Summary: There were failings in the way the Council dealt with Miss B’s housing and homelessness applications. In particular, it failed to respond to her complaint and delayed accepting that it owed her the main housing duty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss B. It will also take action to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her housing and homelessness applications. In particular, she says the Council:
• Failed to follow government guidance when it decided that she had not suffered from domestic violence;
• Placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation;
• Failed to consider evidence she provided to show she needed to remain living in the local area; and
• Delayed reaching a decision on her homelessness application.
2. Miss B says that as a result of the Council’s failings she had to live in unsuitable accommodation and suffered avoidable distress which contributed to her becoming unwell. Miss B says she was also put to unnecessary time and trouble.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and government guidance

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
10. If the council is satisfied someone is eligible for assistance and either homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must assess their situation. The council must then try to agree a personalised housing plan (PHP) with the applicant, setting out what both parties will do to try to resolve the housing problem. The council must review and update the assessment and the PHP as circumstances change. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)
11. If someone disagrees with the council's proposed steps in the PHP, they have the right to request a review and then appeal to the county court on a point of law. Councils should encourage applicants to raise any concerns they have about their plan and work to resolve disagreements to minimise the occasions on which the applicant will feel the need to request a review. (Housing Act 1996, section 202 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 11.36)
12. Councils must complete the review within three weeks of either the date of the review request or the date they receive written representations. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, regulation 9 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 19.23)
13. The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance 13.2)
14. The relief duty will end when 56 days has passed and the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(4))
15. Councils should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the council has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that councils aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 14.16)
16. If homelessness is not successfully relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Under the main housing duty, councils must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Overview

17. Miss B applied to the Council for housing in May 2018. She provided a letter from the police to support her application. It said that Miss B's case was discussed at a multi-agency conference for victims of domestic violence, she was at high risk of further harm and needed to be provided with secure housing.
18. The police sent the Council a report which related to an incident which had taken place in March 2018. A housing officer then telephoned Miss B to discuss her application. Miss B says the officer told her that she would not be accepted on to the housing register because she had not suffered domestic violence, she had only been threatened with domestic violence. During the call, Miss B discovered that the officer had only seen the police report and not the other supporting evidence she had provided.
19. The next day Miss B and her social worker both wrote to the Council providing detailed reasons why they considered Miss B’s application should not be rejected. Miss B’s social worker also sent the supporting documents again, which included a letter from Miss B's resident landlord in which he asked her to leave by 21 July.
20. The Council then wrote to Miss B with its decision that she qualified to join the housing register. It awarded housing priority points on the basis of insecurity, living conditions and harassment/violence. The housing officer advised Miss B to make a homelessness application, which she did.
21. The Council then invited Miss B to an interview to discuss her homelessness application. During the interview, she told the officer that she was pregnant and she provided details of her mental health problems. She explained that she did not feel safe staying at her landlord's property and so she had been ‘sofa surfing’ with various friends. She said that she did not feel she could manage a private rented sector tenancy.
22. The Council accepted it had a duty to offer Miss B interim accommodation while it made enquiries into her application. Miss B says the officer told her that she would be placed in a women's shelter but instead she was given a room in a large, mixed-sex hostel.
23. The Council sent Miss B a Personalised Housing Plan. The covering letter to the plan stated it was unlikely that she would be offered accommodation in the local area. Miss B then complained to the Council because she considered it had failed to take account of her medical and social need to remain in Camden.
24. The Council suggested dealing with Miss B’s concerns by reviewing the steps in the Personalised Housing Plan.
25. Miss B was then admitted to a crisis centre for women who need urgent mental health care where she remained for two weeks.
26. Before leaving the crisis centre, Miss B told the Council that she would not be returning to the hostel because it was not suitable accommodation. She said there was an infestation of red ants in her room and she did not feel safe there. She referred to a serious assault which had occurred just outside the hostel. Miss B said that she would stay on a friend’s sofa instead.
27. The Council offered Miss B a different room in the hostel. Miss B viewed the room but refused it because there were rat traps along the corridor.
28. In September, the Council offered Miss B alternative interim accommodation, a studio flat, which she accepted. Miss B’s baby was born in early November.
29. The Council wrote to Miss B on 29 November confirming that it owed her the main housing duty.
30. Miss B remained living in the studio flat until October 2019, when she was offered settled accommodation.

Analysis

Housing Register

31. ‘Domestic violence’ is violence or threats of violence which are likely to be carried out by a person who is associated with the victim. On the basis of the evidence Miss B provided to the Council, I consider it would have been wrong for it to not treat her as a victim of domestic violence.
32. I have not seen the record of the telephone call where Miss B claims a housing officer told her that she would not be accepted onto the register because she had not suffered domestic violence. But on the balance of probabilities, I consider it likely that this, or something similar, was said to Miss B. This is because Miss B emailed the Council the next day arguing that she did qualify to join the housing register and she referred to the officer’s comments in her email.
33. I consider it likely that the officer told Miss B that she did not qualify to join the register because she wrongly believed Miss B should not be treated as a victim of domestic violence and because she had not seen the supporting evidence Miss B had provided. This was fault and put Miss B to avoidable time and trouble and caused distress until the formal decision was made the next day to accept her on to the register.

Personalised Housing Plan

34. The standard covering letter the Council sends out with PHPs aims to manage expectations by stating that social housing will almost certainly not be offered, and housing in Camden or inner London will likely not be offered.
35. When Miss B received it, she complained to the Council that it had failed to take account of her medical and social need to remain in Camden. She also complained that the Council had reduced her housing priority points from 275 to 100.
36. The Council suggested to Miss B that it deal with her complaint as a request for a review of the proposed steps in the PHP. The reviewing officer asked her to submit any representations she may have by 3 August and said that if she did not make any, he would seek to conclude the review by 10 August.
37. I have considered Miss B’s complaint and in my view, she was not disputing the proposed steps in the PHP. She was upset because she believed the information in the Council’s covering letter meant the Council had already decided it would not house her in the local area, and she did not understand why her housing priority points had reduced.
38. I consider the Council should have treated Miss B’s correspondence as a complaint, not a request to review the proposed steps in the PHP. But regardless as to whether the Council dealt with her concerns as a review or a complaint, it should have responded and did not do so until Miss B made another complaint around a year later. This was fault.
39. The Council’s response to my enquiries suggests that it did not carry out the review because it was waiting for Miss B or her solicitor to submit their representations. And when it had not received any effective representations by October it agreed with Miss B’s solicitor to accept the main duty rather than deal with the review. The Council’s records show that Miss B confirmed on 8 August that she had submitted all the evidence she wished to provide for her review and do not include any indication that her solicitors were aware of the review and intended to submit any representations. The Council should have carried out the review or responded to Miss B’s complaint in August. The Council’s failure to do so caused Miss B unnecessary distress.

Suitability of accommodation

40. I do not consider it likely that a housing officer told Miss B she would be placed in a female only hostel. This is because the Council only has mixed sex hostels.
41. The Council arranged pest control visits after Miss B reported an infestation of red ants. It also offered to move Miss B to another room to try and address her concerns about ants and noise from other residents. It then placed Miss B on a waiting list for alternative accommodation and offered a studio flat to Miss B in September. I am satisfied that the Council took appropriate action in response to Miss B’s concerns about the accommodation. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Delay

42. The Council told Miss B on 19 June that it would accept the relief duty and it confirmed this in writing on 12 July. The relief duty normally ends when 56 days have passed. When the duty ends, the Council should decide if the main housing duty is owed.
43. The Homeless Code of Guidance recommends that councils aim to complete their enquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 29 November, twelve weeks after the 56 days had passed.
44. The Council accepts it issued the decision later than intended. But it suggests the majority of the delay was because it was waiting for Miss B or her solicitor to submit their representations for the review. I do not accept this because Miss B told the Council that she had submitted all her evidence on 8 August and there is nothing in the Council’s records to suggest her solicitors intended to submit any representations.
45. The Council significantly delayed accepting the main housing duty. This unnecessarily prolonged Miss B’s uncertainty about her housing situation at a time when she was particularly vulnerable.

Agreed action

46. Within four weeks, the Council will apologise and make a payment of £250 to Miss B in recognition of the distress she suffered as a result of the failings identified in this case.
47. Within eight weeks, the Council will take the following action:
• Remind relevant officers of the definition of domestic violence included in the Homeless Code of Guidance.
• Review the way it keeps track of complaints and review requests and make improvements to ensure responses are provided within the required timeframes.
• Review the way it handles homelessness applications to ensure it does not delay completing its enquiries and deciding whether to accept the main housing duty.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Miss B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman