Summary: The Council was at fault, because it sent letters accepting the housing duty to an address from which it knew the complainants had moved out. The fault caused a significant injustice, because it meant the complainants were homeless for a period, and then did not have the opportunity to request a review of their accommodation. The Council should offer a financial remedy for this, as well as their time and trouble making a complaint. The Council should also consider what steps it can take to prevent a recurrence.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr N. Mr N complains on his own behalf, as well as that of six other members of his family.
2. In 2017, the Council accepted a full housing duty for the family after they had made a homelessness application. However, it sent the letter confirming this to an address they had already left. The Council accepts it was at fault for this.
3. Mr N complains the Council’s fault meant the family were homeless for a period, and have since been living in unsuitable private rented accommodation. Although the Council has offered remedies for this, he does not consider these to be adequate.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed the Council’s correspondence with Mr N and his family, and a chronology of key events compiled by the Council.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Introduction

7. Altogether there are seven different complainants in this case – Mr N, his parents, and his four siblings. For simplicity, I have not individually identified any of the other members of Mr N’s family.
8. This timeline of this complaint covers several years. At the beginning, the family – including Mr N – made a homelessness application to the Council together as a single household. They subsequently separated into two households, with Mr N alone as one, and the rest of the family together as the other. From this point in the chronology, I will refer to each household as ‘Mr N’ and the ‘the family’ respectively.

Chronology

9. In July 2016, the family made a homelessness application to the Council. The application was in the name of six people – Mr N, his parents, and three of his four siblings.
10. The Council offered them interim temporary accommodation (TA) while it considered the application, which they accepted.
11. In October, the Council decided the family did not have a local connection to Westminster. It refused the application on this basis, and referred them back to their previous local authority. The family sought a review of this decision.
12. In February 2017, the Council completed the review and upheld its original decision. It made arrangements to end the family’s interim TA booking.
13. In March, the family applied to the county court to appeal the Council’s decision.
14. In July, the family’s appeal was settled by a consent order. The Council accepted a full housing duty, entered the family on to its housing register, and re-instated their TA booking. It sent letters to confirm this, and to explain its choice-based lettings system, to the TA address.
15. The Council confirms it has no further notes or records relating to the application until 3 May 2019.
16. Mr N has told me he and his family then became homeless. For a period of approximately 8-10 weeks, they were sleeping rough or staying with friends. Their friends then helped them find a room to stay in together, where they remained for approximately 6-8 weeks.
17. The family then secured private rental accommodation. However, due to Mr N’s disabilities, this was not suitable for him. Mr N remained living with a friend for approximately 10-12 months longer, when he found his own private rental accommodation. Both Mr N and his family remain in these properties.
18. On 3 May 2019, an officer called the family to conduct a housing needs assessment, but could not speak to any family members. The officer tried calling again on two more dates in May, without success. Then, in June, the officer called again. The Council says it is not clear what happened on this occasion, but the officer’s notes identify that the contact number the Council had for the family was for one of the sons who no longer lived with them.
19. On 8 October, Mr N contacted the Council. He explained he no longer lived with the rest of the family, and enquired about splitting their applications to allow him to bid on properties. Mr N called the Council again a number of times over the following weeks to discuss the family’s situation further.
20. Then, on 8 November, the family submitted a Stage 1 complaint. They said they had heard nothing from the Council since 2017, but had found out only the previous day they were on the housing register and able to bid for properties. They also complained that their priority on the register was inadequate, because the Council had not properly considered family members’ disabilities.
21. The Council called Mr N on 21 November. It said the Council would shortly issue its response to the complaint, which it intended not to uphold. Mr N asked to speak to a senior officer.
22. A senior officer called Mr N back later. Mr N explained his family’s private rental accommodation was not suitable for them, because of his mother’s health. The Council said it would complete a housing needs assessment and decide whether to offer the family TA, but warned this might not be possible immediately because of the Council’s limited housing stock.
23. The Council called Mr N on 22 November to complete the housing needs assessment. The Council advised Mr N to fill in a medical assessment form for himself, his father and mother, but Mr N advised he was unable to read or write in English. The Council agreed to consider what support it could offer him.
24. The Council completed the housing needs assessment on 3 December. It placed the family in Band 1, which means they were considered a priority for TA within the Council’s area.
25. The Council visited the family and Mr N on 10 December to complete medical assessment forms, with Mr N interpreting for the family. The Council noted at this point Mr N was living separately from the rest of the family.
26. On 30 December, the Council referred Mr N and his mother to its medical assessor. It also contacted Mr N’s carer to seek further information about his needs.
27. On 8 January 2020, the Council contacted the local authority for the area in which the family live, to seek further information about Mr N’s mother’s care needs. The local authority asked the Council to put the request in writing.
28. On the same day, the Council’s own adult social care (ASC) department confirmed it had made a referral to wheelchair services for Mr N in November, and that it had installed some equipment in his property in December. However, it had not commissioned a care package for him.
29. Through February, the Council continued seeking to gather evidence about Mr N’s needs. Mr N also contacted the Council several times to chase its response to the family’s complaint.
30. The Council says notes on its file of 2 and 3 March show officers had tried to chase up information they had requested from Mr N’s GP. The GP said it had received an email on 8 January cancelling this request, but declined to say who had sent this email. At the same time, the Council’s notes say Mr N declined to answer information about his mother’s landlord, as it was not relevant to his own application.
31. On 5 March, the Council referred Mr N to its occupational health service. On 6 March, it contacted Mr N to obtain his mother’s GP’s details, and on 9 March, Mr N agreed to provide the Council with a copy of his own patient summary.
32. On 13 March, the Council responded to the family’s Stage 1 complaint.
33. The Council summarised the background to the complaint. It explained it had contacted the family in 2019, as part of a general exercise to update its records for all people in TA in its area. It was at this point the family had realised the Council owed them a housing duty.
34. The Council acknowledged that, after it had agreed to settle the court case in 2017, Mr N had said the family’s solicitors had told them to visit the Council’s offices. However, when they did, officers told them their application had been rejected. This had led the family to make its own arrangements.
35. The Council confirmed it had written to Mr N’s parents on 28 July 2017 to confirm it had accepted the housing duty, and to explain they were now on the Council’s housing register. However, as its system still showed their (former) TA address, it had mistakenly posted these letters there. The Council apologised for its initial view of the complaint, as it said it still did not appreciate this error when it had begun investigating.
36. The Council said it could not explain why officers had given the family the wrong information when they had visited. It said this may have been because the system had not yet been updated, but could not confirm this, because of the passage of time.
37. Either way, the Council accepted it was at fault because it had written to the wrong address. It confirmed again it owed the family the full housing duty, and that it was obliged to find TA for them.
38. The Council said, since the error had come to light, its TA officers had been assessing the family’s needs. It noted the family, less Mr N, was currently living in a four-bedroom house in a different local authority area, and that all the family had health problems. Mr N was living separately, but also had health problems and required a live-in carer.
39. The Council apologised for the error it had made, and the distress and inconvenience the family had suffered as a result. It reiterated it could not explain what had happened when the family had visited the Council, but said the reason it had written to the wrong address was because its system retained the last known address for each applicant, without making clear they may no longer be there. This was a technical issue the Council could not remedy.
40. The Council accepted it had also failed to meet its duty to provide TA to the family, and repeated it was currently working to resolve this. The Council also said it had accepted Mr N’s request to be rehoused separately from the rest of the family. And, as a remedy for the injustice its fault had caused, the Council offered the family £1000.
41. The Council went on to discuss whether the family would have been permanently rehoused by now, if it had not been for its error. It noted the family was currently registered for five-bedroom properties, but said, since they had joined the housing register, it had not let such a property.
42. Noting Mr N now lived separately from the family, the Council said it had also investigated whether they would have been able to secure a four-bedroom property in that time. The Council said it had let eight four-bedroom properties since the family had joined the housing register, but in all cases, these were to applicants with a greater number of points than the family had.
43. On this basis, the Council said it was satisfied the fault had not caused a delay to the family’s rehousing.
44. Mr N submitted a Stage 2 complaint on 13 March, which he then elaborated on in a further email on 20 March. He complained the Council should now look to offer him and the family permanent accommodation, because of its errors, and also complained the offered financial remedy was inadequate to recognise the distress they had suffered. Mr N said the family’s award of 150 points under the allocation scheme was also inadequate, given their medical needs, and that they should be awarded additional points because of the Council’s error.
45. Mr N also pointed out some factual inaccuracies in the Council’s Stage 1 response, and criticised the Council’s comment that it could not address the technical problem which had caused its error in the first place. Mr N complained about the length of time it had taken the Council respond to the complaint.
46. The Council received the outcome of the independent medical assessment for Mr N’s mother on 26 March, which recommended she be classed as ‘mobility category 2’. On 8 June, the Council received the outcome of the assessment for Mr N himself, which confirmed he was a wheelchair user.
47. The Council sent its Stage 2 response on 19 June.
48. The Council acknowledged Mr N’s request for permanent housing. However, it maintained its position the family would not have been permanently rehoused, even if there had been no fault. The Council explained there were other households on the register who had been waiting for more than 10 years for housing.
49. The Council said it had reviewed its offered financial remedy. Having consulted the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies, it said it now considered an offer of £100 per month was appropriate. The Council said this amounted to £2800 (28 months from July 2017 to November 2019). It offered an additional £300 to reflect the delay in its complaint handling, making a total of £3100. The Council asked Mr N to confirm if the family wished to accept this offer, and provide appropriate bank details if so.
50. The Council also acknowledged Mr N’s request to permanently rehoused separately from the family. The Council said it had accepted this request, and noted it would facilitate the rest of the family’s search for permanent housing, by reducing the size of the required property. It said it was currently in the process of assessing Mr N’s needs, including the question of a live-in carer. However, the process had been delayed by the advent of the COVID-19 crisis.
51. The Council explained its allocation scheme did not award additional points to homeless households for medical issues. It said it was assessing the family’s health needs, which would ensure they could bid for properties which were suitable for them.
52. The Council noted and accepted the factual errors Mr N had pointed out in its Stage 1 response, but said these were not significant. The Council apologised again for the distress caused to the family by its error, and explained they could now approach the Ombudsman if they wished to pursue the complaint further.
53. On 25 June, the Council added the family to its transfer list for TA. On the same day, the Council’s TA officer called Mr N to explain its ASC department needed to assess his needs, before it could decide if he needed an extra bedroom for a carer.
54. The family referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 July.
55. On 29 September, the Council wrote to Mr N’s father. It explained that, when they had made their application originally, it was for a five-bedroom property as a single household. As Mr N had now found his own accommodation, he would normally no longer be considered homeless. However, because the Council had been at fault, it had agreed to rehouse Mr N separately. It explained that, if Mr N turned this offer down, he would need to make a separate, formal application to the Council’s housing register.
56. The Council went on to confirm the family’s application had been given ‘mobility 2’ status, which meant they needed a property which could be accessed by wheelchair (as opposed to a fully-adapted ‘mobility 1’ property). This meant the family would not have to bid for properties, but would rather receive a direct offer from the Council.
57. However, the Council warned four-bedroom, wheelchair accessible properties were very rare. It said there were currently 20 households on its list for such properties, and so far in 2020, it had let only one as permanent accommodation, and none as TA.
58. The Council said it was proactively seeking TA for the family, and asked them to confirm the current situation with their private rented accommodation. It said it had been told the family’s tenancy was due to end shortly, and enquired whether they had received a Section 21 notice from their landlord.
59. The Council acknowledged Mr N’s view he needed a wheelchair-accessible property, with two bedrooms because of his need for an overnight carer. However, on the basis of the medical assessment, the Council considered studio accommodation was suitable for Mr N, and that he could manage stairs. The Council noted Mr N was using crutches during the assessment, but that he was also on pain medication and undergoing physiotherapy. This should allow Mr N to progress to walking with a stick, and then to walking unaided. The Council said there was also no evidence Mr N needed a separate sleeping space for a carer.
60. The Council also noted Mr N had had an Occupational Therapy assessment on 20 May. Because of the lockdown, this had been completed by phone. Mr N had told the assessor he had suffered various injuries from a road traffic accident, and that these injuries could potentially indicate a need for a wheelchair accessible property. The Council said it had arranged an urgent face-to-face assessment to follow this up.
61. The Council explained that, before it could give Mr N ‘mobility 1’ category, it needed confirmation from the NHS that Mr N required a wheelchair permanently and at all times. The Council said there was nothing in Mr N’s medical records to indicate he had been in a road traffic accident, or suffered the injuries he had described to the assessor, and said it was currently seeking further information from Mr N’s GP.
62. The Council also noted Mr N had said its ASC department had confirmed he needed a live-in carer. However, the Council said Mr N’s care needs assessment was not yet complete, and it would need confirmation Mr N needed overnight care before it could make him eligible for a two-bedroom property.
63. The Council acknowledged the family had requested they and Mr N be housed in reasonable proximity to one another, but it explained it could not say where any future offers, permanent or temporary, might be. It also explained it could not give Mr N four weeks’ notice of any offer it might make, as they had requested, and said it was normally only possible to give a few days’ notice of the start of a tenancy.

Back to top

Legislative background

64. Since April 2018, local authorities’ powers to address homelessness have arisen from the Homelessness Reduction Act, and its associated statutory guidance, the Homelessness Code of Guidance. Before April 2018, these powers instead came from the Housing Act 1996. There is some difference between the procedures set out under each Act.
65. As this timeline of this complaint straddles April 2018, powers under both Acts apply here. I will therefore describe the relevant sections of each Act.
66. 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) 
67. 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)
68. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
69. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
70. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the Council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
71. The Council’s housing allocation scheme awards points to people and households, according to their circumstances. For example, a statutorily homeless household will automatically receive 150 points; but a household which needs to move home, because of the medical needs of one or more members, may receive 200 or 250 points. The scheme can also award additional points for a number of reasons, including a long period of continuous residence.
72. The Council will take into account an applicant’s number of points, and their length of time on the housing register, when considering bids on properties.

Back to top

Analysis

73. After settling the court case, the Council acknowledges it sent the letters confirming this, and explaining its choice-based lettings system, to the interim accommodation in which it had housed the family. However, the family had already left this accommodation several months before, after the Council’s original decision it did not owe them a homelessness duty. The Council should have been aware of this, but its system failed to reflect this address was no longer valid.
74. Mr N says the family’s solicitor also informed them of the outcome of the court case, and advised them to attend the Council’s offices to arrange accommodation. He says they visited the offices several times, but each time officers insisted the Council had rejected their application.
75. The Council has suggested this was because its system may not have been updated yet, but says it is too long ago now to explain what happened. I accept this. It is unfortunate, but either way, I do not consider this would make a significant different to my findings here. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for writing to the wrong address.
76. The Council has also accepted the family has suffered an injustice because of its fault. It has apologised, offered a financial remedy based on the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, and is working to arrange accommodation for both the family and Mr N.
77. My role here, therefore, is to determine whether the Council has adequately remedied the injustice which Mr N and his family have suffered. I consider the best way to do this is to look at the timeline here in stages, and assess what injustice may arise from each. I will then separately consider the appropriate remedy for the different elements of injustice.
78. Mr N has explained, after the family’s abortive visits to the Council in July 2017, they accepted they were not going to receive any help in finding accommodation.
79. The family was now homeless. For approximately 8-10 weeks, they either slept rough, or stayed with friends. They were then able to find a room to stay in, with the help of friends, for another 6-8 weeks.
80. Again with the help of friends, the family then managed to find a house through the private rental market. This meant they were no longer homeless. Mr N says this property was not suitable for him, so he did not move in with the rest of his family, but found his own property after another 10-12 months of staying with a friend.
81. So, for approximately 3-4 months, the family as a whole, including Mr N, was statutorily homeless. The Council should have placed them in TA during this period. This therefore represents a significant injustice to them, which the Council should remedy.
82. Mr N says he was also individually homeless for the further 10-12 month period. However, once Mr N had separated from the family household, he was no longer part of the homelessness application, and so the Council’s duty to him did not apply from this point. Although the Council has now accepted a duty to house him separately, it has done this on an exceptional basis, because of the error in this case, and not because he has made his own, valid homelessness application.
83. It is arguable the reason Mr N separated from the family was directly because the Council had not provided TA. If so, this would then represent an injustice. And I note Mr N says the house his family found to rent was not suitable for him, because of his mobility problems. Had the Council secured a house which was suitable for the entire family unit, this would mean he could have remained part of the household.
84. However, the Council has not accepted Mr N has significant mobility problems. The Council also points out that Mr N’s mother – whom it does accept has mobility problems – has been living at the rental house with the rest of the family, which undermines Mr N’s claim the house is not suitable for him.
85. I note also Mr N has included all four of his siblings as party to this complaint. As I understand it, they all live together with their parents, meaning there are six people in a three-bedroom house. This means they are overcrowded, by the Council’s bedroom standard, but not statutorily overcrowded according to the law.
86. If Mr N were also living with the family, then it appears the house would be statutorily overcrowded, with seven people. However, the family’s original homelessness application did not include one of Mr N’s siblings. Therefore, the family unit to which the Council owed the duty was six, including Mr N, not seven.
87. Put simply, the evidence does not allow me to conclude it was necessary for Mr N to separate from the rest of the family. This means the additional 10-12 month period, during which Mr N stayed with his friend, was not caused by the Council’s fault.
88. The Council has additionally commented there is no evidence of the circumstances under which Mr N remained with his friend, and so it cannot be shown this constituted a period of homelessness anyway.
89. Taking this together, and while I accept Mr N felt the need to separate from the family and stay with his friend, there is compelling evidence this was not a direct result of the Council’s error. And so, even it were possible to confirm this was a period of homelessness, I cannot find this was an injustice arising from the Council’s fault.
90. Mr N says the two private rented properties have never been properly suitable, either for him or the rest of the family. He says the family’s house is too small for them, and both properties present accessibility issues, because of his and his mother’s respective disabilities. Mr N says his own property, a studio flat, is on the 7th floor of the building, which makes it very difficult to live in, considering his use of a wheelchair.
91. I must first, again, account for the fact the Council’s duty was to the family members named in the homelessness application. This was six people, including Mr N, but not including one of his siblings. I must also again consider that, once Mr N had separated from the rest of the household, the Council’s duty to him ended. Any problems arising from the unsuitability of his own rented property are therefore not a part of the injustice I have identified here.
92. What remains is the fact the family have been privately renting a three-bedroom house, for six people, when they should have been in TA.
93. But it is speculative to say any TA the Council found the family would be significantly more suitable, if more suitable at all, than their own private-rented house. This is because the kind of large, accessible property the family needs are relatively few in number and not often available.
94. So, even if the Council had placed the family in TA, it is quite possible this would have been in a property which presented similar limitations. It cannot be said it would have been the type of house they actually need, and I note again, the house is not statutorily overcrowded with six people. For this reason, I cannot say the simple fact the family was in a privately-rented house, rather than TA, is an injustice.
95. This said, I also cannot overlook that there is a statutory right of review about the suitability of TA. If the Council had not been at fault, the family would have been able to seek a review if they considered the TA unsuitable. The fact they were, wrongly, not in TA means that have had no recourse to this review right.
96. I of course cannot speculate what the outcome of such a hypothetical review may have been. It is not possible to say this would have led to them being moved to a different property.
97. But there remains a question of uncertainty here, about what may have happened if the family had been able to request a review. We consider such an uncertainty to be an injustice, in and of itself. Again, the Council should remedy this.
98. Mr N also complains the Council has not offered permanent accommodation for the family, as part of the remedy here. However, I am satisfied the Council has provided convincing evidence the family would still not have been placed in permanent accommodation, even if there had been no fault.
99. Working (again) on the basis of the original, single household, the family required a five-bedroom property. The Council has explained it has let no such property since the family’s application.
100. Since the household split, the family have instead needed only a four-bedroom property. However, the Council has let only a small number of these in the same time, each to a household with either 200 or 250 points. This is more than the 150 points given to homeless households, such as Mr N’s family.
101. Mr N considers the Council should award the family more points because of their medical issues. According to the allocations scheme, the ‘medical’ category gives 200 points to a household on its waiting list. However, because the family are classed as homeless, they cannot be placed in the ‘medical’ category, and so there are no additional points available to them.
102. And in fact, the question of points is now academic anyway. The Council has given the family a ‘mobility’ classification, which means it will make a direct offer to them instead, based on their particular needs. This makes the number of points they have irrelevant, because they can no longer bid for properties under the points system.
103. Again, taking this all together, I do not consider the fact the Council has not yet offered permanent accommodation to be an injustice arising from the fault.

Back to top

Summary and remedy

104. In summary, I have found injustice to Mr N and his family in the initial 3-4 month period of homelessness they endured, and because they did not have the opportunity to request a statutory review of the suitability of temporary accommodation.
105. However, I do not consider the additional 10-12 month period, during which Mr N stayed with his friend, to be an injustice arising from the Council’s fault. Nor do I consider the fact his family have not yet moved to TA, or to permanent accommodation, to be an injustice arising from the Council’s fault.
106. The Council has proposed a financial remedy of £100 per month for the 28 months from July 2017 to November 2019. This appears to be based on the Ombudsman’s principle, set out in our published guidance, of providing a monthly tariff, where a household has been left in unsuitable accommodation because of fault by the Council (although the tariff in the guidance is actually £150-£350 per month).
107. While it is positive the Council has been proactive in offering a remedy, I take a different view of the appropriate way to calculate it here.
108. First, I consider the major injustice here is the initial 3-4 month period of homelessness. After that period, it is not possible to say they were in unsuitable accommodation, for the reasons I have given, and so I do not consider the monthly tariff should then apply.
109. That said, during the initial 3-4 month period, Mr N and the family were not simply in unsuitable accommodation, but actually homeless. This is a significant injustice, especially considering both Mr N and his mother suffer from disabilities.
110. And we must also consider that there is not simply one person who has suffered the injustice here, but the six family members who formed the original homelessness application.
111. I consider, therefore, an appropriate tariff here would be £250 per month of homelessness, for each member of the family. This means £250, multiplied by four months, multiplied again by six people, producing a remedy of £6000.
112. There should also be an additional £150 per person to reflect the uncertainty, caused by the denial of the right to request a suitability review for TA, which is £900 in total.
113. I also agree the Council should offer an additional £300 as a remedy for the complainants’ time and trouble, as it has done.
114. This creates a total remedy of £7200.
115. Separately, I have also considered if the Council should take any steps to avoid a recurrence of this problem.
116. The Council has explained its system is set up to show an applicant’s last known address. In the case of Mr N and his family, this was (at the relevant time) the interim accommodation from which they had already been discharged. And from context, it does not appear the Council had been given a new correspondence address for them at this point, which explains why it sent letters to the old address.
117. I can appreciate how such an error might come about. However, I am concerned at the Council’s assertion it can do nothing to change its system to prevent this happening again. The family’s situation – being discharged from interim accommodation, while still challenging the Council’s decision – was not so unusual that a repeat of this error cannot reasonably be foreseen. I do not consider this is a risk the Council should be prepared to tolerate, given the significant injustice it has caused in this case.
118. I accept there may be technical barriers to changing the Council’s database. But, if so, I consider the Council should explore what procedural changes it could introduce to ensure the fault does not recur; for example, requiring officers to check the Council’s records for evidence an applicant has moved from the recorded address, before sending important letters out, or calling the applicant in advance, where a phone number is available.
119. The Council has the best insight into its processes, and so it is for the Council to decide the most practical change it can make. For this reason, I will not recommend a prescriptive service improvement here. However, I will recommend the Council create an action plan for improvement.

Agreed action

120. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to offer Mr N and the family £7200, to remedy the injustice arising from their period of homelessness, the loss of opportunity to request a review of the suitability of their accommodation, and for their time and trouble in pursuing this complaint.
121. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to consider what practical changes it can make to its procedures and systems, to help prevent a recurrence of the fault here. It should create an action plan to this end, which it should then share with the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

122. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman