Summary: The complainant says the Council failed to help him find accommodation when homeless and its delay caused him to lose the home he applied for. The Council says it acted in line with its duty and helped secure accommodation. The Ombudsman finds the Council acted without fault in offering help but that it acted with fault in not issuing a second Personalised Housing Plan.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly consider his homeless application and offer help with finding a property in line with its homelessness relief duty.
2. Mr X says this left him without a home and at risk of losing out on offers of homes within the private sector. Mr X says this caused him great distress and placed him at risk of continuing homelessness.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to help him with finding a home to relieve his homelessness. Since making his complaint the Council has helped Mr X secure suitable accommodation. However, Mr X wants the Council to recognise the distress caused to him by its inaction and delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 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. In considering this complaint I have:
• Spoken with Mr X and reviewed the information presented with his complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and examined its response;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance, and policy;
• Shared with Mr X and the Council my draft decision and reflected on comments received.

Back to top

What I found

The law

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. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has ended, it must tell the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

What happened

9. In April 2019 Mr X’s landlord evicted him from the home he had lived in for the previous 10 years. The Council immediately provided temporary accommodation while it assessed Mr X’s housing needs. The Council completed its assessment that same month and issued a decision letter under Section 188 of the Housing Act. The Council accepted it had a duty to offer help to Mr X and it completed and issued a personalised housing plan setting out what both the Council and Mr X needed to do.
10. The Council decided Mr X was homeless and eligible for help. However, the Council found Mr X did not have priority need because he was not “…vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or any other special reason.” The Council’s decision letter confirmed the Council had considered whether Mr X would be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person made homeless applying the test in case law. This decision meant the Council no longer had a duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation. It advised Mr X to look for accommodation in the private rented sector and explained the Council’s Home Finder’s Guarantee Scheme for single non-priority applicants.
11. In June 2019, the Council completed its enquiries into Mr X’s housing application and issued a decision under Section 184 of the Housing Act. The decision letter explained the Council had considered Mr X’s mental health and physical health when deciding that Mr X was homeless but not in priority need. The letter included information about where to look for accommodation and set out Mr X’s right to a review of the decision. Mr X did not ask for a review of the decision.
12. Mr X contacted the Council again in February 2020 saying he needed help in finding accommodation in the private sector. The Council says it offered advice to Mr X on securing alternative accommodation. The Council says it gave Mr X information about the Council’s rent deposit scheme. Under the scheme the Council offers to pay a deposit to help applicants secure accommodation. Mr X told the Council he had found a property in another council’s area, but he could not secure it because he could not provide a guarantor for the rent. On 11 March 2020, the letting company acting for the landlord of the property Mr X found, contacted the Council. The letting company said it would offer Mr X the property once the Council confirmed it had approved the deposit. On 16 March 2020, the Council confirmed to the letting company Mr X had completed the application form and it now awaited a decision by a manager. On 19 March 2020, the letting company asked for confirmation the Council would pay the deposit and advance rent. The Council responded on 20 March 2020 but by then the letting company had let the flat to someone else. The letting company told the Council it had a smaller flat if Mr X wanted to view that. Mr X did not take up that alternative flat.
13. In May 2020, the Council referred Mr X to a supported housing scheme. The scheme offered Mr X a home in June 2020 which he accepted. In September 2020, the Council issued a letter saying it had met its duty to relieve Mr X’s homelessness and therefore that duty had ended. In the letter the Council explained Mr X had a right to occupy the home for at least two years and confirmed the Council viewed it as suitable for him. Therefore, it considered him to no longer be homeless and it owed him no further duty. The letter outlined Mr X’s right to a review.
14. Mr X says the delay by the Council in March deprived him of a property making him homeless for longer.
15. The Council says that it met its duty to issue a Personalised Housing Plan in April 2019. However, due to an oversight, Mr X’s housing officer continued noting later events in that plan rather than issuing a new plan when Mr X approached the Council in February 2020. The Council says it has acted to prevent repetition of that error. In its response to me it offers its apologies to Mr X for the impact on him.

Analysis – was there fault leading to an injustice?

16. My role is to decide if the Council complied with its duties to prevent or relieve homelessness and acted in line with the procedures set out in law and the Code of Practice. If I find the Council acted with fault I must decide if this affected Mr X and what the Council must do to put it right.
17. Between April and June 2019, the Council followed the correct procedure for deciding if it owed Mr X a duty under homelessness legislation and the Code of Practice. The Council assessed Mr X, noted his medical and mental health issues, and issued a decision explaining why it considered Mr X did not have a priority need. That decision correctly set out his rights of appeal which he did not use. The Council issued a Personalised Housing Plan setting out what both the Council and Mr X needed to do and when they achieved those objectives. I find the Council acted without fault in deciding what duty it owed Mr X in June 2019.
18. In February 2020 Mr X approached the Council afresh. While it assessed Mr X’s needs, and recognised it owed Mr X a duty to assist him in finding somewhere to live it did not issue a Personalised Housing Plan. I find the Council acted with fault. The Personalised Housing Plan would set out what Mr X could expect the Council to do to help him. It would also give Mr X advice on what he needed to do.
19. The Council offered help when Mr X asked for help in securing a home in another council area. Unfortunately, when the Council confirmed it would pay a deposit the letting company had already let the accommodation. The Council took from 11 to 20 March to give the final assurance to the letting company. Councils should seek to give immediate or rapid support. However, officers must seek proper authority for deposits and did so. The Council kept the landlord’s agent updated on its authorisation for Mr X’s deposit. It took eleven days in total. I find the Council did not take an excessive time to confirm authorisation.
20. Where we find fault, we try to put the complainant in the place they would have been but for that fault. But for the Council’s failure to issue a second Personalised Housing Plan Mr X would have had information about what he could expect the Council to do for him. The lack of the plan caused avoidable confusion.

Recommended and agreed action

21. To address the impact of the lack of the Personalised Housing Plan I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X;
• Pay Mr X £100 in recognition of the distress caused by the lack of information.

Back to top

Final decision

22. In completion of my investigation I find the Council acted without fault in assessing and deciding Mr X’s housing needs but at fault in not issuing a Personalised Housing Plan and have recommended a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman