Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not done enough to help her find accommodation, and that a housing officer was rude and unhelpful and wrongly discussed her homelessness application with her sister which led to her being forcefully evicted. The documentation shows the Council took sufficient action to assist Miss X with finding accommodation after she became homeless. And there is no evidence a council officer was rude or unhelpful, or that their actions led to Miss X’s eviction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complains the Council has not done enough to help her find accommodation, especially since her eviction. Miss X also complains a housing officer was rude and unhelpful and wrongly discussed her homelessness application with her sister which led to her being forcefully evicted.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Miss X; and
• Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Councils’ duties towards homeless people

5. Councils have duties towards homeless people under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2018 is the statutory guidance which councils must have regard to when carrying out their functions in relation to homeless people.
6. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible and homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must assess their needs and draw up a 'personalised housing plan' (PHP). This lists steps to prevent or relieve the person's homelessness.
7. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible, it must take reasonable steps to help ensure the person continues to have accommodation available to them. This is called the prevention duty.
8. The relief duty applies where a council is satisfied an application is homeless, rather than threatened with homelessness, and eligible for assistance. The council must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The Council can end its relief duty in a number of circumstances. These include if the Council has made an offer of accommodation that would be available for at least six months or if more than 56 days have passed since the Council was subject to the relief duty whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation.(Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
9. 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).
10. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
11. An applicant can challenge the steps to be taken by the Council in a personalised housing plan and Council’s decisions such as a decision to end the relief duty and the decision as to whether the Council owes a main housing duty, which is the duty to provide suitable accommodation. The applicant can seek a review of the decision and then appeal to the county court if they disagree with the Council’s decisions. Councils should notify applicants of how they can challenge decisions.

What happened here

12. Miss X approached the Council as she was living with her sister, Ms Y in overcrowded conditions and Ms Y had asked her to leave. The Council accepted a prevention duty and completed a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) with Miss X. The PHP confirms the Council will help Miss X to cover some of the deposit if she finds suitable and affordable accommodation. The Council provided a list of letting agents and landlords who Miss X agreed to contact.
13. The Council’s records show Miss X informed the Council she had started looking for studio flats and needed help with a deposit and rent advance. The case officer advised Miss X on the Local Housing Allowance rate and explained she could apply for housing benefit or universal credit, and that the Council would help cover some of the cost of the deposit.
14. On 30 June 2020 the case officer spoke to Ms Y, who confirmed Miss X would have to leave her property by 3 July 2020. The records of this call state the officer tried to negotiate an extension, but Ms Y refused.
15. Miss X contacted the case officer the following day to confirm Ms Y had asked her to leave by 3 July 2020. She noted the case officer had told Ms Y they would try and organise a B&B for her and asked the officer to help as much as he could.
16. The Council wrote to Miss X to advise its duty to prevent her from becoming homeless had ended as she had now become homeless. The Council confirmed that Miss X was homeless, eligible for assistance but did not have priority need. It did not therefore have a duty to provide Miss X with interim accommodation while it helped her secure accommodation. The Council advised Miss X of right to a review of this decision. It also referred Miss X to services which may be able to assist.
17. On 6 July 2020 Miss X contacted the Council to complain the case officer had breached her confidentiality by sharing information with Ms Y. She stated Ms Y had called the case officer on 3 July 2020 and discussed her case. Following this conversation Ms Y forced her to leave as the case officer had told her Miss X did not have priority need and the Council would not assist her. Miss X had nowhere else to go and had stayed on the street over the weekend. She complained the case officer was rude and disrespectful and had not offered her any help.
18. The Council referred Miss X to the Single Homeless Prevention Service (SHPS). The Council provided Miss X with one night’s emergency accommodation, and then offered Miss X temporary accommodation in Birmingham. Miss X did not accept this as it would have meant giving up her job. On 14 July 2020, the Council make a discretionary offer of accommodation under the Localism Act 2011, due to the Covid19 pandemic. The Council told Miss X the offer of accommodation was not for any prescribed period and would be kept under review and may be withdrawn. It also confirmed that in making the offer the Council was not subject to any further duties under the Housing Act.
19. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 20 July 2020. It explained that the Council must make enquiries to determine whether it owes any duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. This includes establishing whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless. The case officer spoke with Ms Y as part of this process as Miss X had stated she was staying with her sister, who was now excluding her. The Council noted Miss X had signed a declaration and consent form allowing the Council to contact third parties in the course of its enquiries.
20. In addition, the Council reiterated that Miss X was eligible and homeless but not considered vulnerable, and as such the Council did not owe her an accommodation duty. The Council confirmed it had accepted a relief duty and set out the steps it had taken to assist Miss X secure accommodation. And it noted it had provided Miss X with discretionary assistance under the Localism Act due to the pandemic.
21. In relation to Miss X’s complaint the case officer had been rude and disrespectful, the Council stated this was not how he had intended to come across. As officers were working remotely, he had asked Miss X to sign documents on her phone and return it to him, rather than by post. The Council had reminded the officer of the need to deal sensitively with everyone.
22. Miss X remains unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with her case and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X feels the Council should have done more to assist her.
23. Since complaining to us Miss X has also raised concerns with the Council about the suitability of the shared accommodation it has provided, and her banding on the housing allocation scheme. She provided further medical information which the Council’s medical advisors have considered. The advisors do not consider Miss X’s medical conditions render her significantly vulnerable and are satisfied her current accommodation is suitable on medical grounds. Miss X was in Band C of the Council’s housing allocation scheme while she was living with her sister but is now in Band D as she is no longer living in overcrowded accommodation.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council reiterates it accepted a prevention duty and then a relief duty to assist Miss X. But not a duty to provide interim accommodation as although she was homeless and eligible, it did not consider Miss X was in priority need. The Council provided Miss X with accommodation under a discretionary offer of assistance under the Localism act due to the Covid19 pandemic.
25. It states it discussed the availability of accommodation in the private sector with Miss X and advised of the financial assistance it offers to enable her to secure suitable accommodation.
26. The Council has also reiterated that it spoke to Ms Y to establish Miss X was eligible for assistance and homeless, and that Miss X had signed a consent form allowing it to do so. The Council states the Housing Solution team do not record their telephone calls.

Analysis

27. Many decision about homelessness can be challenged by seeking a review and by using a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need and the Council does not therefore have a duty to secure accommodation. We would not normally investigate complaints about decisions such as this where there are rights of review, provided the Council has informed complainants of those rights.
28. The Council has written to Miss X explaining the reasons for its decision and informing her of her right to request a review. I do not therefore intend to consider this issue further.
29. The Council accepted a relief duty and the records show it has taken steps to help Miss X secure accommodation. It has provided details of letting agents and landlords for Miss X to contact and confirmed it can provide financial assistance if Miss X finds a suitable, affordable property. SHPS has also identified landlords with available properties and advised Miss X when they can be viewed. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has sought to help Miss X secure accommodation under the relief duty.
30. Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s actions in relation to the prevention duty. She believes that rather than assisting her, the Council’s action led to Ms Y forcing her to leave and making her homeless.
31. There are brief records of the case officer’s conversation with Ms Y on 30 June 2020, but there are no records of a further conversation on 3 July 2020. The records of 30 June 2020 note that Ms Y would only allow Miss X to stay at her property until 3 July 2020. There is no record of any discussion about whether Miss X had priority need or the assistance the Council would provide.
32. In the absence of any records of a further conversation on 3 July 2020 I am unable to confirm what, if anything, the case officer told Ms Y about Miss X’s case.
33. In any event, Ms Y had previously advised both the Council and Miss X that Miss X would have to leave her property on 3 July 2020. I am therefore unable to say that a further conversation on 3 July 2020 was reason Ms Y forced Miss X to leave that day. Ms Y had already made it clear that Miss X could not stay with her after 3 July 2020 and would have to leave.
34. I note Miss X had not returned the signed declaration and consent form when the case officer spoke with Ms Y on 30 June 2020. The form states Miss X signed and dated it on 15 June 2020, but the Council’s records show the case officer was chasing Miss X for the signed form on 6 July 2020. It would have been better if the Council had Miss X’s written authority to discuss her case with Ms Y before contacting her on 30 June 2020. However, it is clear Miss X was aware the Council would contact Ms Y as part of its enquiries, and she has not raised any concerns about the case officer’s initial conversation with Ms Y.
35. Miss X complains the case officer was rude and disrespectful towards her during their telephone conversations. But I am unable to accept one person’s word against another’s, and again, in the absence of any recordings of conversations I am unable to confirm what was said, or the tone used. The case officer has confirmed this was not how he had intended to come across and the Council has reminded the officer of the need to deal sensitively with everyone. I am unable to consider this issue further.

Back to top

Final decision

36. The Council took sufficient action to assist Miss X with finding accommodation after she became homeless. There is no evidence a council officer was rude or unhelpful, or that their actions led to Miss X’s eviction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman