Summary: The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B’s housing situation, after he became homeless in August 2019.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complains about how the Council dealt with his housing situation after he became homeless. Mr B says this has caused him distress and a financial loss. Mr B says:
• The Council did not properly fulfil its homelessness duties as it took too long to arrange an assessment and delayed accommodating him.
• The Council did not properly complete his Personal Housing Plan (PHP).
• The Council provided him with inaccurate information about how he could apply for housing benefits.
• The Council did not properly handle his housing register banding.
• The Council refused to change Mr C’s Support and Resettlement Officer.

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. During my investigation I:
• considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint; and
• spoke with Mr B about his complaint; and
• made enquiries with the Council and considered its response; and
• reviewed relevant law, guidance, and council policy.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law

6. 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.

The prevention duty

7. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 says if a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness, it must assess the applicant’s case.
8. The council’s assessment of the applicant’s case must include the following:
• Details of the circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• The housing needs of the applicant.
• Whether any support is needed for the applicant to retain suitable accommodation.
9. The council must notify the applicant in writing of the result of the assessment. and must try to agree with the applicant the steps the applicant and the council should take to prevent the applicant from becoming homeless. The council should record this in a personalised housing plan (PHP).

The relief duty

10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. The Code says authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. It says where the authority has the information it requires to make a decision about priority need and intentionality, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57 (i.e. the day after the 56-day relief duty ends). In cases where significant further investigations are required the Code recommends authorities make a decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

12. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

The main homelessness duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
14. Councils must provide written notifications to applicants when they reach certain decisions about their case, and the reasons behind any decisions that are against the applicant’s interests. Applicants can ask the Council to review most aspects of their decisions.

Allocations and banding

15. The Council prioritises housing applicants according to need. It places applicants in one of four bands. Those with the highest priority need will be placed in Band 1H.
16. The Council’s Housing Allocations Policy says it will consider a review request within 56 days of the request. It may agree a longer period with the applicant. This is in line with the governments code of guidance for local housing authorities when allocating accommodation published in 2012.

What happened

Homelessness application

17. On 7 August 2019, Mr B made a homelessness application to the Council. He had been given 24 hours to vacate his property, due to the building being deemed a fire risk.
18. In his application, Mr B told the Council that his landlord had provided him with accommodation at another property, but he could only stay there until 21 August.
19. Mr B said he was unemployed, was in receipt of Universal Credit and had mental health issues. He said he wanted the Council to help him find an affordable property to rent.
20. The Council arranged a meeting for the 20 August. At the interview Mr C told the Council he could now stay in his property until 3 September. Mr B later informed the Council that he was able to stay in the property until 18 September.
21. The Council wrote to Mr B to inform him that it considered that he was under threat of homelessness and would therefore be eligible for assistance. It arranged a meeting for the 4 September, to develop a Personal Housing Plan.
22. The PHP was completed and included Mr B’s circumstances, his housing need and what would be put in place to support him. Mr B signed the PHP but stated that he did not agree with the contents.
23. The Council wrote to Mr B on the 17 September, prior to the date Mr B had told the Council he would need to vacate his accommodation. It said that as the Council were satisfied that Mr B was now homeless and eligible for assistance. It therefore arranged for temporary accommodation to commence the following day.
24. Mr B contacted the Council to inform it that he would now be staying in his current property until 30 September. Mr B says he made this decision, because he had already paid upfront for his accommodation and would not be refunded.
25. The Council subsequently arranged a bedsit for Mr B to move into on 30 September. At the same time, the Council referred Mr B to a service provider that provides supported housing for people with mental health problems.
26. Mr B declined the Council’s offer of a bedsit. He says this was because of its poor condition, which he felt would negatively impact his mental health. He instead remained in his accommodation.
27. Mr B accepted an offer from the service provider and moved into their supported housing on 16 October.

Housing benefit

28. Prior to his homelessness application, Mr B was in receipt of Universal Credit which covered the cost of his housing.
29. On 20 August, Mr B contacted the Council about housing benefits. The Council informed Mr B that his housing costs would continue to be covered by Universal Credit.
30. Upon contacting the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), it told Mr B he was ineligible for Universal Credit as he was living in temporary accommodation.
31. Records indicate that Mr B subsequently successfully appealed this decision with the DWP, his Universal Credit was updated, and a backdated payment was made.

Banding

32. Mr B applied to the Council’s Housing Register on 18 September. The Council wrote to him on 4 October advising him that he had been given a priority banding of 4H, while further enquiries were made.
33. On 18 November, upon completion of its enquiries, the Council wrote to Mr B to inform him that his banding had been increased to priority banding 2H. The Council explained that Mr B had a right to request a review of the decision within 21 days.
34. On 9 December, the Council made the decision to reduce his priority banding back to 4H. It made this decision as Mr B was staying in supported accommodation at the time, and it had concerns about whether he was ready to move on from this. It therefore says it reduced his banding for this to be assessed.
35. The Council wrote to Mr B informing him of its decision to reduce his banding level. It explained that if he disagreed, he could appeal within 21 days. Mr B appealed the decision.
36. A senior officer reviewed the decision and the Council wrote to Mr B on 20 January upholding his appeal. It explained that it had now carried out its assessment of Mr B’s suitability to move and was increasing his priority banding to 1H, the highest level.
37. Mr B has subsequently placed a successful bid on a property and is awaiting a viewing to be arranged.

Support and resettlement

38. On 20 September, upon completion of his PHP, the Council refereed Mr B to its Support and Resettlement Team, who provide support to vulnerable people who may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
39. On the same day, the Support and Resettlement Team Manager contacted Mr B to introduce him to the service, ask what support he needed and to inform him that an Officer will be in contact within six days to discuss the case further.
40. Records show that in the coming days Mr B made contact with the team on a number of occasions. On 25 September, the team manager called Mr B again to discuss the issues he had raised.
41. A home visit was arranged for 30 September, between the Support and Resettlement Officer and Mr B at his home. However, the Officer attended the wrong address. The Officer called Mr B to inform him that she would be late, Mr B said he could not wait any longer. The Officer apologised and rearranged the meeting for the following day.
42. On 1 October, the Officer met with Mr B at his home and drew up a support plan. It was agreed that the Officer would provide support in progressing Mr B’s homelessness application and follow up his request for interim accommodation.
43. Records show that the officer communicated regularly with Mr B about his housing needs. When it became clear that Mr B was moving to supported accommodation, the Officer explained to him that it would be the service provider that would provide most support to him until he moved on.
44. Records show that Mr B was unhappy and that he accused the officer of failing to support him.
45. After Mr B moved into the supported accommodation, records show the officer continued to make regular contact with Mr B and the service provider about his support needs and assisted him when Mr B wanted to bid on properties.

Analysis

Homelessness application

46. Mr B complains about how the Council managed his homelessness application. He says the Council took too long to assess him and delayed accommodating him. Mr B also says the PHP was not completed properly.
47. My view is there was no fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr B’s homelessness application or discharged its prevention and relief duties to Mr B.
48. The Council arranged an assessment, within a reasonable timeframe of two weeks. Mr B says he contacted the Council on several occasions to ask for an urgent appointment. However, I have not seen any evidence to support this claim.
49. The Council subsequently completed a PHP, detailing the steps Mr B and the Council should take to prevent him from becoming homeless. Mr B was not in agreement with the plan, but the Council correctly set out why its view was this was a suitable action for Mr B to take and signposted him to a range of resources to support him.
50. The Council considered that Mr B had a priority need and was eligible for support, but it did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation until Mr B became homeless.
51. Mr B originally informed the Council that he had to vacate his property on 18 September. The Council considered he would mean he would be homeless and arranged temporary accommodation for that date. However, Mr B later informed the Council that he was able to stay in his current accommodation until 30 September. The Council again arranged accommodation for that date.
52. Mr B did not accept this accommodation, choosing again to stay in his current accommodation, until he moved into his supported accommodation some two weeks later.
53. I am satisfied that the Council arranged interim accommodation on the occasions that it considered Mr B to be homeless. I therefore do not find fault with this element of Mr B’s complaint.

Housing benefit

54. Mr B complains that the Council gave him inaccurate information about what benefits he was eligible for, leading him to miss out on housing benefits.
55. However, records indicate that the Council correctly told him that he needed to apply for Universal Credit, rather than Housing Benefit. I am therefore unable to conclude that there is any fault with how the Council communicated with him about this.
56. It seems that since Mr B complained to the Ombudsman, he has successfully appealed the DWP’s decision and a backdated payment has been made covering the period of this investigation. The Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the actions of the DWP. If he wishes to complain about the actions of the DWP he will instead need to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Care Ombudsman.

Banding

57. Mr B complains about how the Council dealt with his housing register priority banding.
58. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide what housing band Mr B should have been awarded. That is a decision for the Council to make based on the evidence provided. It is instead the role of the Ombudsman to look at the way in which the Council has made its decisions.
59. The documents I have seen show the Council assessed Mr B’s application and placed him in Band 2H. Mr B could have asked for a review of this decision but did not.
60. After the Council had concerns about whether Mr B was ready to move on, it made the decision to temporarily place him in Band 4H, pending enquiries. It wrote to Mr B informing him of this and explaining how he could request a review.
61. The review was completed within the appropriate timeframe and the decision was made to place him into Band 1, the highest priority banding which increased Mr B’s chance of securing accommodation. Mr B has subsequently been successful in bidding for a property. Because of this I do not consider that I can achieve anything further for Mr B.

Support and resettlement

62. Mr B says the Support and Resettlement officer assigned to his case refused to support him and that the Council refused to provide him with a different officer.
63. My view is that there is no evidence of fault in how the officer or the team supported Mr B. Records show the team contacted him on the day that a referral was received, and visited him shortly after to compile a support plan.
64. An appointment was missed, due to the Council having the incorrect address for him. However, the officer apologised and rearranged the appointment for the next day.
65. Records show the officer was proactive in communicating with Mr B and staff at the supported accommodation Mr B moved to. The officer played a lesser part in Mr B’s support while he was receiving support from the service provider. But support was provided when Mr B later decided to move on from that accommodation.

Back to top

Final decision

66. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman