Summary: The Ombudsman has completed our investigation. The Council failed to take a homeless application from Mr X and delayed activating his housing application. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council should apologise, pay Mr X £250, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly consider his circumstances when he approached as homeless. He says the Council told him he was not homeless but did not give him a decision in writing. As a result, Mr X says he the Council denied him the opportunity to review the decision about his homelessness.

2. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his application for housing under its allocations scheme. In particular, that it awarded him the wrong priority banding and wrongly put his application on hold. He says this denied him the opportunity to bid for accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I have referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Mr X 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

Background

9. Mr X is a Council tenant. A broken pipe caused a significant leak into the property.
10. The Council decided Mr X could not remain in the property while it completed repairs. It offered Mr X a decant property. A decant property is a property from the Council’s housing stock used to house tenants temporarily. Mr X occupied the decant under a licence.
11. Mr X says the decant was not in a liveable condition. He says it had no heating or electricity for almost a month. He also says the property was near a person who had threatened him with violence.
12. Mr X says he contacted the Council to make a homeless application on
    21 October 2019. He says the Council told him he was not homelessness because he has a tenancy.
13. The Council says it has no record of Mr X approaching as homeless until
    27 November 2019. The Council says it did not take an application.
14. Mr X is now back in his tenancy.

Findings

15. 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) 
16. Mr X called the out of hours service on 21 October 2019. He also sent emails to the complaints department on 21 October 2019 and 23 October 2019 in which he said he considered he was homeless. The Council did not treat any of these contacts as a homeless application. This is fault.
17. The Council’s legal department advised Mr X to complete an online form on
    27 November 2019. This is when the Council considers Mr X approached as homeless. This is a delay of over a month.
18. Mr X says he told the Council about the lack of heating and electricity and that a person who had threatened him lived nearby. The Council’s record says Mr X complained the decant property was too small to have his children visit and this did not give it a reason to believe Mr X was homeless.
19. The Council has provided me with a copy of the online form Mr X completed on 27 November 2019. On the form Mr X says:
• “my home is in an unfit state to live in”; and
• “the temporary accommodation is in an area where I have been threatened”
20. Mr X told the Council he was at risk of violence in the decant property. This meets the low threshold for ‘reason to believe’ Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Council should have taken an application and made inquiries into Mr X’s circumstances. The Council’s failure to take an application and make inquiries is fault.
21. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
22. Because it failed to take an application, the Council did not make a reviewable decision. As a result, Mr X has to live with the uncertainty of not knowing what that decision would have been. This uncertainty is an injustice to Mr X. The Council’s fault also denied him the opportunity to seek a review of the decision.
23. The Council also caused Mr X unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing his homeless application and in bringing his complaint.
24. The Council should apologise and pay Mr X £250.

Allocations

Background

25. On 20 September 2019 Mr X applied to the Council’s housing register. The Council placed the application in Band D, the lowest priority banding.
26. Mr X says his application should have been awarded Band A because his property was not habitable.
27. On 1 October 2019, the Council suspended Mr X’s application. It says this is because his rent account was in arrears. The arrears were cleared on 28 November 2019. The Council reactivated his application on 19 December 2019.
28. In July 2020, the Council used its discretion to award Mr X Band C based on his need to move closer to his support network.

Findings

29. The Council’s allocations policy says it only awards Band A to transfer applications when a tenant will be unable to return to their property. The Council was repairing the damage to Mr X’s flat and so he did not meet the criteria for Band A. There is no fault in how the Council assessed Mr X’s priority banding.
30. The Council accepts it wrongly suspended Mr X’s application between
    28 November 2019 and 19 December 2019. The Council has confirmed that no properties Mr X would have been eligible for were offered to applicants with the same or lower priority banding in this period. Therefore, Mr X did not miss out on an offer of a property. Nonetheless, the suspension was fault.
31. The Council has apologised for the fault and offered Mr X £100. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
32. Mr X’s application is now active in the correct band.

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing; and
• Pay Mr X £250.
34. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
35. The Council should also take the following action to improve its service:
• Remind staff that a person can approach any department to make a homeless application; and
• Issue guidance to staff who have contact with customers to help them identify when a person has indicated they may be homeless or threatened with homeless and what to do in such circumstances.
36. The Council should take this action within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation. There is fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman