Summary: We found the Council at fault in how it responded to Mr X about his housing situation. The Council missed opportunities to try to help prevent Mr X becoming homeless, which was likely to have caused Mr X added avoidable distress. We found the Council’s offer to provide further support to Mr X to try to help him secure accommodation represented a suitable remedy for what happened.

The complaint

1. Mr X says when he approached the Council as a person facing homelessness, it failed to act in a timely manner under its duty to prevent homelessness. Mr X says the Council’s lack of action led to him losing his home and becoming homeless.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• offered to talk to Mr X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments about the complaint;
• shared the Council’s comments with Mr X;
• given Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision; and
• considered any comments received on my draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. The law sets out councils’ legal powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Government has issued the ‘Homelessness Code of Guidance’ (‘the Code’), which councils must consider when exercising their homelessness powers and duties.
7. The law says a person is threatened with homelessness if:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days.

A section 21 notice starts the legal procedure for a landlord to take possession of a property let to a tenant under an ‘assured shorthold tenancy’. Most private tenants occupy their homes under such a tenancy.

8. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ a person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application, carry out an assessment of the case, and make inquiries to decide what duty it owes the person.
9. If a council is then satisfied the person is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, its ‘prevention duty’ arises. This means the council must try to help stop the person becoming homeless. The Code also covers cases where a person may not yet be within 56 days of becoming homeless. In such cases, the Code encourages councils to provide support to try and prevent homelessness at that point, rather than asking the person to come back later.
10. Where a council owes the prevention duty it must work with the person to prepare a written personalised housing plan. The plan will set out practical and reasonable steps they will both take to help the person keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the person’s household and follow from the findings of the assessment for their homelessness application.
11. Where a person is homeless and the council is satisfied they are eligible for assistance its ‘relief duty’ arises. This means the council must take reasonable steps to help the person to secure accommodation. Help may include providing advance rent or a deposit to secure private rented accommodation.
12. A council must also 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. A person has a ‘priority need’ if, for example, they are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability, or old age; have dependent children; or are pregnant.
13. When the relief duty comes to an end, if a council is satisfied someone is eligible, has a priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. This means it has a has a duty to secure accommodation for the person (although in some cases the law allows a council to refer applicants to another council.)
14. Councils must give written notice of their decision on a person’s homelessness application. And, if it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. Councils must also give written notice when they accept and end a prevention or relief duty. All letters must include information about the person’s right to ask for a review of the decision and the timescale for doing so.

What happened

15. In summer 2018 Mr X’s landlord served a notice on Mr X claiming to end his tenancy. Mr X went to the Council. Mr X and the Council differ about what then took place. Mr X says the Council homelessness duty officer he spoke to (‘the Duty Officer’) agreed to contact his landlord: The Council denies this. The Council says, and its records show, the Duty Officer advised Mr X the notice was invalid, and he had a right to remain in his home. The Duty Officer helped Mr X apply for relevant benefits and payments and to access food. The Council also says it is normal practice for its duty officers to give people in Mr X’s position other information. Examples of such information being to return quickly if their housing circumstances change and about local legal advice agencies. The Council says, although not in Mr X’s case notes, he would have received such advice.
16. After meeting Mr X, the Duty Officer asked for a Homelessness Assessment colleague to take on Mr X’s case. The aim being, in line with the Code, to consider any suitable early prevention work although Mr X was not yet ‘threatened with homelessness’ (see paragraph 9 of this statement).
17. The Council received an undated letter from Mr X, enclosing papers and thanking the Duty Officer for helping with his ‘new claim’. Mr X then emailed the Council referring to the Duty Officer and asking for the return of his papers.
18. About three weeks later, the Duty Officer emailed Mr X asking for an update on his housing position and offering another meeting. There was no evidence Mr X replied but a few days later he emailed a senior manager at the Council (‘the Director’) chasing the return of his papers. This email was passed to the Duty Officer, who returned Mr X’s papers. The Council closed Mr X’s homelessness case.
19. About seven weeks later, Mr X again emailed the Director. The email mainly raised points about the Council’s housing allocation policies and empty flats Mr X alleged the Council owned. However, Mr X started and ended his email referring to homelessness issues. Mr X asked what had ‘gone wrong’ since his meeting with the Duty Officer and what help the Council had to give to a person facing homelessness. Mr X also said, “I have been given until November to move out”.
20. A week later, Mr X sent an email to the Director and the Council’s Chief Executive, which the Director acknowledged. The following week and after a chaser email, which the Council also acknowledged, a Council manager wrote to Mr X. The Council’s response focused on housing policy issues. It also provided general information about the Council’s homelessness powers and duties and referred to advice given to Mr X by the Duty Officer. The Council did not directly address what Mr X said about having to ‘move out by November’ but did refer to him ‘having to leave his current home’. A copy of the Council’s response went to its Housing and Homelessness Team, but without any instruction to act on the correspondence.
21. About two months later, Mr X emailed the Director and the Chief Executive. Mr X’s email responded to the Council’s last email (see paragraph 20), challenging some comments about housing policies. Mr X also said he had received ‘County Court eviction papers’ and was worried about bailiffs turning up and throwing his possessions into the street. Mr X referred to his meeting with the Duty Officer and said he had understood the Council would try to resolve matters with his landlord. Mr X said the Council had not told him what had since gone wrong. And he was now “in a very difficult situation and would be grateful for any help [the Council could] provide”. (The Council says it expected the Director to action Mr X’s email, but the Director had not done so before leaving the Council’s employment.)
22. After waiting about two months, Mr X emailed the Chief Executive chasing a reply to his last email (see paragraph 21). Mr X also sent the Council a copy of an ‘accelerated possession order’ issued by the courts about a week earlier. Another Council director (Director Two) quickly replied to Mr X, apologising for the delay. Director Two said Mr X’s most recent information suggested his landlord had now taken lawful steps to ask Mr X to leave his home. Director Two ‘recommended and urged’ Mr X to return to its offices for advice and support from a housing duty officer. Director Two also provided a telephone number and email address for the housing advice team.
23. Mr X next contacted the Council six months later, emailing the Chief Executive and Director Two. The email commented on Director Two’s email (see paragraph 22), including asking why he would ‘put himself through another visit’ to the Council’s offices. Mr X also described himself as being “on the streets”. The Council’s records show it was uncertain how to deal with Mr X’s email given its contents and the language used.
24. However, about two weeks later, a senior Council manager signed a letter responding to Mr X’s email. The letter recognised Mr X’s dissatisfaction with its earlier responses and contacts but ‘encouraged’ Mr X to visit its offices so it could support him in line with its homelessness duties. The Council said if Mr X chose not to engage with its homelessness service it would be unable to help him. (The Council also addressed the language used by Mr X in his email.) The evidence shows the Council sent this letter to Mr X about a week later. Mr X had sent the Council three chaser emails while waiting for its reply.
25. A few days later, Mr X was evicted from his home and the next day came to the Council’s offices. The Council says it took a homelessness application from Mr X.
26. Shortly after the visit, Mr X again emailed the Chief Executive. Mr X said the Council had made him homeless as its last letter (see paragraph 24) had deceived him and given him false hope that it would offer him housing. Mr X said he would not have opened the door to bailiffs but for the Council’s letter. Mr X quoted the Council as wanting to “support [him] into suitable accommodation” and having “a duty to relieve the homelessness” of some applicants and he appeared “to meet the criteria”. Mr X said the Council was now saying he was not a ‘priority case’ and so it was not responsible for housing him.
27. A Council manager (‘the Manager’) replied later that day. The Council referred to its relief duty and its interim duty to temporarily house an applicant believed to be in ‘priority need’. The Council said its relief duty applied to Mr X, but he had not provided information giving it reason to believe he was in priority need. The Council also said Mr X had refused its offer to refer him to two nearby London boroughs where private rented accommodation was available. The Council said due to high rents it was rarely able to find private rented accommodation for applicants in its borough boundaries. The Council referred to Mr X refusing to consent to disclosing information and said this would make it more difficult to progress his application. The Council gave Mr X a telephone number should he change his mind about giving consent or more information about his application.
28. Mr X emailed the Chief Executive and the Manager the next day saying he had signed consent forms and, if further consents were necessary, asked for email contact. Two days later, Mr X’s email was forwarded to the officer handling his homelessness application (‘Officer B’). That same day Mr X emailed the Chief Executive and the Manager asking for the Council’s decision letter on his application. The Manager replied the same day saying it “should be able to issue a written decision letter later [that] week”. Early Friday evening, Mr X chased the Council for its decision.
29. Meanwhile, Mr X had emailed the Chief Executive. Mr X said after meeting the Duty Officer he understood the Council would try to resolve matters with his landlord. Mr X therefore asked why the Council had failed to do this. The Manager quickly replied saying Mr X was not threatened with homelessness when he met the Duty Officer as his landlord’s notice was invalid. As Mr X had not later returned with a valid notice, the Council had not been in a position to consider if it owed Mr X the ‘prevention duty’. Mr X replied immediately saying the Council was talking “nonsense” and referred to what he had told the Council about his housing situation in earlier emails.
30. Over the next few days, Mr X sent several emails to the Council’s Chief Executive and the Manager. Mr X’s emails covered various points including the Council’s failure to reply to his earlier emails and its delay in deciding his homelessness application. The Manager emailed back apologising for the delay in issuing its decision on Mr X’s homelessness application. The Manager said the Council was checking information and would send the decision letter as soon as it could.
31. Thirteen days after Mr X’s second visit and the Council taking his homelessness application, the Council issued its decision. The Council explained why it had not found Mr X to be in ‘priority need’. The Council said, under the ‘relief duty’, it would take reasonable steps to help Mr X secure suitable accommodation for at least six months. The Council also told Mr X he had a time limited right to ask for a review of the decision and where he could find information about the review procedure. The Council sent Mr X a ‘personal housing plan’ addressing steps they would both take to relieve Mr X’s homelessness (see paragraph 10). The Council also told Mr X it would provide funding under the ‘Private Sector Payment Scheme’ to help him secure a tenancy in the private rented sector. The Council set out details of the Scheme and how it would apply to Mr X.
32. A week later, Officer B emailed Mr X, referring to the Council’s homelessness decision and asking if Mr X needed any assistance with finding accommodation. About a month later, Mr X sent two emails to the Chief Executive (‘the Two Emails’). One email used language the Council had earlier cautioned Mr X about (see paragraph 24) and showing dissatisfaction with Officer B’s email. In the other email, Mr X asked why the Council’s decision letter did not give the date he first sought help or refer to how it had contributed to him being homeless. Mr X then sent the Chief Executive a third email saying after a year of stress and worry the Council had driven him to swearing so it could refuse to reply to his emails. Officer B again emailed Mr X asking if he was still in need of housing assistance. Mr X replied by emailing the Chief Executive saying the Council had betrayed its position of trust. A week later, Mr X resent the Two Emails to the Chief Executive and copied them to Officer B. A few days later, Mr X emailed the Chief Executive saying he wished to add a new issue about credit checks to his complaints against the Council.
33. It was nearly two months since the Council had sent Mr X its decision on his homelessness application. Council officers considered Mr X’s case and recorded on his file that ‘he had not engaged’ with the Council in carrying out its ‘relief duty’. Officer B then wrote to Mr X saying the Council had complied with its ‘relief duty’ for 56 days and, in line with the law, was now ending that duty. The Council’s letter told Mr X he had a time limited right to ask for a review of its decision and where he could get information about the review procedure. A few days later, Mr X wrote to the Chief Executive saying he held him responsible for the Council’s conduct. And later, Mr X emailed the Chief Executive asking when the Council was going to reply to his many complaints.
34. Mr X did not ask for a review of the Council’s decision to end its relief duty. And, about four months after the Council had issued its homelessness decision letter (see paragraph 31), Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

Late complaints

35. Mr X’s complaint concerns events starting in summer 2018 that took place more than 12 months before he complained to the Ombudsman (see paragraph 3). Having considered Mr X’s circumstances, I exercised my discretion to consider the complaint back to 2018.

Events around Mr X’s meeting with the Duty Officer (paragraphs 15 to 18)

36. The evidence showed Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness when he met the Duty Officer. So, the Council did not owe Mr X a prevention or relief duty at that stage. However, the Council failed to write to Mr X with its decision on his homelessness status. The Code also encouraged councils to consider early prevention work where a person was at risk of homelessness but not within 56 days.
37. The evidence showed the Council provided support and advice to Mr X, including help with his Universal Credit application to secure money to pay his rent. The Council also accepted there was a need for further early prevention work: it sought a Homelessness Assessment Officer for Mr X’s case. Regrettably, this did not then happen as it might have led the Council to contact Mr X’s landlord. Whether the Council agreed to contact Mr X’s landlord was in dispute, which dispute I could not resolve in the absence of independent objective evidence. And yet, any misunderstanding about contact with Mr X’s landlord might also have been resolved if Mr X had responded to the Duty Officer’s ‘follow up’ email.
38. The Council accepted it could have done more at this point. I agreed. The Council failed to issue a homelessness decision letter. It also missed an opportunity to further explore early prevention work and, in not doing so, did not fully comply with the Code. In the circumstances of this case, I therefore found fault here.

Events around Mr X’s email referring to having to move out in November (paragraphs 19 and 20)

39. It was nearly three months after meeting the Duty Officer that Mr X next made substantive email contact with the Council. While of little comfort and no help to Mr X, I thank the Council for recognising his reference to ‘moving out’ suggested he was then threatened with homelessness, which triggered its ‘prevention duty’. The Council accepted it should have responded proactively and tried to engage with Mr X about his housing situation. The Council missed a key opportunity to intervene and try to prevent Mr X becoming homeless. I therefore found the Council at fault.

Events around Mr X’s email referring to bailiffs (paragraphs 21 and 22)

40. It was a further two months before Mr X’s next substantive email contact with the Council. Mr X referred to county court papers about eviction and his fear that bailiffs would throw his possessions on the street. The Council did not respond to the email and only acted after another two months when Mr X sent a chaser email. The Council accepted there was avoidable delay here. I agreed and found fault.
41. However, once the Council received Mr X’s chaser email (and copy possession order), it then responded without further delay. That response recognised Mr X was threatened with homelessness and urged him to make contact so the Council could offer him advice and support. The Council accepted it would have been better if it had contacted Mr X and made an appointment for him to speak to a housing officer. And yet, the Council’s response to Mr X was clear: for further advice and support, contact with its housing officers was needed.

Events around Mr X’s ‘on the streets’ email (paragraphs 23 to 31)

42. Mr X’s next contact was six months later, when he emailed saying he was ‘on the streets’ and why would he want to visit the Council’s offices again. The Council accepted it could have sought to engage with Mr X about his housing situation while considering how to deal with his email (which contained abusive language). It was understandable that Mr X would be upset and angry as it appeared he was about to lose his home. And yet, given the contents of the email, any effort by the Council to engage might have been unlikely to succeed or to have had a positive outcome. And, shortly after the Council replied, which was three weeks after receiving his email, Mr X became homeless. At that point, Mr X did visit the Council’s offices for the second time.
43. In the circumstances of this case, I did not find the Council at fault in taking 13 days to issue its decision letter on Mr X’s homelessness application.

Communication and events after the Council’s homelessness decision

44. The Council’s decision letters on Mr X’s homelessness application and, later, ending its relief duty told Mr X about his legal review rights. There was no evidence Mr X exercised those rights.
45. I was satisfied the Council gave Mr X contact information for housing team officers responsible for providing advice and support about homelessness. In particular, Mr X had contact details for both the Duty Officer and, later, Officer B. It was Mr X’s choice to send most of his emails to the Council’s Chief Executive and other senior officers. And yet, it was improbable the chief executive, department head or senior manager of a large organisation like the Council would personally handle an individual’s case. Rather, they would need to send such emails to officers handling the relevant case so those officers could either reply or provide information enabling others to reply. Mr X’s decision to email senior personnel at the Council led to internal communications and added to the time taken to reply. However, as the Council recognised, there was avoidable delay in responding to some of Mr X’s emails and I found fault on this issue.
46. The effect of avoidable delay in responding to some of Mr X’s emails was not clear. When the Duty Officer offered a further meeting to Mr X, he did not respond. And, when Director Two urged Mr X to seek advice and support, he did not act on that invitation. Mr X also did not respond to Officer B’s emails asking if he needed advice and support. So, if the Council had always responded quickly and been more proactive in contacting him, there was evidence to suggest Mr X might not have engaged with it. Mr X may have felt let down and disillusioned after his first visit to the Council’s offices did not stop his landlord acting to end his tenancy. And yet, the Council’s ability to help was limited without the involvement and cooperation of Mr X. And it was Mr X’s choice whether to engage with the Council when it made contact and or invited him to seek advice and support.

Conclusion

47. The evidence showed, and the Council has recognised, it missed opportunities to intervene in Mr X’s housing situation before he became homeless. The evidence also showed avoidable delay by the Council in communications with Mr X. So, on the balance of the evidence, there was fault by the Council. I could not say Mr X would not have become homeless if there had been no fault by the Council. And yet, the Council’s missed opportunities and communication delays would have caused Mr X added and avoidable distress and uncertainty at a difficult and stressful time. I thank the Council for recognising this and offering redress for Mr X.
48. The Council offered:

• to take a homelessness application from Mr X if he was now homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• to accept a prevention duty for Mr X if he was threatened with homelessness or a relief duty if he was homeless and to seek to secure affordable accommodation in the private rented sector in compliance with homelessness law and the Code;
• £500 to help Mr X settle into his new home;
• (if Mr X remained liable for any courts costs for the repossession proceedings in 2018/2019) on Mr X producing evidence of liability for such costs, to pay those costs in full.

49. The Council accepted it lacked some readiness for the new homelessness laws in April 2018. And, without seeking to excuse what happened here, it explained it was focusing on issues surrounding the Grenfell Tower tragedy. However, following an independent review, the Council prepared a Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Reduction Strategy 2020-2025. It was also restructuring its Housing Department to better meet the new laws and the Strategy. As the Council had taken steps that should address the wider issues that arose in Mr X’s case, I made no recommendations for service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. To address the injustice to Mr X caused by the fault I identified, I agreed the Council’s proposal, as set out at paragraph 48 was a proportionate, appropriate, and reasonable outcome for Mr X’s complaint. The Council agreed to write to Mr X within 5 working days of this decision statement setting out that proposal and offering him an appointment to meet with a housing officer. It would be for Mr X to engage with the Council’s offer.
51. The Council also agreed to send the Ombudsman a copy of its offer letter to Mr X.
52. I did not expect the Council’s offer to be open ended. The Council’s offer would be made ‘now’, during the continuing COVID-19 emergency, and apply to Mr X’s current housing situation. And, if Mr X had housing needs it was an offer I believed he ought reasonably and properly take up, if he so chose, within a calendar month of the Council’s offer letter. However, the Council’s offer at paragraph 48 and the agreed action at paragraph 50 concerned only the events in this complaint and did not affect Mr X’s future rights to access Council services.

Back to top

Final decision

53. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraphs 50 and 51 of this statement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman