Summary: There is fault in how the Council handled Miss B’s housing situation. Its file recordings were not always accurate, it took too long to agree a personal housing plan, and gave her incorrect information. The Council caused Miss B uncertainty and distress, and cannot say whether it would have offered her housing sooner had it acted without fault. The Council has agreed it will apologise to Miss B, pay her £250 in recognition of the distress it has caused her, and share this decision with its staff.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about how the Council handled her homeless application. She says:
• The Council did not date her application correctly or record that she had provided the necessary evidence for this;
• Its officer did not make himself available and so she was delayed in submitting essential documentation, he did not attend meetings with the social worker but did make two home visits that are not recorded in his case files; and
• The Council told her it would backdate the application but has not.
2. Miss B says as a result of this she has been living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.

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 considered the information provided by Miss B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its case notes. I also considered the law and the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I took any comments into account before issuing a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law

6. 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) 
7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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)
9. 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. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy and its New Generation Scheme

11. The Council’s policy places applicants into priority bands from A to D according to their housing needs. Applicants accepted onto the New Generation Scheme are placed in Band B.
12. The New Generation Scheme is for applicants living with family members. The Council must be satisfied that the applicant has not just moved to live with family specifically to get onto the scheme and the Council will make enquiries as to how the applicant came to live with them.
13. The Allocation policy says that where the Council accepts an applicant onto the New Generation Scheme and the conditions have been met for 12 months, it will make them one offer of housing from this queue. It is not a guaranteed offer of housing after a year, but depends on availability of suitability of accommodation and the applicants priority compared to others on the housing register.

What happened

14. Miss B and her son lived with her mother. She had tried to reconcile with her son’s father and had lived with him for a few months but he had been violent towards her. Miss B and her son moved back to her mother’s house.
15. Miss B contacted the Council for help with her housing. Miss B and her mother attended an appointment with the Council on 4 February 2019 to discuss this with an officer. The Council wrote to Miss B in advance telling her that this was a homeless application and what she needed to bring to the first appointment. The Council’s case notes say Miss B’s mother told the Council that there are six people in her three bedroom house, including her own elderly mother who she cares for, and that she would need to evict her daughter and grandchild as there is not enough room for them all. The case notes say the Council officer discussed the New Generation Scheme as well as help the Council could give to get a private sector tenancy. They also discussed homelessness but that this would involve temporary accommodation, and this may be away from the area. Miss B told the Council she wanted to apply for the New Generation Scheme.
16. Miss B said she took proof of identity and her payslips to the Council that day. The case notes do not mention this.
17. The Council visited Miss B at home on 8 February. The case notes say that the Council will make further enquiries and will need additional documentation (indicating that some documentation had been provided). The Council wrote to Miss B on 18 February asking for further documentation. Miss B asked how she should submit this and said she would need to visit the bank to get statements. The Council’s email to Miss B says she should gather the information and then contact the Council officer so that he could arrange a time to take the original documents from her to be scanned.
18. On 26 February, Miss B’s mother, who also had to provide documents, asked the Council for clarification of what was needed. The Council did not respond.
19. The Council’s records show that Miss B submitted more evidence at the beginning of March 2019. This was a letter from her mother dated 25 February confirming that she would need to evict Miss B; Miss B’s bank statements date stamped 26 February; letters about her mother’s mortgage showing she owed arrears; and her mother’s passport.
20. The Council’s records say that it needed more information. It does not say how it told Miss B what else was needed. The next case record is of the Council’s officer visiting Miss B, her mother and child at home on 16 May. He told Miss B to submit further documentation to the Council. The Council’s records show that on 16 May, it scanned onto its system passports of Miss B and her child, his birth certificate, another copy of the bank statements up to February 2019, her National Insurance Card, and her February payslip.
21. Miss B disputes that the officer visited her at home on 16 May. She has sent me a letter from an NHS psychiatric facility that says Miss B was an inpatient from 12 March to 23 May, and so Miss B was still in the residential psychiatric care when the officer says the home visit took place.
22. In addition, Miss B has sent me emails between her and the Council officer. These show that on Monday 13 May, Miss B sent a message to the Council officer asking him to call her so she could update him. He replied on 14 May saying he would contact her in the next 2 days. The next message is from the officer on Monday 20 May, saying that he had called her ‘last week’ but did not reach her and had left a message. Miss B replied to say she had called him back as had her mother. None of the messages mentioned a home visit.
23. The Council’s records say that on 26 July it completed the personal housing plan and decided that it had a relief duty to Miss B. There are no further case notes about how it reached this decision or what prompted it. There is no indication that the Council gave Miss B a copy of the personal housing plan at this stage.
24. The next record is from 1 August 2019, although it seems that a meeting on 29 July had been cancelled by the Council’s officer. The Council officer met with a colleague, Miss B, and her Social Worker. The notes say Miss B said her mother’s house was due to be repossessed, that she had experienced domestic violence, a child protection order had been made for her child and that she had mental illness. She said she was worried about her mother being evicted and how that would affect her in terms of the New Generation Scheme.
25. Under the Scheme, Miss B would be eligible for an offer of housing after a year has passed following the Council accepting her application, subject to availability. The Council officer told Miss B and her Social Worker that he thought the waiting time would start from March 2019. Miss B thought it should be from February as that is when she had submitted all of her evidence and documentation. The Council officer left that job. Miss B’s case was taken on by a new officer.
26. Miss B, the newly allocated Council officer and her Social Worker met again on 22 August. In the meantime, the Social Worker had been in contact to say Miss B was a high-risk case and questioning whether she had approached the Council as a victim of domestic violence. The Council confirmed that this had only been mentioned at the most recent meeting on 1 August.
27. The Council’s case notes of the meeting of 22 August record that Miss B got very upset and said that her previous officer had not done things to resolve her housing situation. The Council had given her forms to complete, but Miss B said she had already done these.
28. The Council next visited Miss B at home on 11 September. At this meeting, the Council completed the personal housing plan setting out what the Council would do and what Miss B would do in order to resolve her housing situation. The dates of some of the actions were from May 2019. Miss B amended the plan to show that she had approached the Council earlier than that and some of the actions such as assessing her case, investigating her current situation and a financial assessment, had been completed in January and February.
29. Miss B signed the New Generation application form and this was dated 10 September 2019. The Council told her the year waiting period would start from February 2019, but then changed this to 16 May, meaning that she would be eligible for an offer after 16 May 2020. The Council apologised to Miss B that it had previously given her the wrong date.
30. The Council records that its relief duty ended and it informed Miss B by email.
31. Miss B complained to the Council and the Ombudsman. In the course of my investigation the Council has offered Miss B accommodation. Miss B tells me she has not seen the property but has had to accept it, as she will not get another offer.
32. The Council has reminded its officers that the waiting period of the New Generation Scheme only starts when a manager approves the application. It has also reviewed how it tells applicants about the start date and when they will be eligible for an offer of housing.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Miss B?

33. At the heart of this complaint, is the action taken by the Council leading up to the change of officer in August 2019 and when Miss B submitted all the information needed to be accepted onto the New Generation Scheme. Miss B says this was at the end of February, following a home visit on 8 February. The Council says this was not until 16 May following a home visit that same day.
34. It is clear that Miss B gave some information at her appointment on 4 February, and again at the beginning of March. The Council’s case notes say more information is needed but there is no note of what, or whether it clarified this for Miss B.
35. The Council has sent me a log which shows when documents were received and scanned. The Council says that its officer must have visited on 16 May because this is when the next lot of documents were scanned in. However, this is not clear evidence that the home visit happened on that day. All the documents that were scanned in May, date from February or earlier. The log does not say when it received these documents.
36. Miss B has sent me evidence from the psychiatric facility that she was living there and not at home, and messages between her and the Council that do not mention a home visit on 16 May. On balance and taking into account the information the Council and Miss B have given me, I am inclined to conclude that the Council did not visit Miss B on 16 May and this case note is not accurate. This also casts doubt on whether Miss B submitted documentation to the Council’s officer in May, or whether it was earlier as she says. Given that all the information submitted is dated 26 February or earlier and the date of Miss B’s admission to psychiatric care, I am also inclined to conclude that Miss B submitted the documents earlier to the Council.
37. In addition, the Council says that Miss B could have submitted any evidence to a duty officer and did not have to make an appointment or any arrangements with her allocated officer to do this. But the Council’s emails in February tell Miss B that she should arrange to see her allocated officer to submit documentation.
38. The Council’s files show that the officer did not respond to Miss B’s mother when she asked for clarification. We can also see from the social worker’s emails that he cancelled at least one meeting with her at short notice.
39. The overall handling of Miss B’s homeless application is not clearly recorded and took too long. Miss B made her homeless application at the end of January 2019, the Council’s notes say it accepted it owed her a relief duty in July, but the Council did not provide a personal housing plan until September 2019. It is not clear if the Council had considered whether it had a prevention duty when Miss B first applied. The delay and lack of clarity is fault by the Council.
40. I have considered whether the Council should have taken into account the domestic violence that Miss B suffered sooner. The Council says it was not known to them and I cannot see that Miss B declared this sooner than at the meeting on 1 August. Miss B’s mother had told the Council the reason for her daughter’s housing difficulties was because her own home was overcrowded, and did not mention domestic violence or an assault, or that Miss B had been living with her ex-partner. On balance, there is not enough evidence that the Council knew, or could have known that Miss B had suffered domestic violence.
41. Overall, there was fault by the Council. Its record keeping is not accurate or clear, it took too long to agree a personal housing plan, and it gave her incorrect information about when her waiting time under the New Generation Scheme would start. The Council also failed to take a reasoned view of whether it should further backdate the start of Miss B’s waiting time.
42. I have looked at how the Council’s shortcomings impacted on Miss B. It is likely that the waiting period under the New Generation Scheme would have started sooner, perhaps early March.
43. In itself the personal housing plan is unlikely to have meant the Council housed Miss B sooner. This is because Miss B agreed to apply under the New Generation Scheme and her expectation was that she would stay with her mother for a year. It was understandable that the Council then focussed its efforts on her application under the scheme. However, had the Council agreed a personal housing plan sooner, Miss B’s options, the likely time frame and her progress through the housing process could have been made clearer to her. The Council did discuss temporary accommodation with her and Miss B did not want to pursue this.
44. I have asked the Council whether, had it started her waiting time earlier, it could have offered her suitable housing sooner. The Council says it cannot tell. However, the Council’s failings have caused Miss B uncertainty as to when she would become eligible for an offer of housing and whether this should have happened sooner. It has also put her to time and trouble in pursuing these matters, and caused her distress.
45. However, I have also taken into account that fortunately, Miss B did not have to resort to living elsewhere and was able to stay with her mother.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. The Council has apologised to Miss B for giving her misleading information about the start date of her New Generation Scheme wating period. It has now offered Miss B accommodation. The Council has also reviewed how it communicates with applicants of the New Generation Scheme.
47. The Council will also show the Ombudsman within one month of the date of this decision that it has:
• Apologised to Miss B for its delay in providing a personal housing plan and confusion around its homeless decisions, how to submit documentation, and the uncertainty she was caused by its inaccurate file recordings;
• Paid Miss B £250 in recognition of the impact on her of its shortcomings; and
• Shared this decision with relevant staff.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing Miss B injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman