Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homeless application. The Council was at fault when it failed to offer interim accommodation and delayed preparing a personalised housing plan. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,990 to remedy the expense, frustration and distress he was put to. It has also agreed to remind staff of the requirement to complete a personalised housing plan, to properly consider whether interim accommodation should be offered and to keep clear records of contacts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homeless application. In particular, the Council failed to offer him interim accommodation when he and his family became homeless. It failed to provide clear advice and assistance and failed to assist him in finding private rented accommodation. The family had to stay in hotels, which caused them distress and depleted their savings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the information supplied by Mr X’s representatives on his behalf including copies of correspondence with the Council, the Council’s case records and its complaint responses to Mr X.
5. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
6. I gave Mr X’s representatives and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and 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. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• 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))
9. 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) 
10. 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)
11. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation so it 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’ case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
12. 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)
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

What happened

14. Mr X rented a room in a shared house (a house in multiple occupation (HMO)). In 2018 Mr X’s wife and two children, aged three and one, moved in with him. Due to overcrowding at the property, at the end of June 2019, Mr X’s landlord served a notice to quit (s21 notice) requiring Mr X and his family to leave the property by 5 July 2019.
15. Mr X completed an on-line application for housing assistance. The Council contacted Mr X on 3 July and asked him to visit the offices the next day. The Council also spoke to the landlord who advised the s21 notice was a mistake. However, Mr X was in breach of the property’s HMO license as he was permitted to live there as a single occupier, not with his family. So Mr X was still required to leave by 5 July.
16. Mr X attended an appointment with the Council on 4 July. Mr X says at the meeting he explained he was unable to find a property for rent. Mr X says the officer said they could not help Mr X as his wife had £6000 in savings. Mr X says he was told to book himself a hotel room and to keep looking for private rented accommodation. Mr X says the Council said it would refund the hotel charges. Mr X says he was told to complete a homelessness prevention and relief form and to bring in details including his accommodation history to the next appointment. The Council’s system notes record ‘client advised that he will leave his accommodation on 5.7.19 and make his own arrangements. Advised case will be closed as he is able and has funds to secure a deposit and his own accommodation’.
17. Mr X and his family left the shared property on 5 July and stayed in various hotels. On 9 July 2019 Mr X emailed the Council requesting assistance as he was ‘still struggling to find a house’. He went on to say ‘could you please help us at this time’.
18. The Council emailed two letters to Mr X on 10 July. One letter stated ‘we have decided the following:
• You are eligible for assistance
• You are threatened with homelessness’.
19. It went on to say the Council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent your homelessness and that it had arranged an appointment for 11 July to check progress and to consider any other steps that may be necessary. It set out the basis on which its duty would end. The second letter of the same date stated the Council’s prevention duty had ended as the Council was satisfied Mr X had become homeless. It stated ‘if the duty has ended because you have become homeless, we have a duty under s.189B to help you to secure accommodation. You will be notified about this duty in a separate letter. If we also have reason to believe that you may have a priority need, we have a duty to secure interim, accommodation for you while we help you to secure accommodation’.
20. Mr X visited the Council on 11 July. He provided his documents including his completed homelessness prevention and relief form. On the housing application form the officer stated Mr X was advised to look for private rented accommodation by registering with the lettings section of estate agents. At the meeting, the Council officer gave Mr X a letter dated 10 July 2020. The letter stated ‘I am satisfied that the Council does not have a reason to believe that you are homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days. The reasons for this decision are as follows:
• You have advised me that upon your eviction you will make your own arrangements.
• You have accommodation available to you for at least 6 months’.
21. The letter set out Mr X’s right to review this decision.
22. Mr X emailed the Council officer on 12 July and requested help to find a house for one month. He requested a list of houses. The officer emailed Mr X a list of letting agents. Mr X and his family continued to stay at hotels.
23. Mr X approached a solicitor for assistance in late July. The solicitor sent the Council a pre-action protocol. The Council responded that Mr X had sufficient funds to secure his own accommodation but was welcome to re-approach the Council again if he was homeless. It said that due to his funds Mr X would be responsible for the cost of the interim accommodation himself.
24. Mr X met with the Council on 30 July 2019. The Council accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty as Mr X was homeless. The Council agreed to provide interim accommodation.
25. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure. In September 2019 Mr X’s solicitor complained to the Council at stage 1. They complained about the Council’s failure to assist Mr X and in particular its failure to provide interim accommodation. They queried why the Council ended its duty when Mr X had no fixed address and had contacted the Council the day before requesting help. Mr X had paid hotel fees amounting to £1990 and requested that the Council refund this to Mr X. The Council responded in early October. It refused to refund the hotel costs. It said had Mr X advised he would get his own hotel accommodation the Council would have offered a bed and breakfast. It said it had provided interim accommodation after his approach in late July and was trying to secure him suitable accommodation.
26. Mr X remained unhappy. The solicitor asked to go to stage 2 of the complaints’ procedure as the Council had not addressed all of their concerns. The Council responded in November 2019.
27. The Council said Mr X had said he would make his own arrangements and it had no reason to question his ability to source or fund accommodation. When it established he had not managed to find accommodation it provided emergency accommodation. It said at no time had Mr X requested emergency accommodation. It said it was open to Mr X to claim housing benefit to cover the cost of rent which he did not do. In addition, the Council had funded a deposit to secure Mr X private rented accommodation. Mr X, via his solicitor, then complained to the Ombudsman.

Findings

28. The Council gave Mr X confusing and inconsistent information. On the same day it wrote to him to say it owed him a prevention duty, it ended that duty and also decided Mr X was owed the relief duty but that had ended. Yet the next day it arranged an appointment with Mr X so he could provide the information it requested. On that day Mr X made it clear he did not have anywhere to live and was staying in hotels yet the Council’s view remained that Mr X would make his own arrangements and had accommodation available to him for at least six months. There was no evidence Mr X had accommodation available to him for at least six months. The Council was at fault.
29. I cannot know exactly what was said when Mr X met the Council officer on 4 July 2019. The Council’s notes are very brief and it is not clear what exactly was discussed. Even if Mr X had agreed to fund his own short-term hotel accommodation, by 9 July it was clear Mr X did not have secure accommodation and was staying in different hotels. He requested help then and again on 12 July.
30. We do not expect applicants to have to specifically state they require emergency or interim accommodation for the Council to consider its duty. The Council should have considered if it was necessary. Its failure to do so was fault. The option of interim accommodation should have been revisited when Mr X contacted the Council on 9 July and again on 12 July when he raised concerns about finding accommodation.
31. The Council did not provide Mr X with a personalised housing plan until 30 July 2019. The Council failed to complete a PHP when Mr X approached it as homeless. This is fault. Had it done so earlier it is likely Mr X would have had more clarity about what he needed to do and what the Council would do on his behalf.
32. Due to his level of savings Mr X would have had to contribute to the cost of interim accommodation. However, it is likely it would have been cheaper and he would have been able to apply for housing benefit. It was not open to Mr X to apply for housing benefit for short term stays in budget hotels. Mr X was put to extra expense, distress and frustration by the Council’s actions.

Agreed action

33. Within one month of this final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,990 which is equivalent to what he spent on hotel accommodation. Although Mr X would have had to contribute to the cost of interim accommodation, it is likely he would have claimed housing benefit. Refunding the total amount Mr X spent on hotels for him and his family also acknowledges the distress and frustration he was put to by the Council’s faults.
34. Within two months of the final decision on this complaint the Council has agreed to remind staff:
• of the need to complete PHPs as soon as possible;
• of when to consider offering interim accommodation; and
• to keep clear records of meetings and contacts with service users. It should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault by the Council which caused an injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman