Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness and Housing Register applications. He said there was delay, poor communication and he was treated unfairly. The Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Mr X. The Council accepted our findings and agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness and Housing Register applications. He considers he was not treated fairly, there were delays and the Council failed to communicate with him. He says this has adversely affected his health.
2. Mr X wants the Council to let him join the Housing Register so he can bid for a two bedroom social housing property. He says this would enable him and his partner to move to affordable and settled accommodation where they could start a family.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I investigated the delay in dealing with Mr X’s homelessness and Housing Register applications and the quality of the Council’s communication with him. I did not investigate the Council’s decision to end the prevention duty because Mr X successfully used the statutory review procedure to challenge that decision. However I did consider whether the Council took too long to deal with his review request.

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 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

6. I have spoken to Mr X and considered the evidence he sent us. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and its records for Mr X’s homelessness and Housing Register applications. I have taken account of the Council’s housing allocations policy.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X and his partner live with Mr X’s mother, who is a Council tenant, in a three bedroom house. Mr X and his partner have one bedroom. Mrs X and her younger son use the other bedrooms. All the other facilities are shared.
9. Mr X told me his mother is registered disabled. She is extremely clinically vulnerable and has been shielding since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr X’s work brings him into contact with other people so he tries to avoid close contact with his mother. He says this is difficult when they share a house. Mr X says he and his partner also have underlying physical and mental health issues. Although they both work, Mr X says they cannot afford to rent privately because they are on low incomes.

Mr X’s homelessness application

The legal duties

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (“the Code”) set out councils’ duties and powers to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. Someone is threatened with homelessness if:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which expires within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]
12. Councils must arrange an initial interview when someone applies for assistance and says they are homeless or threatened with homelessness. If the council has reason to believe they may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, and are eligible for assistance, the council must carry out a housing assessment.  
13. The law and the Code do not give a fixed timescale to complete the initial interview and housing assessment. But a timely assessment will identify practical steps the Council and the applicant can take to try to prevent homelessness.
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they owe them the prevention duty. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps the council and the applicant will take to help the applicant keep or find 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

15. The prevention duty ends in one of the following circumstances:

• The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months;
• At least 56 days have passed since the authority accepted the duty, except where the applicant has been served with a Section 21 notice, in which case the duty continues for as long as they occupy the property subject to the notice;
• The applicant has become homeless;
• The applicant has refused a suitable offer of accommodation that would have been available for at least six months;
• The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation made available by the council;
• The applicant is no longer eligible;
• The applicant has withdrawn the application.
• The applicant has deliberately and unreasonably failed to co-operate.

16. Councils must give the applicant written notice of the end of the prevention duty and state the reasons. It must explain the right to ask for a review.
17. There are different timescales for making review decisions depending on the decision being challenged. The statutory timescale for completing a review of a decision to end the prevention duty is eight weeks. Councils must ask the applicant to agree to an extension if they need more time.

What happened

18. In mid-January 2020 Mr X’s mother gave Mr X and his partner written notice to leave within 28 days. Mr X was threatened with homelessness. He completed the Council’s online form to request assistance. He uploaded his mother’s letter and other documents.
19. On 17 January an officer established that Mr X’s mother would let them stay until 30 March. The officer noted Mr X was eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness. He asked Mr X to send medical information to help the Council decide if he may be in priority need. The officer told Mr X that, regardless of whether he was in priority need, the Council had a duty to give him advice and to prepare a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP). The officer sent Mr X income and expenditure and rent deposit scheme forms to complete.
20. Mr X uploaded more documents on 4 February and telephoned the next day to check on the progress of his application. Two days later, his case was allocated to “Officer A” who works in the homelessness prevention team.
21. In late February Mr X asked for an update because Officer A had not contacted him. But there was no further progress.
22. Mr X and his partner remained in his mother’s home after 30 March. In late May 2020 Mr X complained to the Council about the delay in dealing with his application and Officer A’s failure to contact him.
23. The Council replied in June. It wrongly said his application was incomplete. It seems the officer had looked at an incomplete online application Mr X had made earlier in January. Mr X was not satisfied with this reply and took his complaint to the next stage in the complaints procedure. On 20 July the Council sent its Stage Two response. It repeated the error about his application being incomplete. It partly upheld his complaint about the delay. It said his case would be allocated to another housing options officer within ten days.
24. Officer B took over the case on 20 July. Two days later she completed a telephone interview with Mr X. She asked him to send the following documents:
• a new exclusion letter from his mother and her contact number so Officer A could speak to her;
• proof of his identity;
• proof of Mr X’s partner’s previous address.
25. Two days later Officer B sent Mr X a letter saying the Council had accepted the homelessness relief duty. She attached a PHP. The Council has since confirmed this letter was sent by mistake. In fact it had accepted the prevention duty, not the relief duty, at this stage.
26. The PHP set out three actions Mr X should complete within five days:
• Complete an income and expenditure form;
• Provide proof of his address for the past five years;
• Provide his mother’s contact details.
27. The PHP said the Council would take the following actions within five days:
• Send Mr X details of the Local Housing Allowance rates for the area and advice on finding private rented accommodation.
28. The records the Council sent do not show whether Officer B completed these agreed actions. The next entry in the case notes from 10 August 2020 says:

“ Referral should be made to ELHP [East London Housing Partnership] as now accepting referrals,

Email sent to team leader for review of PHP.”

29. The Council’s records contain no evidence to show the PHP was reviewed or a referral was made to ELHP.
30. Officer B did not contact Mr X between 24 July and 29 September.
31. On 29 September Officer B made the following entry in the case records:

“Applicant has not made contact since the 23/7/2020 and 56 days

have passed therefore assume that he has found somewhere to

stay. Case closed decision sent to applicant.”

32. Before making the decision to end the duty, Officer B did not contact Mr X to ask for an update on his circumstances. The letter says the duty ended because it was more than 56 days since the Council had accepted the duty. Officer B said she was satisfied the Council had completed all the tasks in the PHP and had kept the PHP under review. The letter informed Mr X of his right to request a review within 21 days.

Mr X’s review request

33. On 12 October Mr X requested a review of the decision to end the prevention duty.
34. The Council took just over 13 weeks to make the review decision. The Council did not contact Mr X to ask him to agree to an extension.
35. The Reviews Officer overturned the 29 September decision. In his decision letter he said the Council would reopen his application and reinstate the prevention duty. He apologised for the delay in making the decision.

Mr X’s Housing Register application

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

36. The Council says it aims to make a decision within 28 days of receiving an online Housing Register application.
37. Not everyone who applies to join a council’s Housing Register will be accepted. The law gives councils the right to decide that certain groups of people will not qualify to join their Housing Register. The qualification rules must be included in the council’s published housing allocations scheme.
38. Redbridge Council’s scheme says applicants must be over the age of 16 and meet a residency requirement to qualify. The applicant must also have a housing need which fits one of the criteria for priority bands 1-3 .
39. For the purpose of assessing overcrowding, a couple who are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting need one bedroom. This bedroom standard applies to all couples regardless of their sexual orientation or any plans they have to start a family. The Council’s scheme says a bedroom in a shared house is deemed to be adequate for a couple.
40. Priority band 3 includes applicants who are homeless where the Council has accepted a duty to arrange accommodation under certain sections of the Housing Act 1996. It also includes people owed the homelessness prevention duty if the Council is satisfied they are in priority need and did not become threatened with homelessness intentionally. Other homeless applicants are placed in Band 4.

What happened

41. Mr X applied to join the Council’s Housing Register in mid-January 2020. He uploaded medical information in early February 2020.
42. On 20 July an officer in the Housing Register team asked Mr X for information to help her decide if the current accommodation was overcrowded. Mr X confirmed it was not overcrowded in terms of he and his partner’s current needs. He explained that he and his partner wanted to move so they could apply to foster or adopt children in the future.
43. On the same day the officer informed Mr X he did not qualify to join the Housing Register because he was adequately housed. The letter explained Mr X could ask for a review of the decision within 21 days and included a link to the housing allocations policy.
44. At the time of this decision, the Council had not yet accepted the homelessness prevention duty. So Mr X could not be considered for Band 3.
45. Mr X contacted the officer to request a review of the decision that he did not qualify to join the Housing Register.
46. By the time the Reviews Officer made the decision on 16 October 2020, the Council had notified Mr X that the prevention duty had ended. Mr X’s request for a review of that decision was still pending. So on 16 October Mr X was not owed the prevention duty and did not meet any of the criteria for Band 3 priority.
47. The Reviews Officer upheld the decision that Mr X and his partner did not qualify because they had no housing need as defined by the criteria for priority bands 1-3. He explained that the overcrowding assessment was based on their current need for one bedroom as a couple. A bedroom in a shared house was deemed to be sufficient.
48. The Council accepts there was a long delay in making the decision. It says the Housing Needs service was being restructured at the time. A backlog of applications built up following the introduction of a new housing allocations policy in late 2019 and some staff were redeployed to work on urgent housing issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Analysis

49. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s Housing Register and homelessness applications. There were significant delays and a failure to communicate with Mr X. This caused him uncertainty and frustration. He had to chase the Council for information because officers did not contact him. He had to make a complaint before the Council took action on his homelessness application.

The homelessness application

50. Mr X applied for assistance when he was threatened with homelessness in January 2020. At the time he expected to become homeless on 30 March. The Council took far too long to arrange the initial interview and complete the housing assessment. The initial interview in late July was arranged following Mr X’s Stage Two complaint. That was fault. Fortunately for Mr X and his partner they did not become homeless while they were waiting for the Council to take action.
51. Between January and July 2020 Mr X regularly contacted the Council to chase progress. Nothing happened until his complaint reached the second stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. His case was then reallocated to another housing options officer. Mr X was put to the time and trouble of sending emails, and making a complaint, to prompt the Council to take action. The delay and lack of communication caused him avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
52. Officer B sent Mr X the wrong notification letter in July 2020. The letter said the Council had accepted the homelessness relief duty when, in fact, its intention was to accept the prevention duty. The accompanying email and PHP did refer to the prevention duty. Nevertheless it was fault to send Mr X the wrong notification letter. He did not get a clear explanation of the duty the Council owed him and what would happen next.
53. Officer B did not need to ask Mr X for his mother’s contact number when she took over the case in July. This information was already in the Council’s records. Officer B should have taken the initiative and contacted Mr X’s mother in July to find out if she had given Mr X permission to stay after 30 March. If he did not have her permission, then he had no right to continue occupying her home. Instead of making these inquiries, Officer B put the burden on Mr X by asking him to get another exclusion letter.
54. I have seen no evidence that, before ending the prevention duty, the Council had:
• completed the agreed steps in the PHP;
• reviewed the PHP; and
• made contact with Mr X to find out if he had resolved his housing situation or his circumstances had not changed.
55. The failure to make adequate inquiries and to contact Mr X in the two months between accepting and ending the duty was fault. The case notes show the decision to end the duty was based on the assumption that Mr X had resolved his housing needs. But Officer B had not contacted him or his mother to establish if his circumstances had changed.
56. Mr X challenged the decision to end the duty. It took 13 weeks to make the review decision. That is five weeks longer than the statutory timescale of eight weeks. The Council did not contact Mr X at the eight week point to ask if he would agree to give them more time to complete the review. That was fault. Although the Reviews Officer later apologised to Mr X for this delay, it had an adverse impact on Mr X. It delayed the reopening of his homelessness application and the reinstatement of the prevention duty.

The Housing Register application

57. The Council took too long to consider Mr X’s Housing Register application and make a decision. It set itself a target to deal with applications within 28 days. In this case it took six months. That is fault.
58. The Council said the delay was partly caused by the introduction of a new housing allocations policy in November 2019 and the need to train new and existing staff. Some staff in the Housing Register were also redeployed to deal with urgent homelessness cases during the COVID-19 pandemic.
59. In July 2020 the Council decided Mr X did not qualify to join the Housing Register because he did not meet any of the criteria for priority bands 1-3. That decision was upheld on review. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision that Mr X did not qualify to join the Register. The Council assessed his housing needs and decided he did not meet any of the criteria for priority Bands 1 to 3. It was entitled to make that decision. As Mr X did not qualify to join the Register, the delay in making the decision did not affect his housing prospects. However it did increase his dissatisfaction and frustration with the way the Council had handled both applications.

Agreed action

60. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X for the distress, uncertainty and frustration he experienced because of the faults we have identified;
• Pay £400 to acknowledge the distress caused by its delays and poor communication and his time and trouble in chasing progress and making the complaint;
• Complete the steps it agreed to take in the new PHP, keep the PHP under review and keep Mr X informed. It will send us a copy of the PHP;
• Consider making a referral to ELHP now as it intended to make a referral in August 2020 but there is no evidence that happened;
• Send us an action plan to show how it will reduce the backlog of Housing Register applications and improve processing times.

Back to top

Final decision

61. I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman