);
• The applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months;
• The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section;
• The applicant is no longer eligible for assistance;
• The applicant has withdrawn the application.
• The applicant is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
9. Any decision that the duty has come to an end must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. The Council must complete inquiries into an applicant’s homelessness application and decide whether a person is eligible, homeless, has a priority need for accommodation and is not homeless intentionally. 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 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
11. If an applicant requests a review of their homelessness decision, councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request. The council must advise applicant of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

The Council’s complaints procedure

12. The Council’s complaints procedure is made up of two stages. At stage one the Council has 15 working days to respond to a complaint. If a complainant is not happy with the response provided at stage one, they can request the complaint is considered at stage two. The Council has up to 25 working days to provide a response at stage two.

What happened

13. In May 2018 Mr X approached the Council as homeless after a relationship breakdown. Mr X was staying with different friends as he had no accommodation of his own. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr X’s needs and decided he was homeless and eligible for assistance. The assessment considered the circumstances of Mr X’s homelessness, what type of accommodation he would need and what support he would need to retain suitable accommodation.
14. The Council made its decision on Mr X’s homeless application in October 2018, however it did not send him a copy of the decision. The Council decided it did not owe Mr X a duty to house him because he was not in priority need. The Council considered Mr X’s health problems but decided he was not in priority need as his health conditions were not significant enough.
15. As Mr X was a military veteran he managed to find supported accommodation with an organisation who support veterans, in January 2019. He signed a tenancy agreement for a one bedroom property. In late January 2019 Mr X visited the Council to tell it he had found his own accommodation. At this visit, the Council provided Mr X with a copy of its decision letter on his homeless application from October 2018.
16. In February 2019 Mr X requested a review of this decision. He said the decision had some factual inaccuracies including his age and details about his children. He also raised concerns about the time it took the Council to make this decision.
17. The Council declined Mr X’s review request on the basis it was out of time. The Council said it made Mr X’s decision letter available at its offices for him from early November 2018 so he could have collected it and requested a review of the decision earlier.
18. On 22 February 2019 Mr X raised a formal complaint with the Council. He complained about the delay in providing him with a decision on his homeless application and the Council’s refusal to accept a review of this decision.
19. Mr X did not receive a response to his complaint so contacted the Council again in mid-March 2019 to follow this up. The Council told him it was dealing with his complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure. On 17 May 2019 the Council emailed Mr X a response to his complaint but sent this to the wrong email address. Mr X contacted the Council again on 25 May 2019 as he had not received a response to his complaint. He requested the Council consider the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure.
20. The Council provided a final complaint response to Mr X’s complaint on 18 July 2019, referring him to the Ombudsman. The Council:
• Apologised for not sending Mr X the decision letter on his homeless application.
• Explained it did not think a review of this decision would be successful as Mr X obtained accommodation and apologised for the loss of opportunity.
• Offered Mr X £200 in recognition of the lost opportunity to request a review of his homeless decision.
• Explained it had put in place measures to ensure managers and staff confirm homeless decision are sent to applicants.
21. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

22. When Mr X approached the Council as homeless in May 2018 the Council carried out an assessment of his needs. However, there is no evidence the Council accepted a duty to help relieve Mr X’s homelessness.
23. The assessment document the Council completed for Mr X shows the Council believed Mr X was eligible for assistance and homeless therefore it should have accepted a relief duty towards Mr X. The Council should have completed a PHP with Mr X which outlined the steps the Council and Mr X would take to help find him suitable accommodation. The Council should also have written to Mr X explaining it owed him the relief duty for 56 days and sent him a copy of his PHP.
24. From the evidence provided I cannot see the Council did any of this which is fault. I cannot say for certain whether Mr X would have secured accommodation if the Council had provided the relief duty to Mr X, completed a PHP and taken the agreed steps in the PHP, as there are too many variables in what he or the Council or any prospective landlord may have done. But it would have provided him with a greater opportunity to secure suitable accommodation much sooner. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Recommended action’ section below.
25. The Council also delayed in making a decision on his homeless application. Mr X approached the Council as homeless in May 2018 but the Council did not make a decision until October 2018.
26. From the contents of the decision I cannot see what enquiries the Council made to justify a timescale of five months. I acknowledge the Council’s reasons for the delay but find Mr X suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty waiting for the Council to make a decision. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Recommended action’ section below.
27. The Council also failed to provide Mr X with a copy of its decision on his homelessness application. While the Council said it made the decision available for Mr X at its offices, I have seen no evidence to suggest this. On balance I am satisfied Mr X was not aware the Council had made a decision on his homelessness application until he visited the Council’s offices in January 2019 to tell the Council he had found accommodation.
28. As Mr X only received his homeless decision in January 2019 and had found his own accommodation, he lost the opportunity to request a review of this decision. I cannot say what the outcome of any review would have been as this would be for Council officers to decide based on the evidence presented to them. However, Mr X lost the opportunity to present further evidence to the Council in support of why he felt he was in priority need.
29. The Council has apologised for not providing Mr X with its decision and offered him £200 in recognition of the lost opportunity. It has also taken steps to ensure staff and managers confirm homeless decision are sent to applicants. I consider this suitable to remedy the injustice caused by not providing Mr X with his homeless decision.
30. There was also fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s complaint. From the evidence provided the Council missed its response targets at both stage one and stage two. It also sent the stage one response to an incorrect email address, so Mr X did not receive it.
31. This caused Mr X injustice as he had to contact the Council several times to ask for it to respond to his complaint. As the Council did not meet its timescales for responding Mr X had to wait longer than necessary to receive a conclusion to his complaint. I consider the Council’s mishandling of Mr X’s complaint added to the ongoing distress and uncertainty he has suffered regarding his housing situation. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Recommended action’ section below.

Agreed action

32. The Council 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 failing to provide the relief duty, complete a PHP and agree steps with him to find suitable accommodation.
• Pay Mr X £400 to recognise the uncertainty and loss of opportunity caused by the Council not carrying out its obligations under the relief duty.
• Provide guidance to staff to ensure they are aware of the duty owed to applicants who are eligible and homeless.
• Pay Mr X £100 for the distress and uncertainty caused by delaying in providing a homeless decision.
• Pay Mr X £200 for the Council’s failures in complaint handling.
• If the Council has not already done so, pay Mr X the £200 it previously offered to recognise the loss of opportunity to request a review from not sending him the homeless decision.
33. In coming to these figures I have considered the Ombudsman guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed to the above recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman