Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his requests for help with his threatened homelessness. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s initial requests for help, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making a payment to reflect the distress and inconvenience the fault caused Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I am calling Mr X, complained about the Council’s response to his requests for help with his threatened homelessness. He told us the Council failed to:

• take any action to help him, when he first approached it in November 2019 about the notice of eviction from his landlord. The officer did not contact his landlord to try and prevent his eviction as she said she would.
• reply when he contacted it again in February 2020.
• make proper enquiries about his situation and his priority need for accommodation. It has not considered the effect of the eviction and homelessness on his mental health.

2. Mr X says the Council’s failures have caused him unnecessary stress and turmoil. And the Council will not provide him with accommodation following his eviction because it has decided he is not in priority need.

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. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 spoke to Mr X, made enquiries of the Council, and read the information Mr X and the Council have provided about the complaint.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance.
8. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered their responses before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and government guidance

9. 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.
10. If someone is threatened with homelessness, the council has a duty to help the applicant keep their accommodation. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996 section 195)
11. A council must complete an assessment if it is satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. It should work with the applicant to identify practical and reasonable steps the council and the applicant can take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. The council must notify the applicant of the assessment and give them a written personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A)
12. If a council agrees an applicant is homeless, it must help them secure accommodation available for at least six months. This is the relief duty (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. The relief duty ends 56 days after the council accepted the duty, even if the applicant has not found accommodation.
14. If the council does not prevent or relieve homelessness, and the applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, the council must ensure accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996 section 193).
15. Where the council has the information required to decide whether it owes the main housing duty, it should be able to notify the applicant of its decision on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended councils aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed (Homelessness Code of Guidance 14.16)
16. The council must give the applicant a written decision when it decides if it owes the prevention, relief and main housing duties and when these duties end. The letter must tell the applicant of the right to ask for a review of the decision.

What happened

November 2019

17. In November 2019 Mr X approached the Council for help. He told it his social housing landlord had given him a S21 notice requiring him to leave his accommodation in January 2020. He would then have nowhere to live.
18. An Early Intervention Officer with the Council’s housing team contacted Mr X on 15 November and arranged an appointment with him. On 20 November the officer told Mr X she would contact his landlord about the eviction notice. Over the next few days Mr X contacted the officer to see if there had been any response.
19. The officer spoke to the landlord on 26 November. It told her a starter tenancy review panel hearing had been held and the S21 notice had been served because of Mr X’s anti-social behaviour.
20. There is no record of any further action by the officer after November 2019.

February 2020 – March 2020

21. Mr X contacted the Council again in February 2020. He said he had not left his accommodation and his landlord was now taking possession proceedings.
22. The housing team was asked to contact Mr X. It says it tried to call Mr X but his phone number was no longer in use. As it was unable to contact him his case was closed on 6 March 2020.

Period from November 2020

23. Mr X complained to the Council on 23 November 2020. He said nobody had contacted him following his homelessness enquiries in November 2019 and February 2020. He wanted an apology, compensation and help being rehoused. He suffered from anxiety and depression and was struggling with the situation.
24. An officer responded immediately to Mr X’s complaint. They apologised and said his case would now be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
25. An Early Intervention Officer completed an assessment with Mr X on 26 November. The Council accepted it owed Mr X the prevention duty. It sent him a copy of his PHP.
26. The officer contacted Mr X’s landlord and offered to mediate to try to find a resolution so the S21 notice could be rescinded. The landlord refused the offer.
27. Mr X was offered help to find private rented accommodation. An officer reviewed the PHP with Mr X on 16 December. She told him about her contact with his landlord. She also advised she did not consider he had a priority need.
28. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s actions and asked for a stage two complaint response. He also added the officer he had spoken to in November 2019 had not checked whether the S21 notice was valid. He had since found out it was not.
29. Mr X contacted us about his complaint on 17 December 2020.
30. The Council sent Mr X its stage two response on 30 December. It told him:

• The prevention duty would end on 4 January and, unless he had been able to secure alternative accommodation, he would be owed the relief duty.
• It would continue to assist him with finding alternative accommodation until the relief duty ended.
• It would keep in regular contact with him so he knew what was happening.

31. In January Mr X’s landlord told the Council it would not apply for an eviction order until after 21 February 2021. It also confirmed it would not revoke the eviction because it considered Mr X had caused too much disruption.
32. The Council told Mr X the eviction had been postponed. It said it wanted to catch up with him about his application and the Housing Options team would contact him. A Housing Options officer called Mr X on 5 February to discuss help with looking for alternative accommodation.
33. Mr X had asked the Council to look again at its view he was not in priority need. He told the Council he had mental health issues. On 5 February he asked the officer to contact a victim support team with whom he had been working. The Council took the following action:

• The officer sent Mr X an email confirming their discussion of 5 February.
• Contact was made with an officer from the victim support scheme. They said they had limited information. The incident involving Mr X concerned verbal abuse. They had no knowledge of any physical assaults on Mr X.
• An officer tried, unsuccessfully, to review the PHP with Mr X by phone. She advised him by email they had received limited information from the victim support scheme. She asked whether Mr X agreed she could ask the police or his GP for more information. Mr X confirmed she could contact the police.
• Contact was made with the police. They said Mr X’s threat risk was assessed as low and not at risk of physical harm.
• An officer tried, unsuccessfully, to review the PHP with Mr X by phone on 19 February, followed by an email. Mr X asked, on 26 February, for the PHP review to be conducted by email. The officer replied setting out the information provided by the victim support scheme.

34. The Council says Mr X did not contact it after 8 March. On 12 April the officer told Mr X by email:

• She had been trying to discuss his PHP with him but had no response.
• The 56 day relief duty was coming to an end and a decision would be made on his application. It was likely the decision would be he is a non-priority case which meant the Council would not provide him with alternative accommodation after his eviction.
• It was important to discuss next step as soon as possible. She could make a decision or extend the relief duty and they could work together to find a solution. She asked what he wanted to do.
• He had told her he had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. She asked again for permission to contact his GP

35. On 13 May the Council wrote to Mr X confirming the end of the relief duty, and its decision he was not a priority case, setting out the information considered before making this decision. Both letters confirmed Mr X’s right to request a review of these decisions.
36. The landlord obtained a date for Mr X’s eviction in July. Mr X contacted the Council on 5 July just before the eviction date. The Council asked him for proof of priority need so it could take another application from him. The Council says nothing further has been provided. Mr X was evicted on 8 July 2021. I understand he is currently staying with a family member.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

November 2019 to November 2020

37. The information provided by the landlord confirms the officer contacted it in November 2019, in response to Mr X’s requests for help. The landlord made it clear it would not withdraw the S21 notice and would proceed to seek possession of Mr X’s accommodation.
38. But the officer did not follow this up with Mr X or take any further action to help him, even though the threat of homelessness had been confirmed. I consider the Council failed to carry out its duties to Mr X under the Housing Act and Code of Guidance and to work with him to prevent and relieve his homelessness.
39. The Council then missed a further opportunity to help Mr X when he contacted it again in February 2020. Even if it had not been able to speak to Mr X by phone, the Council should, in my view, have contacted him by email or post.
40. I consider the failure to respond to Mr X’s requests for help with his threatened homelessness in November 2019 and February 2020 was fault by the Council. There was a stay on evictions during this period because of Covid 19. But in my view, this fault caused Mr X to miss out on the help and support the Council should have provided for a year, until he contacted it again in November 2020, adding to his uncertainty and distress about his threatened homelessness.
41. I note the Council apologised for its failures in the response to Mr X’s complaint.

Period from November 2020

42. Based on the information seen so far, I do not consider there was fault by the Council in the way it responded to his request for help in November 2020. In my view, it carried out its duties as required under the Housing Act and Guidance and offered to work with Mr X to help him find alternative accommodation.
43. I appreciate Mr X is unhappy the Council decided he did not have a priority need. But we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong if the Council followed the correct process. Here, it made enquires to establish whether Mr X had any priority need, explained its reasons for deciding he did not, and told him about his right to request a review of the decision. I do not consider there was fault by the Council in the way it made its decision Mr X was not in priority need.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. To remedy the injustice caused by the above fault, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mr X £250 to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience its failure to respond in November 2019 and February 2020 caused him.
• This figure is a symbolic amount based on the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have found fault by the Council causing injustice. I have completed my investigation on the basis the Council will take the above action as a suitable way to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman