Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her requests for help with housing since she became homeless while pregnant and fleeing violence. The Council was at fault for not acting on Miss X requests for help in line with legislation, which led to Miss X being forced to move out of the area and give up her job. The Council’s offer of redress did not go far enough to remedy the injustice caused. It has agreed to provide the enhanced remedy we recommended to Miss X, reviews its procedures and complete a quality review of a sample of its housing cases.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Miss X, complains about the Council’s handling of her requests for help with housing since she became homeless while pregnant and fleeing violence. Miss X says she had to move out of London and lost her job because the Council failed to house her. Miss X feels the Council’s responses to her complaints about its handling, which it upheld, do not properly remedy the difficulties caused. She had felt she had no choice but to accept the property the Council offered, despite this being unsuitable for her and her child’s needs. Miss X is unhappy the Council has prevented her from bidding for a more suitable property and that she and her child remain at risk of eviction as the tenancy on her current property is insecure.

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. 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)
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 have spoken to Miss X and considered the information she has provided in support of her complaint.
6. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

8. 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.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• 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 will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))

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. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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)
12. 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) 
13. 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)
14. 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;

15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
16. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is likely this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them, or against a person who normally lives with them or might be expected to live with them. This could be a single incident or a pattern of behaviour. It includes threats of violence 'which are likely to be carried out'. Councils should not contact the alleged perpetrator to make inquiries as this may provoke further violence or abuse. Nor should victims be asked to return to the property from which they fled to collect documents as this may put them at risk. Councils should not have a blanket policy which requires the police or other agencies to provide corroborative evidence of domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 177(1) and Homelessness Code of Guidance 21.24)
17. The Housing Act 1985 provides a definition of overcrowding based on the number of rooms available and the size of the rooms. These are called the space and room standards. In assessing the size of a property, the Act does not take into account a child under the age of one. It states a child aged one or over but under ten is counted as one-half of a unit.
18. The space standards say ‘a room is available as sleeping accommodation if it is of a type normally used in the locality either as a living room or as a bedroom’.
19. The space standards say a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet is not considered as a room. A room of between 50 square feet and 70 square feet can be allocated to a person equal to half a unit.

What happened

20. Miss X attended Council offices on 18 August 2019 as she had received a notice to vacate her room in a shared property by her landlord. She was five months’ pregnant at this point. Miss X provided most of the documents the Council requested, such as proof of address, employment and pregnancy. She emailed further documents to the Council on 4 September 2019, including her bank statements and a letter from her psychologist about her mental health conditions.
21. Miss X received no response to her requests for updates from the Council on 16 and 24 September 2019. She approached the Council again in November 2019 to advise it she had to report two incidents to the police, following threats of violence by her ex-partner and a separate incident where she was assaulted by her housemate. Miss X was eight months’ pregnant. Miss X moved in with a friend and slept on their sofa to keep herself and her unborn baby safe.
22. Miss X contacted the Council in December 2019 after she had given birth. She asked for help with housing as she was still sofa-surfing at her friend’s house. Miss X contacted the Council again for help in January 2020 when her friend asked her to move out.
23. On 22 January 2020, Miss X approached another council for help. She had a previous local connection to that area, so this council accepted a homelessness application to place Miss X and her baby in temporary accommodation. Miss X emailed the Council to advise it she had had to move out of its area to get help.
24. On 11 May 2020, a Council Housing Officer called Miss X and asked for a copy of her baby’s birth certificate and letter from her psychologist. Miss X emailed these to the Officer the same day. The Officer asked Miss X if the other council had accepted ‘duty’ for Miss X, but she did not know what this meant.
25. An officer from the council that had housed Miss X emailed the Council on 13 May 2020 to ask what steps it had taken to help Miss X. The officer received no response to this email, or their chaser sent on 18 May 2020. Miss X also emailed the Council on 14, 19 and 22 May 2020 to request a response and received no replies.
26. Miss X then made a subject access request for her personal data held by the Council on 22 May 2020. She did not receive the Council’s response until 27 August 2020 despite making several contacts to chase this.
27. On 2 September 2020, Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council. She complained about the Council’s failure to help her since she first approached it in August 2019. She explained that she needed to move back to the Council’s area by October 2020 as she was due to return to her job from maternity leave then. Miss X asked for an urgent response as she was at risk of having to give up her job as she could not easily travel to work from where she was and afford childcare for her baby.
28. Miss X chased the Council for its stage one complaint response on 29 September and 2 October 2020 respectively. The Council responded on 19 November 2020. The Council apologised for the delay in responding and for the way in which it had dealt with Miss X’s initial approaches for help. The Council gave information to Miss X about how her landlord’s notice to vacate in August 2019 was invalid and suggested ways in which she might be able to find accommodation in the Council’s area if she wished to return. The Council offered Miss X a payment of £100 in recognition of the poor service she received.
29. On 18 December 2020, Miss X declined the payment offered by the Council and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. Miss X reiterated her previous concerns and explained she had been unable to return to work as planned and her mental health condition had worsened due to the stress and isolation of her situation. Miss X asked the Council to rehouse her in its area so she could return to work and receive childcare support from her family network in the area. Miss X also brought her complaint to us on this date.
30. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint on 27 January 2021. The Council accepted it had not kept proper records of Miss X’s contact since August 2019 and had failed to accept a homelessness application from her in November 2019, when it was clear she was vulnerable. The Council increased its payment offer to £700 in recognition of the service failures Miss X experienced. The Council also offered to accept a referral from the council where Miss X lived, so it could help her move back to its area. The Council said it would offer Miss X one offer of a private rented property to discharge its Homelessness Relief and Main Housing duty to her.
31. Between February and March 2021, the Council and Miss X corresponded about arranging private rented accommodation for her and her baby. This included reassessment of Miss X’s housing needs as she was no longer working. Miss X says the Council assessed her as needing a two-bedroom property.
32. On 14 April 2021, Miss X was shown a one-bedroom property in a neighbouring borough as the one offer of private rented accommodation. Miss X was told she would not be offered any other properties and had to decide that day if she wanted to accept it. Miss X says she told the Council she would struggle to afford the costs of moving back to London. She told us she felt she had no choice but to accept the offer the Council made. The Council wrote to Miss X to make a formal offer of this property and to provide details of her appeal rights.
33. Miss X and her baby moved into the property on 20 April 2021. She has since told us there are disrepair issues with this property and she is seeking help with this from the council where this property is located.

Analysis

34. The Council’s failure to make appropriate inquiries when Miss X first approached it in August 2019 was fault. While it may have been appropriate to provide advice to Miss X at this stage because she was at risk of homelessness, there is limited evidence the Council provided sufficient information to her about her rights regarding eviction.
35. The Council was at fault for not accepting a homelessness application from Miss X when she returned to it in November 2019. Miss X and her unborn child were at this point vulnerable and at significant risk of further harm. The Council should have provided interim accommodation while it completed its assessment.
36. In response to our enquiries, the Council said Miss X wanted to move out of the area because she was fleeing violence. There is nothing within the Council’s records nor Miss X’s evidence to show this was the case. A Council record shows Miss X indicated she wanted to stay in the Council’s area because her support network for future childcare lives nearby. It is concerning the Council appears to have sought to absolve itself of responsibility on this basis.
37. The Council’s record keeping in the case, by its own admission, has been very poor. It has failed to keep full records of the numerous contacts Miss X made to it seeking help and failed to respond to those contacts. This was fault and caused considerable distress and inconvenience to Miss X.
38. There was delay in responding to Miss X’s stage one complaint. The Council’s complaint procedure says stage one complaints should be responded to in 20 working days. In this case, there was an additional element of urgency as Miss X was imminently due to return to work following maternity leave. The Council took 57 working days to respond to Miss X’s complaint. This was unacceptable and fault causing significant injustice to Miss X, particularly as it meant she could not return to work as planned.
39. Miss X ended up having to give up her job because she had no way of meeting the costs of commuting and childcare while living in another council area. This was as a direct result of the Council’s cumulative failure to provide help to Miss X in good time. This ultimately led to over 17 months’ delay in the Council meeting its homelessness and housing duties by providing Miss X (and her child) with accommodation.
40. While Miss X was assessed as having a need for a two-bed property, the Council do not appear at fault for offering a one-bed property. The Council’s correspondence with Miss X shows it has considered her eligibility and noted she could not afford a two-bed property based on her income. As Miss X’s child was excluded at the time of the Council’s space and room standard calculation, it was appropriate for it to consider a one-bed property as suitable. There appears no fault in the Council’s determination on this issue and as such I cannot question the merits of this.
41. Miss X has complained the property the Council has made her accept does not have a secure tenancy. There appears no fault here. The Council’s records show it has advised Miss X that tenancy periods for private rented offers is usually 12 to 24 months. I have not seen any evidence to suggest the tenancy is insecure but can understand why Miss X is worried about being evicted given what happened to her in August 2019.
42. Miss X told us in May 2021 that she had explained to the Council that she had no money to move back to London. She has also told us that she had to leave behind some of her and child’s belongings when she moved back to London because of this. The Council says it has no record of Miss X asking for help with moving costs. Since our draft decision, Miss X has provided copies of emails contact she had with the Council about this issue. The Council was at fault for not retaining its own records of this contact and for not considering whether Miss X was eligible to apply for a discretionary housing payment to help with her moving costs.
43. Miss X says she is not allowed to bid for properties on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme. The Council has explained Miss X would not be eligible to bid for properties under its housing allocation policy as she must have resided in the Council’s area continuously for five years.
44. In response to our draft decision, the Council has further explained Miss X had not lived in its area for long enough to qualify under its residency criteria, even if she had not moved out of the area in January 2020. While there was no fault in the way the Council applied its residency criteria in Miss X’s case, the Council needs to ensure it takes account of individual circumstances and does not fetter its discretion to deviate from its usual policy in exceptional cases.
45. The Council’s offers redress to Miss X do not go far enough to remedy the significant injustice she has experienced because of its faults. My recommendations below seek to address this.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. For the faults identified in paragraphs 34 to 42 above, within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Miss X; and
• make a payment of £5,200 to Miss X.

47. Within three months of my final decision, the Council agrees to:

• remind relevant staff of the low threshold for accepting homelessness applications;
• complete a quality review of a sample of cases for all officers dealing with homelessness cases to check information is being fully and accurately recorded; and,
• review its internal procedure to imbed a practice of regular quality monitoring of housing cases to ensure compliance with relevant legislation, statutory guidance and to maintain accurate records.

48. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence to show it has completed the agreed actions above.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s proposed remedy was not appropriate. Following my investigation, the Council has agreed to take further action to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman