Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council has dealt with him since he became homeless. The Council was at fault for not assessing him for interim accommodation while it made enquiries and for not providing appropriate assistance in bidding for properties when Mr B was accepted on the housing register. This caused Mr B considerable distress and impacted on his physical and mental health issues as he had to sleep in his car until the Council made a suitable offer of accommodation. The Council has agreed to make a payment and apology to Mr B for the delay and distress caused and work with him to help him secure accommodation. The Council will also remind staff of the low threshold for an entitlement to interim accommodation where someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council has dealt with him since he became homeless two years and three months ago. Mr B says the Council delayed activating his housing register application, lost medical evidence he provided in support of his housing application and failed to take a homelessness application from him. Mr B says he has had no proper contact from the Housing Officers allocated to his case, who are bidding on properties on his behalf. Mr B is also unhappy the Council insists it will only communicate with him by email, when he has told it he does not have an email address or internet access as he is living in his car. Mr B suffers from physical and mental health conditions which he says have been exacerbated by the prolonged period he has spent sleeping in his car.

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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have spoken to Mr B and considered the information he has provided in support of his complaints.
6. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness legislation

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
10. Councils owe a number of duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, including:

• to make enquiries;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries;
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.

11. There are no statutory time limits for completing inquiries. However, the Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends that councils aim to complete their inquiries within 33 working days.
12. If the Council thinks someone is homeless and in priority need, it must, if the person asks for it, provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application.  Examples of priority need are:
• people with dependent children.
• pregnant women.
• people with serious health problems.
• some elderly people.
13. If a Council accepts a full housing duty to someone it must ensure that accommodation does not cease to become available to them. This is usually achieved by providing ongoing temporary accommodation. The Council can only end its full duty to a homeless person by making them an offer of permanent housing. This can be social housing or a private rented tenancy.
14. Where a person occupying accommodation as a tenant has received a notice to quit or their landlord requires possession of the accommodation, councils should consider the scope for preventing homelessness through consulting the landlord at an early stage. Councils should explore with the landlord the possibility of the tenancy being allowed to continue or the tenant being allowed to remain for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 8.30)
15. In April 2018 the law relating to how councils deal with homeless people changed. Mr B was homeless before April 2018 and so previous legislation applies to his case.

What happened

16. Mr B first approached the Council on 1 March 2018 when his landlord had served him with a notice to quit the rented accommodation which he had occupied with his adult daughter for over a decade. He was due to be evicted on 29 March 2018. Mr B informed the Council he has several physical and mental health conditions, including a permanent spinal injury which prevents him from working and meant he was in receipt of disability and unemployment benefits. Mr B also told the Council he was on prescribed medication for his mental health conditions. Mr B provided the Council with his daughter’s email address as a point of contact but stressed he did not have regular access to this.
17. On 7 March 2018, the Council invited Mr B to make a joint application to join the housing register with his daughter. The following week, the Council contacted Mr B’s landlord about his tenancy and eviction. The member of staff dealing with Mr B’s tenancy for the landlord was not available and the Council left a message asking them to call back. The landlord did not return the Council’s call and the Council did not contact the landlord again.
18. Mr B contacted the Council on 16 April 2018 to tell it he had now been evicted and was sleeping in his car. Mr B also told the Council his daughter was living elsewhere with friends (sofa-surfing) and his two dogs were with a family member. Mr B told the Council he was struggling to access the housing register to bid for properties because he had very limited access to the internet. A housing officer at the Council met with Mr B on 18 April 2018 and suggested hostel accommodation, which Mr B declined. It is not clear if the housing officer made this suggestion as an offer of interim accommodation as this does not appear to have been confirmed in writing. The Council appeared to suggest Mr B might find it easier to bid for one-bed properties rather than making a joint application for housing with his adult daughter. The Council told Mr B it would contact him in a few days to help him with obtaining the identity documents needed to process his housing register application.
19. On 4 May 2018, Mr B contacted the Council and told it his partner lived in a two-bed property provided by a housing association as social housing. Mr B told the Council he had approached the housing association to ask if he could move in with his partner and it had refused his request. The Council noted it may be able to approach the housing association about this, but there is no record of it doing so. The Council continued to ask Mr B for identity documents so it could process his housing register application.
20. On 14 May 2018, the Council closed Mr B’s housing register application because Mr B had failed to provide the identity documents requested. The Council confirmed closure of Mr B’s housing register application by email to his daughter’s email address.
21. The Council contacted Mr B on 31 May to offer him accommodation in a privately rented flat. Mr B asked the Council if he could view the property before accepting it and also asked if he would be able to keep his dogs in the flat. The Council told Mr B it was unlikely the landlord would agree to Mr B’s dogs living in the flat but did arrange for him to view it on 6 June. The viewing was cancelled as the officer due to attend with Mr B was absent from work. The viewing was not rearranged, and it appears Mr B lost out on that property as a result.
22. Mr B contacted the Council again on 21 August 2018 and was told his housing register application had been cancelled in May because he had not provided identity documents. Mr B provided copies of his bank statements a few days later. The Council confirmed Mr B’s inclusion to its housing register under priority band A in writing on 31 August 2018. The Council’s decision included details of Mr B’s right of appeal.
23. In early October 2018, Mr B informed the Council he had a six-month-old child with his partner, who lives with her in social housing (the two-bed property Mr B previously mentioned).
24. At the end of October 2018, a local housing association offered Mr B a flat through the housing register. Mr B viewed the property on 29 October and raised concerns about not being able to afford the rent or have his two dogs with him. Mr B says the officer from the housing association that attended the viewing with him gave him 24 hours to decide if he wanted to accept the flat. The Council said it was unaware of this when it contacted Mr B on 2 November 2018 to confirm he had been passed over for the property. The Council sent Mr B a text message to let him know the property was still available until 17:00 that day if he wanted to accept it. It appears the property was allocated to someone else as the Council did not hear from Mr B.
25. There was no contact between Mr B and the Council about his homelessness from 2 November 2018 to 3 April 2019, when the Council sent Mr B a letter to his daughter’s email address. The Council’s letter was an annual review of Mr B’s housing registration and asked him to provide up to date information about his situation.
26. The Council suspended Mr B’s entry on its housing register on 15 May 2019 as it had not received a response to the annual review letter. The Council confirmed the suspension by letter to Mr B’s daughter’s email address and the letter contained details about Mr B’s right of review.
27. Mr B contacted the Council on 31 May 2019 and asked to speak to the manager of the Housing Team as he was unhappy with the Council’s decision to suspend his housing register entry and its failure to help alleviate his homelessness.
28. The Housing Team Manager telephoned Mr B on 3 June 2019. He explained to them how long he had been sleeping in his car and his concerns about not getting help from the Council. The Housing Manager noted Mr B had very limited access to the internet which made it difficult for him to bid for properties on the housing register. Mr B agreed to the Manager’s offer to set up automatic bidding for properties within his criteria and priority banding to make things easier. The Manager also explored the other options with Mr B such as bidding for properties in nearby areas where criteria were less strict. Mr B said he preferred to stay within the Council’s area. The Housing Manager allocated Mr B’s case to a Housing Officer who contacted him a few days later.
29. Mr B contacted returned the Housing Officer’s call on 11 June 2019. He was unhappy the Council had done nothing to help him with his situation for the last year. He was still struggling to bid for properties and said he wanted a two-bed property so that his adult daughter, who was also homeless, could live with him again. The Housing Officer advised Mr B on how he could make a joint housing register application with his daughter and the documents needed to process this.
30. Between 14 June and 17 July 2019, the Council made bids on six properties on Mr B’s behalf. All six bids were unsuccessful as the properties did not allow pets and Mr B wanted to have his dogs with him. Mr B contacted the Council on 19 July 2019 and asked for a face to face meeting with the Housing Manager as he was becoming increasingly frustrated at how long it was taking to rehouse him.
31. The Council made two further bids for property on Mr B’s behalf between 23 July and 1 August 2019. One bid was rejected and the other was offered to Mr B. The Council started the process of obtaining references for Mr B from his previous landlord. Mr B turned that property down on 12 August 2019 because he felt the area was unsafe. Mr B asked again for a meeting with the Housing Manager as he was angry that information about his medical conditions provided when he first approached the Council for help had been lost. A meeting was arranged for 20 August 2019.
32. Mr B and the Housing Manager met on 20 August 2019 at Council offices. The Housing Manager discussed Mr B’s situation in detail and noted that his partner lived in social housing provided by a local housing association. The Manager made some calculations at the meeting to help reassure Mr B that his and his partner’s benefits were unlikely to be affected if he moved in with her and their child. Mr B was agreeable to exploring this option further but remain anxious about the financial implications. Mr B also agreed to the Council continuing to automatically bid for properties on his behalf in the meantime.
33. The Council’s records state Mr B asked the Council to stop automatic bidding on 3 September 2019 as he felt he continued to be offered properties that were unsuitable – Mr B disputes that he requested this. Mr B complained again about the Council losing information about his medical conditions. The Council explained to Mr B it never received any medical records when he made initial application in March 2018. Mr B’s doctor then wrote to the Council on 19 September and provided details of Mr B’s medical conditions and the medication he was taking.
34. The Housing Manager attempted to contact Mr B on 18 October 2019 and sent him a text message when they were unable to speak to him. The Manager asked Mr B about moving in with his partner. Mr B appeared not to respond, so the Manager made further attempts to speak to him on 4 and 6 November 2019.
35. The Housing Manager eventually spoke to Mr B on 8 November 2019 and offered to make a homelessness application on his behalf so the Council could provide him with emergency accommodation. Mr B declined the offer because he was unwilling to be moved to offered accommodation outside the Council’s area. The Housing Manager offered to provide accommodation in a hotel in the local area instead, but Mr B declined as he did not want to waste tax-payer’s money and felt one night in a hotel would not help. The Housing Manager noted they offered Mr B emergency accommodation several times during the call, but Mr B declined. The Manager offered further help with Mr B moving in with his partner, which Mr B agreed to. The Manager also went through the list of available properties with Mr B and he agreed a bid on one of the properties. The Manager asked Mr B to contact them if he was unsure about any properties he made bids on before turning them down. Mr B asked the Manager for a weekly call, which they agreed to.
36. The Housing Manager called Mr B on 14 November 2019 to check on him. They offered to meet with him to discuss making further bids on properties for him. The Manager explored the option of Mr B moving in with his partner again and offered to investigate this further. The Manager also invited Mr B to a meeting on 19 November 2019 to discuss and draw up his personal housing plan (PHP).
37. The Housing Manager called Mr B on 18 November and left him a message to offer him emergency accommodation as the weather was expected to be extremely cold in the area that night. The Manager also asked Mr B to provide his partner’s address so they could pursue enquiries with the housing association about Mr B moving in.
38. Mr B did not attend the meeting arranged by the Housing Manager on 19 November 2019. The Manager prepared Mr B’s personal housing plan based on the information they already had. The Manager made two unsuccessful attempts to speak to Mr B by telephone and left him messages asking for his partner’s name and address so they could pursue enquiries about Mr B moving in. The Manager also made a bid for a property on Mr B’s behalf for a one-bedroom flat. The Council also accepted a homelessness relief duty for Mr B on this date and wrote to confirm this by email to Mr B’s daughter’s email address.
39. The Council says it has had little to no contact from Mr B since the end of November 2019, despite its attempts to contact him to offer him accommodation. It has continued to bid on at least three properties per week on Mr B’s behalf since 19 November 2019.
40. On 19 December 2019, Mr B turned down a property the Council successfully bid for because he felt he could not manage in a property without a flush-floor shower even temporarily while the Council arranged for modifications to the bathroom under its disabled facilities grants scheme.
41. The Council wrote to Mr B at the beginning of January 2020 about his lack of cooperation with his PHP in which he had agreed to return the Council’s calls about housing and seek advice from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. The letter was left for Mr B at Council offices and was not collected.
42. Mr B spoke to the Housing Manager on 3 January 2020. The Manager offered Mr B a property that allowed pets and met his needs. The Manager told Mr B he would need to complete an application for the housing association offering the property to proceed. The Council and housing association held the property offer open to Mr B until 12 February 2020. The Council says it had to complete the application for the housing association because Mr B did not complete this when requested.
43. On 12 March 2020, the Council ended its homelessness relief duty to Mr B due to a lack of contact from him. Mr B remains on the Council’s housing register under priority band A and the Council has confirmed it will continue to place weekly bids on properties for him.

My findings

44. The Council appears at fault for failing to make enquiries about Mr B’s circumstances when he approached it as threatened with becoming homeless in less than 28 days in on 1 March 2018. The Council had reason to believe Mr B was threatened with homelessness as he provided it with evidence of his impending eviction from his landlord. The statutory Code of Guidance in force at the time said the threshold for having reason to believe is low.
45. The Code of Guidance goes on to say councils should consult with landlords to see if there is any scope for the person to remain in their existing accommodation beyond the date of eviction so that a planned move to alternative accommodation can be arranged. The Council made one unsuccessful attempt to contact the landlord in Mr B’s case. The Council’s fault in this respect meant it missed the opportunity to explore if Mr B and his adult daughter could remain in the property, which could have avoided two people becoming homeless and in need of accommodation from the Council.
46. Mr B told the Council in early May 2018 that his partner lived in social housing provided by the Council via a local housing association. The Council was at fault for failing to make enquiries (with Mr B’s partner or her housing association) to explore the option of Mr B moving in with his partner.
47. The Council appears to have suggested Mr B made an application for the housing register on his own to improve his chances of securing accommodation, despite his wish to be rehoused with his adult daughter, who had also been evicted. This and the Council’s failure to properly explore the options of either Mr B remaining in the rented property or moving in with his partner had an affect on Mr B’s right to a family life as he was unable to live with his family members or enjoy their company.
48. The Council’s delay in progressing matters in this case and failing to keep in regular contact with Mr B in the first year of him becoming homeless is fault. The Council appears at fault for not offering Mr B interim accommodation in April 2018 when he told it he was sleeping in his car, while it made enquiries in accordance with section 184 of the Housing Act 1996. The evidence the Council has provided appears to suggest Mr B was likely to have met the criteria for interim accommodation. The lack of clear written records to show exactly what the Council was offering Mr B appears to be fault. On balance, it appears more likely than not that the Council should have provided Mr B with interim at this point. This situation continued until at least 2 November 2018, when the Council made its first offer of accommodation to Mr B. While Mr B might have felt the accommodation did not meet all his needs, it was the most suitable option the Council could offer him at the time and would have at least alleviated his homelessness.
49. Things seemed to improve when the Council’s Housing Manager became involved with Mr B’s case in early June 2019. The Manager appeared to take some proactive action to help Mr B by implementing automated bidding for properties on the housing register as it was clear he was struggling to access the internet. It is unfortunate that by this point Mr B had lost faith in the system and declined the properties offered to him. I do however commend the Housing Manager’s willingness to engage with Mr B in the ways he requested and their offers to provide emergency accommodation during extremely cold weather. While the Council has explained this accommodation was offered to any homeless person, regardless of whether they were eligible for interim accommodation, it makes me question why the Council did not offer any type of interim accommodation to Mr B sooner given its awareness of his circumstances.
50. There is no evidence to suggest the Council lost medical information Mr B says he provided when he first approached the Council for help in March 2018. The Council has said to me Mr B was already in the highest priority band for housing and information about Mr B’s health conditions could not change or improve on this.
51. Mr B has complained the Council insisted he only communicated with it by email when he first approached it for help. While I have seen no evidence of this, I can appreciate Mr B had difficulty contacting the Council or bidding for properties given his very limited access to the internet. The Council could have done more to help Mr B with this by offering the weekly calls and face to face meetings at Council offices in the first year of Mr B’s homelessness. It is clear the Council has a range of ways, mainly through its gateway offices, to help people when they have difficulties accessing information online, which should have been explored with Mr B when he first highlighted he was living in his car.
52. It is clear the Council has been making concerted efforts to help Mr B with obtaining accommodation since 8 November 2019. It is disappointing Mr B has been or has felt unable to engage with the Council’s attempts to help him since then.
53. Mr B says the time he has had to spend sleeping in his car has exacerbated his existing health problems, which undoubtedly made living in his car even more unpleasant and difficult than it would have been for someone who did not have these conditions. I have taken this into account when calculating the payment appropriate to remedy the injustice Mr B has suffered. The amount of financial remedy is slightly higher than the amount suggested in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies to take account of Mr B’s existing health conditions and the extended period of time he has had to spend sleeping in his car. The payment covers the period from 29 March to 2 November 2018, when the Council made its first offer of permanent accommodation, which Mr B did not respond to but would have alleviated Mr B’s homelessness.
54. The other personal remedies seek to address the continued difficulties Mr B experienced with getting help from the Council, despite its concerted efforts to improve the support it was providing to him from June 2019 onwards. I commend the Council’s willingness to provide this level of support to Mr B as a means of helping rebuild his trust and faith in the Council’s service.

Agreed action

55. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr B for its failure to deal with his homeless application promptly and its failure to provide him with accommodation; and,

• pay Mr B £3,500 (at £500 per month) for the seven months between 29 March and 2 November 2018 when Mr B was evicted and living in his car, and the Council failed to provide interim accommodation. This is recognition of the distress and risk to his health caused by having to sleep in his car due to the Council’s failure to accommodate him while it made initial enquiries.

56. The Council has agreed to also arrange to meet with Mr B to discuss and agree a way forward with resolving his homelessness. Mr B should be able to bring a friend or family member to the meeting to provide support and the Council should also help arrange for Mr B to receive professional support at the meeting from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau. The Council will arrange the meeting within one month of my final decision and it should take place no later than three months from the date of my final decision.
57. Since the time Mr B first approached the Council, the law relating to how the Council deals with homeless people has changed. However, the Council has agreed to take the following action to ensure other people are not similarly affected:

• remind staff about the low threshold for having reason to believe someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness and entitlement to interim accommodation.

58. The Council should complete the action in paragraph 57 within three months of my final decision.
59. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has completed all the above actions within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have completed my investigation and find fault with the Council. This fault caused Mr B injustice and it has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman