Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not help him when he approached as homeless. The Council is at fault. It failed to accept relevant homeless duties, complete a Personalised Housing Plan, issue decisions, or tell Mr X about his review rights. The Council should apologise, pay Mr X £1000, and take a new homelessness application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not help him when he approached as homeless. In particular, he says the Council:

1. Failed to accept a duty to him
2. Failed to complete a personalised housing plan
3. Failed to notify him in writing of its decisions
4. Failed to tell him of his right to seek a review of homeless decisions.

2. As a result, Mr X says he is still living in his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Mr 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

Homelessness Law and Guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)
11. 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) 
12. 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)
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

What happened

15. In September 2019, Mr X approached the Council as homeless. He had been asked to leave by his family and was sleeping in his car.
16. The Council says it found Mr X accommodation the next day and closed his case. Mr X says he viewed the accommodation but was not invited to sign up. He says he went back to the Council that day to tell it this. The Council says he did not.
17. Mr X continued to sleep in his car. The Council’s record says he next approached the Council in January 2020.
18. In January 2020, the Council reopened Mr X’s homeless application. It made a “non-priority need” decision. This means the Council decided it did not owe Mr X any further homelessness duty.
19. Mr X says he wrote to the Council asking for a review of this decision. The Council says it did not receive a review request from Mr X.
20. In March 2020, Mr X contacted the Council again. The Council decided his request for a review was a complaint and dealt with it this way.

My findings

September 2019

21. The Council took a homeless application from Mr X in September 2019 because it had reason to believe he was homeless.
22. Although the Council says it helped Mr X to find accommodation the next day, it still had to notify Mr X in writing about what duty it owed him. In Mr X’s case, this should have been the relief duty. The Council did not accept any duty to Mr X. This is fault.
23. The law says Council must issue a personalised housing plan (PHP) and keep the plan under review. The Council says it did not produce a PHP because Mr X was “uncooperative”. A PHP should include steps for both the Council and the applicant to take to resolve homelessness. Where an applicant disagrees with the steps, the Council should record this and say why it still considers the steps to be reasonable. The Council did not produce a PHP. This is fault.
24. The Council says it found accommodation for Mr X the day after he applied. Mr X says he viewed the property but did not sign a tenancy.
25. Mr X says he went back to the Council the same day to tell it he had not signed up for the accommodation. The Council says it has no record of this. In the absence of records, I cannot say whether Mr X did go back to tell the Council he was still homeless.
26. However, to end the relief duty, the Council had to be satisfied that Mr X had suitable accommodation with a reasonable prospect of that accommodation being available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B(7)(a))
27. The responsibility to “satisfy” itself lies with the Council. There is no evidence the Council followed up with Mr X or with the accommodation provider to confirm he had signed a tenancy. This is fault.
28. Had it done so, the Council would have discovered Mr X was still homeless. It would have therefore continued to owe him a duty to help him find accommodation.
29. If, as it says, the Council believed it had relieved Mr X’s homelessness, the law says it must tell him in writing. The Council did not write to Mr X to say the relief duty had ended. This is fault.
30. I cannot say that Mr X would not still be homeless had the Council continued to support him through the relief duty in September 2019. However, Mr X must now live with that uncertainty. This is an injustice to Mr X.
31. Had the Council issued a decision to end the relief duty, Mr X could have asked for a review of this decision on the basis he was still homeless. Failing to issue a decision denied Mr X his review rights. This is an injustice to Mr X.

January 2020

32. Mr X came back to the Council in January 2020. The Council realised it had not made any decisions in September 2019. It re-opened the case and issued a non-priority need main duty decision. This means the Council accepted that Mr X was still homeless. Otherwise, there was no need to issue a main duty decision.
33. In February 2020, Mr X approached a different local authority. I shall refer to it as Council B.
34. Council B decided Mr X was eligible for assistance and homeless. It accepted a relief duty to him. However, it also decided he had no local connection to its area. Under s198(1A) of the Housing Act 1996 (s198), councils can refer applicants to another local authority on the grounds of local connection at relief duty stage.
35. Council B referred Mr X back to the Council in March 2020. The Council says it never received a s198 referral for Mr X. I made enquiries of Council B. It sent me a copy of the referral form it sent in March 2020 and an email it sent chasing the referral in May 2020. I find Council B did refer Mr X to the Council under s198.
36. The Council had already made a negative decision on Mr X’s previous application. Therefore, it only had to accept a duty following the referral if Mr X’s circumstances had changed.
37. However, there is no evidence the Council considered whether Mr X’s circumstances had changed. This is fault.
38. Mr X says he wrote to the Council in January 2020 to ask for a review of its decision that he had no priority need. The Council says it did not receive any review request. Applicants have 21 days to seek a review.
39. Given the Council also says it did not receive a s198 referral sent to it by post, I find it likely Mr X did request a review in January.
40. In March 2020, Mr X contacted the Council about his review request. When the Council told him it had not received a review request from him, he sent an email. The Council’s record says it decided this was “not a review but a complaint”.
41. Mr X asked the Council for a review of its decision. I have found that he made this review request in time. The right to request a review of decisions about homelessness is set out in the Housing Act 1996. The Council denied Mr X his rights. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Agreed action

42. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing;
• Pay Mr X £1000; and
• Take a new homeless application from Mr X based on his current circumstances.
43. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
44. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff of the duty to inform applicants of all decisions in writing, explaining relevant review rights
• Remind relevant staff that to end a homelessness duty based on suitable accommodation being available for at least six months, the Council must demonstrate how it is satisfied this is the case
• Remind relevant staff of the law and guidance about setting out reasonable steps for both the Council and the applicant in a Personalised Housing Plan
• Remind relevant staff of the process for dealing with s198 Local Connection referrals from another local authority.
45. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman