Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint about the conduct of a housing officer who conducted a housing options interview with the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the conduct of a housing officer who conducted a housing options interview with him. Mr X also says the Council improperly evicted him from temporary accommodation he occupied.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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)
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 considered the complaint and background information provided by Mr X as well as the Council. I discussed the complaint with Mr X by telephone. I asked Mr X for a statement of complaint and note he did not provide one.
7. I sent a draft decision statement to Mr X and the Council and considered the comments of both parties in reply.

Back to top

What I found

Guidance on making referrals

8. If someone is homeless, or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they can seek help from the housing authority.
9. Where the person is threatened with homelessness, the prevention duty may apply. Where the person is actually homeless, the relief duty may apply. This will usually apply if the person is:

• homeless; and
• eligible for assistance (basically, entitled to assistance from the state)

10. The housing authority will need to carry out an assessment and work with the person to develop a personalised housing plan (PHP).
11. 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.

12. A person may be in priority need if they are:

• pregnant or have dependent children;
• aged 16 or 17;
• former care leavers aged 18 to 20; or,
• vulnerable, for example, for medical reasons.

13. 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, it may refer them to another housing authority. It may also do this during the relief stage.
14. An applicant can be referred once the first authority is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, that is before it has considered whether the applicant is in priority need and intentionally homeless.
15. The first authority must give notification of the referral to the second authority and to the applicant. Once the applicant has been notified the first authority has notified or intends to notify a second authority that it believes the conditions for referral are met, the first authority will no longer be:
• subject to the relief duty;
• under a duty to secure interim accommodation under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996.
16. However, if the first authority has reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need it must continue to secure temporary accommodation (under section 199A(2)) until the second authority has accepted or rejected the referral. If the referral is rejected, the first authority may be under a continuing duty to accommodate.
17. If the second authority rejects the referral and the first authority accepts its decision, the first authority must carry out the relief duty (the 56 day period will run from the date of notification of the decision to the applicant) and secure interim accommodation if it has reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need until the relief duty comes to an end or it decides what other duty, if any, it owes to the applicant.
18. Where the two authorities are unable to come to an agreement as to whether the referral conditions are met, they can enter the procedure to resolve disputes.
19. Certain decisions on homelessness can be challenged by the complainant seeking a review and then exercising their right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. We would not normally investigate complaints about decisions where these review and appeal rights apply as long as we are sure the complainant was properly informed about their rights and the authority acted on any review request. A decision about whether the applicant is subject to a local connection referral is one where a review right applies.

Background

20. Mr X approached the Council as homeless in October 2018. He was offered interim accommodation pending an assessment of his circumstances.
21. The Council decided Mr X was owed a relief duty but he did not have a local connection to the St Albans area. The Council referred Mr X to an authority in the London as his parents live there and Mr X had resided there in the past. The Council says Mr X was initially receptive to the referral but he then changed his mind. Mr X, on the other hand, insists he was against the referral at all stages.
22. The referral was initially accepted by the other authority. However, it subsequently declined the referral. Having made the referral, the Council decided not to provide accommodation for Mr X anymore in November 2018. Mr X says he was left street homeless as a result.
23. The Council accepted Mr X’s request for a review of its referral decision in November 2018. The review was conducted by an external party. In December 2018, the review concluded the Council owed Mr X a duty as a homeless person and the application could not be referred to the other authority.
24. The Council offered Mr X a housing options interview in December 2018 following the outcome of the review. Mr X complains about the conduct of the housing officer. Mr X says he asked the officer direct questions that required direct answers which the officer did not provide. He asked the officer why the interview took place in December and not in October 2018. He says this annoyed her and he could not understand why as his questions were not aggressive. He says the officer’s attitude called for him to address her unacceptable behaviour. He says the officer tutted and rolled her eyes. Mr X refused to sign the personalised housing plan.
25. Mr X complained about the housing officer to the Council. The Council apologised to Mr X if he considered he received poor customer service but explained it was necessary for its housing officers to have personal, difficult and sensitive conversations with applicants.

Finding

The housing options interview with Mr X

26. I do not have any evidence to corroborate Mr X’s allegations about the housing officer. It is now impossible for this investigation to establish the material facts of the officer’s interview with Mr X. I cannot therefore conclude there was fault by the Council as Mr X alleges.

The decision to terminate the interim accommodation Mr X occupied after the referral to the other authority

27. Mr X says the Council he was improperly evicted from the accommodation he occupied after the Council made the local connection referral to the other authority in London.
28. However, this matter is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because Mr X had a right of review against the Council’s decision, a right which he exercised. The matter cannot now be examined by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I closed this complaint because I did not find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman