Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a homelessness application he made and alleges the Council did not pursue his complaint about housing officers who met with him. There was fault by the Council because of a delay in assessing Mr X’s homelessness application. However, Mr X did not suffer a significant injustice because of the delay to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, is dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of a homelessness application he made and says the Council did not pursue his complaint about housing officers who met with him. In summary, the complaint is as follows:
• The Council did not meet the 56 day requirement under the Homelessness Reduction Act because he approached the Council in May 2019 but was not given a housing options interview until August 2019.
• He was evicted by the Council on several occasions.
• The Council did not pursue his complaints about officers who met with him.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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 reviewed the complaint and background information provided by Mr X as well as the Council. I discussed matters with Mr X by telephone. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and invited the comments of both parties on it. I considered the Council’s reply.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

5. Where a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they can seek help from a housing authority. Where the person is threatened with homelessness the prevention duty may apply. Where the person is actually homeless the relief duty may apply.
6. If a housing authority has reason to believe a person may be homeless; eligible; and in priority need then it must provide interim accommodation for them.
7. The housing authority will need to carry out an assessment and work with the person to develop a personalised housing plan.
8. When the relief period ends the housing authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. If the person does not have a local connection with the area the authority may refer them to another housing authority. It may also do this during the relief stage.
9. The housing authority must put all key decisions in writing and give reasons for negative decisions. In most cases, there is a right to ask for a review of the decision. If the applicant is not satisfied with the review decision then there is a right to appeal to the county court.

Background to the complaint

10. Mr X contacted the Council as he was homeless or threatened with homelessness in the spring of 2019. The Council provided him with interim accommodation from May 2019. However, its housing team could not arrange a housing options interview until July 2019.
11. Mr X was invited to a housing options interview on 1 July 2019. He telephoned the housing team on the same day to let them know he would be late. The housing officer he spoke with explained there were fixed slots for appointments and so he could not be seen on that day. The officer rebooked the appointment for 11 July 2019.
12. The officer sent notification of the new appointment date via email to Mr X. The housing officer noted the correct time and date on the email itself but the attached invitation letter incorrectly stated the date as 23 July 2019.
13. Mr X sent a response to the housing officer with a request for her manager to telephone him because of a call he received from her that morning. Mr X told the officer not to copy any correspondence to him. He said the officer failed to include her name on correspondence to a client.
14. Mr X queried why an officer would call his mobile and speak to him in an unacceptable way. It is unclear whether Mr X was referring to the housing officer who sent him the email.
15. Mr X followed up his email with another one to the generic housing options service email. He again asked for contact from the housing officer’s manager or the Council’s complaints team.
16. Mr X did not attend the rescheduled appointment on 11 July.
17. The Council’s temporary accommodations team then notified the benefits team on 16 July that Mr X’s tenancy ended on 11 July. Mr X’s housing benefit claim was cancelled on 16 July. The Council’s usual practice is to cancel any accommodation if an applicant does not attend an appointment.
18. Mr X continued to reside in his accommodation and the Council did not remove him from it. The temporary accommodations team started a new tenancy for Mr X from 20 August. The temporary accommodations team notified the benefits team on 17 September. Mr X’s benefits claim was reinstated.
19. The Council notified Mr X of the cancellation of the claim and also notified him when the claim was reinstated.
20. From the complaint correspondence I have read, Mr X’s own understanding was the appointment had been rearranged for 12 July. Rather than attend the appointment, however, Mr X chose to pursue the matter with the Council by writing to the Chief Executive and other officers on this as well as numerous other matters. This led the matter down a different path.
21. Mr X attended a housing options interview on 20 August 2019. He met with two housing officers. The officers presented Mr X with housing assessment and consent forms which Mr X refused to sign. The meeting lasted two hours without a resolution. Given the impasse, the Team Leader of the Prevention and Assessment Team ended the meeting. Mr X took the forms away with him from the meeting.
22. The Council then wrote to Mr X to confirm it had accepted a duty to take reasonable steps to help him resolve his homelessness under section 189b of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It provided him with a personalised housing plan.
23. Mr X remained unhappy with his dealings with the Council. He had asked for a meeting with the Chief Executive which the Council had declined. Mr X continued writing to the Council as well as other bodies including this service. Mr X alleged the Council had not complied with the 56 day relief duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act and demanded a review of the Council’s decision. He also made complaints about officers with whom he had been in contact.
24. Mr X signed and returned the housing assessment and consent forms in late September 2019. He complained he had been denied a meeting to discuss the Council’s failure to follow its duties under the Homelessness Reduction Act.
25. The Council made its decision on Mr X’s homelessness application in late November 2019. It decided Mr X was intentionally homeless. It advised him of his right of review and that his accommodation would end at the end of December 2019.
26. Mr X asked for a review of the Council’s decision in December 2019. Mr X instructed solicitors to act on his behalf. The Council contacted Mr X as well as his solicitors to explain the review process. The Council told Mr X another local authority would conduct the review.
27. The other council wrote to Mr X’s solicitors but did not receive any contact from them. The Council then decided to conduct the review itself. It concluded the review in May 2020. It affirmed its decision to end its relief duty to Mr X. The letter explained his right of appeal to the county court.
28. Mr X remained in the accommodation provided by the Council throughout the review process.

Findings

The Council did not meet the 56 day requirement under the Homelessness Reduction Act because he approached the Council in May 2019 but was not given a housing options interview until August 2019

29. In this case, there was a delay between May 2019 when Mr X approached the Council as homeless and August 2019 when the Council interviewed him and accepted his homelessness application. From August 2019, the 56 day relief duty formally started.
30. The Ombudsman’s view is that any delay in taking and application and starting an assessment is fault if the applicant concerned is homeless. So, I find the delay by the Council amounts to fault.
31. And the injustice? I do not find Mr X suffered significant injustice because of the delay. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation when he approached it in May. So, it provided him with temporary relief for his homelessness during the period of delay. I accept Mr X faced uncertainty while he waited for his housing options interview but I do not consider the uncertainty was significant enough to now warrant a remedy from the Ombudsman.

Mr X was evicted by the Council on several occasions

32. Plainly, Mr X was not evicted by the Council. I note the Council decided to terminate his housing benefit claim and his tenancy because he did not attend the housing options interview in July 2019. However, the Council rearranged the interview and decided to reverse its decisions on Mr X’s housing benefit claim and tenancy. I do not find fault by the Council simply because the Council informed Mr X of the termination of the housing benefit claim and the tenancy. That does not mean the Council evicted Mr X.

The Council did not pursue his complaints about officers who met with him

33. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaints in September and October 2019 and within a timeframe that complies with its policy. However, Mr X wrote to various officers as well as the Chief Executive throughout the period and afterwards. He raised the same matters as well as others. This meant the complaint responses sent in the autumn of 2019 did not cover all the various matters Mr X raised.
34. I do not find fault by the Council on this point. The correspondence I have seen between Mr X and the Council between the autumn of 2019 and the summer of 2020 shows officers responded as well as they could to Mr X’s requests for information as well as his queries. Where Mr X made unreasonable demands such as an insistence on personal replies from the Chief Executive, the Council explained action taken by its officers and gave reasons why it could not meet Mr X’s demands.
35. That the Council could not satisfy Mr X’s demands does not now persuade me that it is a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s resources to examine all of Mr X’s allegations about the Council’s officers. Overall, I am satisfied the Council made reasonable attempts to deal with contact from Mr X.

Back to top

Final Decision

36. There was fault by the Council which did not cause Mr X significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of this complaint by, or a remedy from, the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman