Summary: The Council mismanaged a homeless application. It did not provide decisions and information to Ms X. It delayed investigating her application and carried out a poor investigation. It wrongly cancelled Ms X’s interim accommodation on four occasions. It caused Ms X distress and unnecessary time and trouble. It will apologise to Ms X and provide a financial remedy to her.

The complaint

1. Mr Y, a solicitor, represents Ms X. They complain the Council failed to communicate properly with them and kept threatening to end Ms X’s interim accommodation. Ms X says this caused her distress. Ms X further complains the Council has failed to explain how this happened.

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 considered the information provided by Mr Y. I asked the Council for information and considered what it provided.
5. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

6. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
7. If a council has reason to believe an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need it must secure interim accommodation for the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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 personal housing plan. (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. A council must keep the PHP under review and notify the applicant of any changes. Some applicants need more intensive council involvement to achieve a successful outcome, and a council’s timescales for regular contact and reviews should reflect this. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 11.32)
10. If the council agrees the applicant is homeless, it must help the applicant secure accommodation available for at least six months. This is the Relief Duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. The Relief Duty usually ends 56 days after the council became subject to the duty, even if the applicant has not found accommodation.
12. The council must give an applicant written notice that it owes the applicant the relief duty and when the relief duty has ended.
13. A council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. If the council decides this duty has ended, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996 section 189b)
14. If the council does not prevent or relieve homelessness and the applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council must ensure accommodation is available for their occupation. (Unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). Applicants with dependent children have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. A council can find an applicant intentionally homeless if they deliberately did something that caused them to lose their home. If the Council finds someone with a priority need intentionally homeless, it must provide advice and assistance to help the applicant find accommodation and provided secure suitable accommodation for a period to give the applicant a chance to find accommodation (Housing Act 1996, section 190 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 19 &20)
16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decisions including:

• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end
• a finding of intentional homelessness.

What happened

17. On 31 July 2018 Ms X made a homeless application. The Council placed Ms X and her children in interim accommodation, a studio flat. The Council has a note Ms X signed a personalised housing plan (PHP) on 1 August. The Council has not provided evidence it gave Ms X a copy of this or her assessment. The Council has provided no evidence it gave Ms X written notice it had accepted the relief duty.
18. On 11 September 2018 the Council moved Ms X to 3 bedroomed interim accommodation.
19. The Council did not try to contact Ms X again until 29 November when Officer 1 tried to telephone her and sent her an email to attend an interview. Ms X’s telephone number was not available. Ms X says she did not get the email.
20. Officer 1 tried to telephone Ms X on 13 December 2018, but the number was not available. Officer 1 sent another email offering an appointment which Ms X says she did not get.
21. In January 2019 Officer 2, Officer 1’s manager, extended the relief stage as the Council had not completed enquires. On 22 January Officer 1 wrote to Ms X saying the Council was likely to find her intentionally homeless and inviting her to provide information.
22. On 22 February 2019 Officer 1 closed Ms X’s homeless application and told the Council’s interim housing provider to end her booking on 25 February. Officer 1 did not write to Ms X.
23. On 1 March Officer 2 reinstated the booking for 1 week.
24. On 6 March Mr Y contacted the Council and asked why it has cancelled Ms X’s booking and what duty it had provided the accommodation under. He provided Ms X’s consent to discuss her case with him.
25. The following day the Council told Mr Y it had closed the case prematurely as it had not made a decision yet. Officer 2 extended the accommodation booking. He told Mr Y the Council had difficulty contacting Ms X and she should respond to calls, emails and letters. Mr Y replied with the correct email for Ms X. He told the Council Ms X’s telephone did not accept calls from anonymous numbers because of previous harassment. He told the Council how it could telephone Ms X. He asked the Council to copy him into any decision.
26. Ms X says on 11 March the housing provider asked her for the keys.
27. On 15 March a Senior Manager told Officer 1 the relief stage decision was overdue and she needed to carry out some enquiries. The Council told Mr Y a manager would review Ms X’s case.
28. On 2 May 2019 Officer 1 sent a decision letter to Ms X finding her intentionally homeless. She said Ms X’s accommodation would end on 3 June. She posted the letter to the address Ms X was made homeless from. She did not send a copy to Mr Y.
29. The housing provider says the Council cancelled Ms X accommodation from 9 May.
30. On 10 May Mr Y contacted Officer 2 to ask why the Council had cancelled Ms X’s accommodation. Officer 2 said he did not know Mr Y was involved and asked for Ms X’s consent. Mr Y provided this and Officer 2 emailed Mr Y a copy of the decision letter.
31. On 21 May Mr Y asked the Council to review its decision that Ms Y was intentionally homeless. He then made a complaint about the Council continually asking Ms X to leave her accommodation and the distress this caused her. He also complained about poor communication and sending the decision letter to the wrong address.
32. On 23 May the Council withdrew its decision letter. It told Mr Y it would make further enquiries into the case. It said it would consider Mr Y’s request to extend Ms X’s accommodation during the review.
33. On 30 May 2019 the housing provider asked the Council if it should extend Ms X’s booking. The Council replied the booking would end on 3 June.
34. On 2 June the housing provider told Ms X she had to leave the following day. Mr Y contacted the Council.
35. On 3 June the Council told the housing provider it had reinstated Ms X’s case as it had overturned its decision she was intentionally homeless. On 5 June the Council again told the housing provider Ms X’s booking ended on 3 June. The housing provider queried this. The Council apologised and said the provider should extend the booking until further notice.
36. On 17 June the Council replied to Mr Y’s complaint. It said it accepted there were faults in its decision letter of 2 May and that it denied previous contact from Mr Y when he contacted it on 10 May. It apologised for these faults. It said its faults had not impacted on Ms X. It did not reply to Mr Y’s complaint about the Council continually asking Ms X to leave her interim accommodation.
37. On 3 July Mr Y asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. He said the Council had not addressed his complaint about Ms Y’s accommodation. He said she had been asked to leave again on 2 June while his complaint about this was outstanding.
38. On 5 July 2019 the Council accepted a homeless duty for Ms X.
39. On 1 August the Council replied to Mr Y’s stage 2 complaint. It said Ms X had not responded to its attempts to contact her. It accepted it had given confusing instructions to the housing provider in March and June which led to it telling Ms X the Council had ended her booking. It apologised for the distress this caused but said Ms X had remained throughout in the accommodation.
40. In response to our enquiries the Council accepts it made errors. It said there was a lack of case management, appropriate and timely advice to Ms X, it had not notified her of the duties owed to her, kept inadequate case notes, did not review her PHP, and, poor decision making. It says this was due to performance issues by the caseworker.

Findings

41. The Council delayed dealing with Ms X’s homeless application. It accepted the relief duty on 1 August 2018 and should have given her a decision by 25 September. The Council does have discretion to extend the relief duty, but in this case the only reason for extending the duty was its own inaction.
42. I accept the Council had difficulties contacting Ms X, but between 11 September 2018 and 22 January 2019 it only tried to contact her twice.
43. The Council accepts it is at fault for not giving Ms X important decisions and information. This caused Ms X injustice as she had no idea of what was supposed to happen.
44. The Council has accepted numerous faults with its management of Ms X’s case. This is not the responsibility of one officer. The Council should have managed the situation.
45. Because of the Council’s mismanagement of the case it wrongly tried 4 times to end Ms X’s accommodation. It had no grounds to do this. On the first occasions in March 2019 the Council closed Ms X’s case without giving her a decision on her application. This is fault.
46. In March 2019, when the Council accepted it had closed her case prematurely, it only extended her booking for a week. Ms X was again asked to leave.
47. The Council sent its decision to the wrong address. This decision said Ms X would keep her accommodation until 3 May. However, a week later the Council again cancelled the accommodation.
48. On 23 May the Council said it has withdrawn the decision. It also said it would consider providing accommodation during the review. As the Council had withdrawn the decision, the Council still had a duty to provide accommodation to Ms X, it was not discretionary. The Council did not tell the housing provider before 3 June that it had withdrawn the decision and the provider should not end Ms X’s accommodation. Instead it told the provider to end it on 3 June, leading to the 4th time the provider told Ms X she had to leave.
49. I accept Ms X did not lose her accommodation, but she still suffered injustice. 4 times the provider (acting for the Council) told her with little or no notice that she and her family had to leave. She had no information from the Council about what she had to do and what help it could give her. As far as Ms X knew her family would be street homeless. This caused her great distress.
50. The Council did not initially respond to Mr Y’s complaint about the Council cancelling Ms X’s bookings. This caused additional time and trouble.
51. We publish guidance on remedies. Where fault by a council has caused distress, we anticipate the council should provide a distinct remedy for the distress it caused. We usually recommend a “modest” amount of between £100 and £300. In this case I consider the Council should pay Ms X £100 for failing to give vital information and £100 for each time she was asked to leave her accommodation
52. The Council also caused Ms X unnecessary time and trouble. We usually recommend a payment between £100 and £300 for time and trouble. I consider the Council should pay Ms X £100 for time and trouble for failing to deal properly with the complaint made to it.

Agreed action

53. To put matters right for Ms X within one month of my final decision the Council will

• Apologise to Ms X
• Pay her £500 for distress
• Pay her £100 for her time and trouble
• Provide Ms X with a statement setting out her status in her current accommodation and its housing duties to her.

Back to top

Final decision

54. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice to Ms X. It has agreed to provide a remedy for this. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman