Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed accepting a homelessness duty and failed to provide interim accommodation. He says that he was left without accommodation and had to sofa surf. The Council was at fault for not accepting a homelessness application and making enquiries about his circumstances in April 2019. It was also at fault for failing to carry out an interview because he arrived 10 minutes late and for not arranging another one until a month later. Mr X moved into accommodation 10 months later in February 2010.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed accepting a homelessness duty and so he was homeless and without support for longer than necessary. The Council originally issued a “no reason to believe” letter rather than a section 184 decision letter with rights of review.
2. Mr X says he was not offered any temporary or interim accommodation and so had to sofa surf for an extended period of time.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant and his representative;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X’s representative was in email contact with the Council in January 2019 who said Mr X should complete an online form. In February, the representative contacted the Council again asking what was happening with Mr X’s homeless request. In March the Council said Mr X needed to complete another form as it had not received the previous one.
7. On 18 March, the Council sent Mr X details for an appointment at its office on 9 April at 9 am. Mr X attended the meeting but was 10 minutes late because an accident meant he was stuck in traffic. The Council refused to see him because he was late. The Council offered Mr X another appointment for 10 May.
8. Mr X attended the offices again on 10 May. During this meeting he explained he was going through a divorce and had left the matrimonial home he jointly owned with his ex-wife. The Council says he did not produce and documents to explain his circumstances. The Council carried out a check with the Land Registry and a credit reference agency to verify what Mr X was saying. The Council decided that in the absence of any supporting documents, it had no reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It therefore did not start any homelessness enquiries and issued a letter stating it had no reason to believe Mr X was homeless. There is no right of review of this decision but the letter said Mr X could contact the Council again if his circumstances changed. The letter also said that he should re-apply if he was able to obtain the documentation required to confirm he is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. Mr X’s representative submitted a formal complaint to the Council in June 2019. The representative explained there was a court order saying the matrimonial home was to be sold and as a result Mr X was homeless as he was unable to live there. The letter also raised the issue of Mr X not being offered any temporary accommodation.
10. A housing manager reviewed the case and decided the Council should take a homelessness application. The Council wrote to Mr X accepting the relief duty but the letter had incorrect details of an appointment. The Council resent the relief duty letter but the second one included incorrect details about priority need and the provision of interim accommodation. Due to a hospital appointment, Mr X was unable to accept the July date offered by the Council. After further correspondence between the representative and the Council, a meeting date of 9 September was offered.
11. At the September meeting, the Council produced a Personal Housing Plan (PHP). Court documents were presented which showed Mr X had no interest in the matrimonial home. The housing options officer agreed to provide 55+ social housing straight away to relieve the homelessness and to alleviate the need for temporary accommodation. Mr X is an ex-serviceman and so this was taken into consideration when making this decision.
12. The Council made an offer of accommodation on 11 October. This property was not suitable because it was on the first floor. The Council had agreed to offer Mr X a ground floor property to meet his medical needs. A second property was offered to Mr X on 15 October. This was a housing association property and was advertised as ground floor. However, when Mr X went to view the property, he found it was on the first floor. A third property was offered on 6 November. The information provided by the Council says Mr X turned down this property but no reason is given for why. Mr X accepted the fourth property offered on 23 December. The tenancy began on 13 February 2020 due to property requiring repairs before Mr X could move in.

Analysis

13. Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in accepting a homelessness duty and that he was not offered interim or temporary accommodation.
14. The Housing Act 1996 says if the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant maybe homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves whether he is eligible for assistance and if so whether any duty and what duty is owed.
15. When Mr X first went to the Council offices, the Council did make some enquiries into his situation. It did this by asking Mr X about his situation and searching for information with the Land Registry and a credit reference agency. I therefore consider the low threshold for accepting a homelessness application was met. At that stage, the evidence does not have to confirm the person is homeless or threatened with homelessness, the Council only has to have reason to believe this might be the case.
16. I consider it was fault for the Council to send a letter saying it had no reason to believe he was homeless or threatened with homelessness. In response to my enquiries, the Council says that it left the matter open by saying Mr X could approach it again. It also says the officer wrote “should you manage to obtain the documentation we required to confirm you are homeless or threatened with homelessness, then please re-apply and we will be happy to look further into your situation”. This indicates there was reason to believe Mr X was homeless or threatened with homelessness but that there was not sufficient evidence available to confirm that to be the case. This is why a homelessness application should have been taken and further inquiries made. It is fault for the Council to act as gatekeeper and in effect only accept applications where the evidence is already provided. It is part of the Council’s duty to make inquiries to satisfy itself if Mr X is homeless.
17. The Council should therefore have issued a section 184 decision which would have given Mr X rights of review. The failure to do this was fault. As it happened, Mr X’s representative complained on his behalf and the Council did look again at the situation and agreed the previous decision was wrong and a homelessness application would be accepted. However, this was several months later than should have been the case.
18. After accepting it should take a homelessness application, the Council also accepted the relief duty. However, it did not offer Mr X any interim accommodation. In response to my enquiries the Council accepts that at that point is should have either provided interim accommodation or made proper records to show that Mr X had somewhere suitable to stay. The failure to have done this is fault. The Council has some notes which say Mr X was sleeping in a van, some to suggest he was staying with relatives and some to suggest the relatives had asked him to leave. I am also aware that Mr X’s representative complained he had not been provided with any accommodation. On balance, I take the view Mr X would have accepted an offer of interim and/or temporary accommodation if it had been offered.
19. There was also fault in respect of the first meeting at the Council. Mr X was 10 minutes late for his appointment. This was due delays because of a traffic accident. The Council refused to see Mr X on that day. It offered another appointment but the earliest one was a month away. This is fault. The Council does now accept it should have met Mr X and used the remaining available time. I am pleased to note the Council has made changes since 2019 and waiting times have been reduced and contact is now made by an options officer within 48 hours.
20. The fault in this case meant Mr X was without suitable accommodation for longer than should have been the case. But for the faults identified, the Council would have accepted the homelessness duty earlier and should have provided accommodation from April 2019. While Mr X moved into a property in February 2020, this means he was without suitable accommodation for 10 months. Mr X has significant health issues which made the situation worse.

Agreed action

21. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X as a result of the faults in this case the Council should, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:

Apologise to Mr X; and

Pay him £2000 to recognise the distress caused as a result of him being without accommodation, both interim, temporary and permanent for 10 months longer than should have been the case.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman