Summary: The Council was at fault because it placed a wrong address on an appendix to a letter accepting a duty to accommodate a resident. The Council also failed to contact the resident to review his situation. There was no injustice to the resident from these faults. The resident did not contact the Council for 18 months about the homeless application and it would have been reasonable for him to follow up the matter at the time.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr B, complains there were errors and delays by the Council in helping him to find accommodation when he was homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I read the papers sent by Mr B and discussed the complaint with him.
4. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
5. I gave Mr B and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision and took account of any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. Mr B explained to me he was living with family, with his two young children, but his partner evicted him in December 2017.
7. Mr B made a homeless application on 18 January 2018. Mr B said the Council offered him a property but he refused It as it was too far from his children’s schools. He asked the Council for closer temporary accommodation but it did not provide it. The Council said it considered the accommodation suitable as Mr B’s children had only just started at their current schools.
8. Mr B said he went back to his families house, but in January 2018 the police were called and arrested Mr B. He blames the Council for this.
9. Mr B said that he ended up sofa surfing from January 2018 onwards.
10. The Council wrote to Mr B on 1 March 2018 to say it accepted a duty to ensure suitable accommodation was made available to him. The Council wrote to Mr B at his families address.
11. The appendix to the letter sent on 1 March 2018 says ‘Advisory appendix – only relevant if you are occupying accommodation the Council provided while your application was being investigated. Accommodation provided at Mr B’s families address is considered suitable and Mr B has a right to request a review of the suitability of this accommodation.’
12. Mr B’s solicitor wrote to the Council on 2 September 2019. This said that Mr B had not received an offer of accommodation since 1 March 2018 despite repeated reminders or complaints from him.
13. There is no evidence of any contact from Mr B to the Council between 1 March 2018 and 2 September 2019.
14. Mr B accepted temporary accommodation from the Council in September 2019 and signed a rental agreement in November 2019.

My analysis

15. There was fault by the Council as it named Mr B’s families address, which he was asked to leave, as Council provided temporary accommodation in March 2018. The Council has apologised for this error and explained that if Mr B had contacted it at the time, it could have been corrected and Mr B provided with temporary accommodation.
16. The fault in the address on the letter did not cause Mr B any injustice. If he had noticed it at the time, he could have contacted the Council to get it corrected easily. While it was an unfortunate error, it did not affect his situation as the Council had already offered temporary accommodation which he refused and he had been informed that he could request it again.
17. The Council made no contact with Mr B between 1 March 2018 and September 2019 when Mr B got a solicitor. The Council’s files do record that Mr B was staying with a friend for 9/10 months before September 2019 but could not continue as the friend was due to move.
18. The Council should have contacted Mr B periodically from March 2018 to September 2019 to review the situation. This failure to contact Mr B was fault.
19. However, this fault did not cause any injustice to Mr B. He could have contacted the Council to query why he had not heard anything and chase the matter up. Mr B could have complained to the Council at the time, about the lack of contact, rather than wait 18 months. In any case, the Council only had Mr B’s old address so it is debatable whether any correspondence would have reached Mr B.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld, as there was fault by the Council. The fault did not cause injustice to Mr B, as if he had contacted the Council at the time, rather than wait 18 months, the situation could have been resolved.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman