Summary: Mr X complains that the Council did not properly assess his housing needs when he was threatened with homelessness and later became homeless. We found fault in the Council’s housing assessment and in the way it carried out the homelessness prevention and relief duties. These faults caused injustice to Mr X. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the lost opportunity to challenge its decisions. It will also invite him to an interview to assess his current housing needs and then decide what further duties, if any, it owes him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council did not make sufficient enquiries when he approached the Homeless Prevention team in February 2019 for housing assistance when he was threatened with eviction from his Council tenancy. As a result, he became homeless and slept rough for six weeks. When he attended an interview with an officer in the homelessness relief team in early May 2019, he was told the eviction had not gone ahead and he had the right to return to the property.
2. Mr X says he disposed of all his household items because he had nowhere to store them when he was homeless. The Council has not offered any financial assistance to help replace essential furniture and other items.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request for assistance when he was threatened with homelessness and later became homeless.
4. I did not investigate the Council’s decision to seek an order to evict Mr X for the reasons given in paragraph 5 below. The Council’s decision to apply to the Court for a possession order and a warrant to evict Mr X for rent arrears is a housing management function.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council when it is acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have considered the information Mr X gave me and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I read the relevant housing records and correspondence.
9. 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

The legal duties

10. 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.

Homelessness – is it reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation?

11. Someone who has occupied accommodation as a tenant, and has received a valid notice that the landlord requires possession of the accommodation, has the right to remain in occupation until Court bailiffs execute a warrant for possession (after the court has granted an order for possession).
12. However, the Homelessness Code of Guidance says authorities should not automatically assume that because a tenant has a right to remain in occupation that means they are not homeless. In assessing whether a tenant is homeless pending execution of a warrant for possession, the housing authority will also need to consider whether it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation in the circumstances.
13. The Code says the Secretary of State considers that it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.
14. The Code says housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for a tenant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.
15. Although these sections of the Code are intended for handling applications from private rented sector tenants, there is no reason why the same principles do not apply to social housing tenants.

Housing assessments and Personalised Housing Plans

16. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their Personalised Housing Plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The homelessness prevention duty

17. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is referred to as the “prevention duty”. In deciding what steps to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The homelessness relief duty

18. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person (this is the “relief duty”). This duty continues for 56 days, or ends earlier in some circumstances, for example if the applicant is no longer homeless as they have suitable accommodation available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Interim accommodation

19. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Applicants in priority need include:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or

old age.

Homelessness reviews

20. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

The background to Mr X’s complaint

21. Mr X is a single man with a mental health condition. At the time of these events in 2019, he was a Council tenant and had substantial rent arrears. In 2017 the County Court had suspended a Possession Order on condition that Mr X paid the current rent plus £15 per week to reduce the arrears. Mr X did not keep to that agreement.
22. In December 2018 the Council’s Eviction Panel decided to resume possession proceedings. In late January 2019 a senior officer from the Homelessness Prevention team advised Mr X to contact the Housing Options & Advice service because he would soon be made homeless.
23. The Council later obtained a warrant for Court bailiffs to evict Mr X on 26 March 2019.

Mr X’s request for assistance when he was threatened with homelessness

24. Mr X contacted the Housing Options & Advice service in late February 2019. At the first interview, Mr X showed the officer his passport to prove he was eligible for assistance. The officer noted he was a Council tenant and had been advised to contact the Homelessness Prevention team. Mr X said he would bring in all the documents, including the eviction notice, before his next appointment.
25. The case officer in the Homelessness Prevention team contacted Mr X on the day of his next appointment to ask him to bring the eviction notice and medical reports. Mr X did not take any documents to the next interview in mid-March.
26. Three days later the case officer informed Mr X in writing that the Council owed him the prevention duty. The case officer said he had completed a housing assessment and decided Mr X was eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness. It said the Council would take reasonable steps to help Mr X keep his current accommodation or help him find suitable alternative accommodation before he became homeless. It said this was not a duty to offer social housing or any other accommodation. The letter said Mr X’s Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) was attached to the letter. However that is an error because the PHP was not prepared until 22 March.
27. On 21 March the case officer asked the Medical Assessment Officer for advice on whether Mr X may be vulnerable and in priority need. The Medical Assessment Officer replied on the same day.
28. The case officer prepared a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) for Mr X on 22 March. The following sections of the form were left blank:
• The housing needs of the applicant;
• The housing wishes of the applicant;
• The steps the applicant would take to try to retain his accommodation.
29. The PHP said the Council would take the following steps:
• Negotiate with Mr X’s landlord (the Council) to try to resolve the issues with his tenancy and enable him to keep his accommodation (by 25 March);
• Refer Mr X to two named housing organisations which assist single homeless people (by 26 March).
30. The Council’s records say the case officer agreed the PHP with Mr X by telephone on 22 March. The case officer did not send the PHP to Mr X. The Council says it was kept on file because Mr X was about to be evicted.
31. Mr X refused to give consent for the case officer to refer him to the two housing organisations. He believed that would undermine his attempt to challenge the eviction.
32. On 22 March the case officer contacted a team leader in the Council’s Income Management about the imminent eviction. The team leader said Mr X could not sustain his tenancy and the eviction would go ahead. Mr X also spoke to officers in the Income Management team on the same day to say he intended to challenge the decision to evict him. He said his rent was not affordable and he was vulnerable.
33. Three days later, on the day before the eviction, the Income Management team decided not to proceed. The Council says officers were concerned about a risk to their safety if Mr X was present and the police were not available to attend.
34. It is not clear whether Mr X or the homelessness prevention case officer were told at the time about the decision to postpone the eviction.

Mr X becomes homeless

35. Mr X left the property on 26 March 2019. He did not return his keys to the neighbourhood housing office but left them with a neighbour. Mr X says he left some furniture in the property and gave most of his other belongings to friends, family members and charities because he had nowhere to store them. He kept a rucksack of clothes.
36. On 1 April 2019 the case officer prepared a letter to inform Mr X the prevention duty had ended because he was now homeless. The letter explained that the Council now owed him the relief duty. The case officer said he had considered whether Mr X may be vulnerable and in priority need because of his mental health condition. He concluded Mr X was not in priority need so the Council did not have to arrange interim accommodation for him. The letter explained Mr X’s right to request a review of the decision within 21 days.
37. On the same day the case officer referred Mr X to a separate Council team which handles homelessness relief cases. A few days later, the case officer completed a form to refer Mr X to a hostel that provides accommodation for single homeless people. It is not clear whether this form was sent because Mr X had not signed it to give consent.
38. The Council says it gave the 1 April acceptance of relief duty letter to Mr X on 21 April.
39. On 24 April Mr X sent an email to the prevention case officer. He asked for help because he was homeless, feeling suicidal and sleeping on the streets. The case officer replied that Mr X had the right to challenge his decision to end the prevention duty by requesting a review. He advised Mr X to contact his GP or the emergency services to request an assessment and support if he was at risk of self-harming.
40. On 1 May 2019 Mr X visited the office and spoke to an emergency duty officer. He told the officer he had been living on the streets. The duty officer offered to refer Mr X to a charity that works with rough sleepers but Mr X refused to say where he was sleeping. The charity would not accept a referral without a precise location.
41. Mr X returned to the office the following day and saw the same duty officer. The officer called the Income Recovery team to ask about the eviction. He was told the eviction had not happened because officers were not able to confirm the police could attend.
42. The duty officer told Mr X the warrant for eviction was not executed on 26 March. Mr X said he had already moved out and got rid of all his belongings. Mr X said he had left his keys with a neighbour. The duty officer advised Mr X to collect the keys and return to the property.
43. On 7 May an officer in the Neighbourhood Housing officer sent a letter to Mr X at his Council tenancy. It said he was still the tenant and he had not been evicted. The Council says the Income Management team sent a similar letter to Mr X by email on 1 May.
44. The Council did not notify Mr X of its decision to end the relief duty. It says it wrote to Mr X on 10 June 2019 to notify him of its decision that he was not homeless. The letter was not saved in the document management system so the Council cannot provide a copy. It cannot tell me from its records whether the letter was sent by post or email (the Council has Mr X’s email address).
45. The Council says Mr X has not made a further approach to the Council for homelessness assistance since May 2019.
46. The Council says Mr X continued to occupy the Council property. It has not said what evidence it has to support this statement. Mr X says he did not return to the property and has been sofa-surfing with friends and relatives since March 2019. He says he sometimes sleeps rough when he has nowhere else to stay.

Analysis

47. This investigation is limited to the way the Council performed its duties when Mr X asked for housing assistance as a person who was threatened with homelessness and later became homeless.
48. The prevention case officer liaised with the Council team responsible for the rent arrears and eviction on 22 March. He was told the eviction would go ahead on 26 March. He was not informed when this decision was reversed a few days later. For this reason, I do not consider it was fault for the case officer to conclude that he could not prevent Mr X from becoming homeless on 26 March. He could not refer Mr X to other housing organisations for accommodation without his consent. He therefore acted appropriately by ending the prevention duty and referring Mr X to the homelessness relief team.
49. The case notes and letter dated 1 April 2019 show the case officer did consider whether Mr X may be vulnerable and in priority need as a person with a mental health condition. He decided the Council did not have a duty to arrange interim accommodation and he gave the reasons in the letter. Although Mr X may strongly disagree with the officer’s assessment, I see no fault in the way the case officer considered the facts and reached that decision.
50. I have seen no evidence that Mr X asked the homelessness prevention case officer if the Council could assist with storage of his belongings. It seems Mr X decided to dispose of them without first asking for advice or assistance from the prevention team. I therefore find no evidence of fault.
51. However I found several faults in the way the Council handled Mr X’s case at the prevention and relief stages:
• There is no record of the housing assessment in Mr X’s PHP – the sections which should have been completed to record his housing needs and wishes are blank;
• The Council did not send the PHP to Mr X – it had his email address so it could have been sent;
• There was a delay in issuing the end of prevention duty letter;
• The relief team did not arrange to interview Mr X promptly following the referral from the prevention team on 1 April – it was left to Mr X to visit the office to ask for further assistance on 1 and 2 May;
• The Council accepted a relief duty but it did not notify Mr X of its decision to end the duty or its reasons for doing so;
• The Council has not kept a copy of the 10 June 2019 decision letter and it cannot say how it notified Mr X of its decision that he was not homeless.
52. As Mr X did not receive the PHP, the end of relief duty letter, or the decision letter saying he was not homeless, he could not request a review.
53. The records show the emergency duty officer told Mr X on 2 May he could return to the Council property because the bailiffs did not execute the warrant on 26 March. The Council says Mr X could have collected the keys from the neighbour and gone back to the property then. Mr X says he did not return because he had received an eviction notice from the Court requiring him to leave the property.
54. We usually expect a homeless applicant to use the review procedure to challenge an adverse homelessness decision. But as the Council cannot provide the 10 June 2019 “not homeless” decision letter, and the records do not show if Mr X was notified of this decision, there is uncertainty about whether Mr X received it. In these circumstances we could not reasonably expect Mr X to have asked for a review.
55. Without seeing the decision letter, the reasons for the Council’s decision that Mr X was not homeless are not clear. The decision not to proceed with the eviction on 26 March 2019 seems to have been a temporary reprieve for purely practical reasons. There is nothing to suggest the Council had decided not to recover possession of the property. So even if Mr X had returned in May, it seems likely that would have been only for a short time. Without the letter, we do not know whether the officer had regard to the specific advice in the Code of Guidance about whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue to occupy the property, and incur additional costs when the warrant for eviction was enforced, before he made the “not homeless” decision.

Agreed action

56. Within two weeks, the Council will invite Mr X to an interview to assess his current housing circumstances. If he is still eligible for assistance and homeless, it should reactivate the relief duty and prepare a new PHP. It should notify him in writing of its housing assessment and its decision about whether it owes him the relief duty. It should check Mr X’s correspondence or email address to ensure he receives the decision letter.
57. If Mr X is owed the relief duty and is still homeless after 56 days, the Council should then decide whether it owes him the main housing duty. The Council should issue a decision letter at that stage which informs Mr X of his review rights.
58. Within one month, the Council will send Mr X a letter of apology for the faults identified in this statement. It will pay £150 to recognise the distress caused by the lost opportunity to challenge its decisions because it failed to send him the PHP and notify him when the relief duty ended and it decided he was not homeless.
59. The Council will remind officers that they must always notify applicants in writing when a prevention or relief duty ends and send letters to an appropriate email or postal address. The Council will also remind officers to complete all sections of the PHP and always send a copy to the applicant. A copy of decision letters must always be retained in the case records.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to take action which will provide a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman