Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Mr L’s complaint about the Council’s actions when he became homeless. It failed to: consider him homeless during his initial visit; provide evidence and details of temporary accommodation offered and how it assessed suitability for a vulnerable person; show it explored with him his limits on sharing accommodation. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused. There was no fault in its decision about his lack of local connection preventing him joining the housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr L says the Council failed to:
1. help him when he became homeless; and
2. offer him suitable temporary accommodation and refused to allow him on its housing register.
2. As a result, because of the Council’s actions he had to sleep in his car and a garage, which caused significant stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
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)

Back to top

Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (February 2018)

5. The Council has a duty to make enquiries to satisfy itself an applicant is eligible for assistance and if so, what duties may be owed, where it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. (paragraph 6.2)
6. Affordability must be considered in all cases. The Council is required to consider the affordability of the accommodation for the applicant. When considering whether it would be, or would have been, reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, and whether the accommodation is suitable, the Council must take account of whether it is affordable to them. It must take account of the financial resources available to them, the costs of the accommodation, and their reasonable living expenses. (paragraph 6.28)
7. After the assessment, it must work with the applicant to develop a personalised housing plan (PHP). This sets out what reasonable steps it and the applicant will take to try and prevent or relieve homelessness. (paragraph 12)
8. It also has a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person, regardless of priority need, status, intentionality, and local connection, who is threatened with homeless from becoming homeless. This includes helping them stay in their current accommodation or helping them find a new place to live before they become homeless. The accommodation should be suitable. This prevention duty continues for 56 days unless brought to an end. (paragraph 13)
9. There is no right to ask for a review of the suitability of interim accommodation provided by a council under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996.
10. The Council will owe the main housing duty to an eligible applicant, who has a priority need, and is not homeless intentionally. Certain categories of applicants have priority need if homeless including those assessed as vulnerable because of mental ill health, for example. (paragraph 15)
11. If the Council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need, it must secure accommodation is available for them. (paragraph 8.3)
12. It must provide the applicant with a copy of the PHP. (paragraph 11.24)
13. It is also required to help those who are homeless secure accommodation and must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation with a reasonable prospect it remains available for their occupation for at least 6 months. This is the relief duty. (paragraph 13)
14. There are 7 circumstances under which the prevention and relief duties end. This includes where an applicant refused an offer of suitable accommodation where there was a reasonable prospect that suitable accommodation would be available for at least 6 months, or the applicant has withdrawn their application. An application is considered withdrawn when an applicant stops contact with the Council rather than formally withdrawing it. It should have procedures in place to try and maintain or regain contact with such applicants taking in to account their circumstances and needs. (paragraph 14)

Back to top

Council Housing Allocation Policy (2017)

15. Applicants with no local connection are placed in Band E, unless the Council has accepted a homelessness duty to them. (paragraph 8.5)
16. Local connection is assessed by considering whether the applicant has lived within the district continuously for 2 years immediately before the date of application.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

17. I considered all the information Mr L sent about his complaint, the notes a colleague made of their telephone conversation with him, and the Council’s response to our enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr L and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

18. Mr L, his wife, and their son lived in his father-in-law’s property from July 2018 to June 2019 when he was asked to leave. He left because of his aggressive behaviour. He also lost his job, slept in his car, then briefly lived in a caravan but could not afford the rent. His father-in-law agreed to let him stay in his garage. He uses the facilities in the house when his father-in-law is out.
19. Mrs L is his full-time carer, as he suffers from mental health problems, which he says means he cannot share accommodation. He needs to be near Mrs L for help. Recently, his father-in-law asked Mrs L and their son to leave. She applied to the Council as homeless and asked to include Mr L on it. The Council explained it sent her a housing options assessment form to complete after she contacted it. Officers interviewed her and then sent a 7-day letter asking for further information to which she did not respond. The Council closed her application.
20. Mr L is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with him when he became homeless and with its decision on his application to join the housing register.

Complaint a): homeless application

21. The following are key dates:

2019

• November: The Council confirmed Mr L contacted it for housing help and said he would become homeless in February 2020. Mr L was living in a caravan at a holiday park. The Council interviewed him. On the housing options interview form, Mr L declared he had an income of £320 a month, and outgoings of more than £2,000 a month. Of this, £500 a month was for the holiday park rental fee, and another £500 a month was loan repayments. The Council decided he may possibly be homeless in February 2020 because of his failure to pay the site’s pitch fees and because the site closes for 2 weeks. It decided he was not currently homeless;

In response to my draft decision, the Council explained Mr L’s housing circumstances at this point did not meet the threshold under section 183 of the Housing Act 1996. It accepted while the threshold to trigger this section is low, the information Mr L gave during his interview was of him staying in a caravan he owned until February 2020. The Council decided he was not threatened with homelessness within 56 days. As a result, it did not need to make enquiries or issue a PHP. Instead, the Council said it maintained contact with him to try and help him find suitable alternative accommodation;

2020

• January: When Mrs L confirmed her husband would leave his caravan the following month, as he could not afford the site rent, the Council triggered the section 183 duty. It started to carry out its assessment and sought advice from its independent medical advisor about his vulnerability. Mrs L told the Council he had lived at his father in law’s address from July 2018 to June 2019 when he had to move. Before that, he lived in London. At the end of the month, the independent medical advisor reported Mr L was significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person if homeless and recommended rehousing him on medical grounds;
• February: Mr L told the Council he was now sleeping in his car and later, that he had returned to his father-in-law’s house;

Council managers discussed the medical assessor’s report. They had concerns about Mr L’s mental health and whether temporary accommodation with shared facilities was appropriate. The following week it accepted a housing relief duty to him after completing its enquiries;

The Council sent a letter to Mrs L explaining it had a duty to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation for at least 6 months;

The Council issued a section 184 notice, accepting it owed a relief duty to him, a copy of which I have seen. It said it had to take reasonable steps to help him secure suitable accommodation. It issued a PHP to Mr L. I have seen a copy of this PHP, which asked him various questions he needed to complete by early the following month;

The Council said Mr L found a private property to rent and an officer offered financial help with a ‘rent in advance of deposit’ and negotiated with the landlord. No evidence of this was sent. The Council also noted the independent medical advisor did not recommend any restrictions about his future housing need/suitability of accommodation;

The case record for 13 February states the officer explained temporary accommodation was limited and, ‘there are only shared rooms currently available’.

Records of contact with Mrs L show it offered Mr L temporary accommodation outside of its area but, she said she could not care for him if he accepted it. She also said he could not cope with sharing. When Mr L visited its offices, he again said he could not share and was told the Council only had shared rooms available and a bed in a shared hall. Mr L refused them. No evidence showing the accommodation details of any offers made to him was provided;

• March: The caravan park ended Mr L’s pitch rental and Mrs L told the Council he was now sleeping in the car again. The Council says it emailed Mrs L asking for bank statements from May the previous year. The Council decided he was not eligible to join its housing register because he had no local connection;

The notes of contact with Mrs L state the Council offered Mr L privately rented accommodation in Dover, about 18 miles away. No evidence of the offer was provided. The notes also state the Council offered him 2 properties in Folkestone, which Mr L did not like but again, it failed to provide any evidence of these offers. They also referred to a room with shared facilities and Mr L not wanting to move to accommodation with shared facilities.

• April: The Council reminded Mrs L about the need for copy bank statements;
• May: The Council wrote to Mr L saying the homeless relief duty had come to an end because he had withdrawn his application. This was because he failed to answer requests for bank statements for all accounts held. The Council decided it had lost contact with him and he had withdrawn his application. The letter set out his right to ask for a review of the decision. It closed his homeless application.

22. Mr L says he told the Council he would be happy with a hotel room but, it refused to offer him one.
23. The Council says it has limited temporary accommodation available and at times must place applicants in shared facilities or out of its district. It is not always possible to keep applicants close to their support networks. The Council could not provide details of the temporary accommodation offered.
24. In response to my draft decision, the Council explained it advised Mr L an offer of emergency accommodation was subject to availability on the day and could include bed and breakfast which have shared facilities, for example. A request for a hotel would be the same as bed and breakfast which can be in a small or large hotel or a guest house. It never offered him this type of accommodation as Mr L did not want it.
25. Mr L says he provided the Council with medical evidence, including a letter saying he could not work in public areas because of his health problems. I have not seen this evidence. Nor could he move in to the private rented sector because he would get anxious about eviction.

Analysis

26. I make the following findings on this complaint:
1. I consider the Council should have taken a homeless application from Mr L when he approached it in November 2019. This is because it had information about his current accommodation being unaffordable. The government’s guidance (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (February 2018)) states if it had reason to believe a person applying for accommodation, or help getting it, may be homeless or threatened with it, it must make enquiries to satisfy itself whether the applicant is eligible for help and if so, what duties might be owed.
2. There are several different factors to consider when deciding whether a person is homeless. A person is treated as homeless if they have accommodation but, it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy it. This involves looking at its affordability, which must be considered in all cases. When deciding whether it was reasonable for Mr L to remain there, it should have considered his financial resources, the cost of the accommodation, and his reasonable living expenses, for example.
3. There is no evidence the Council considered his low income and his high outgoings which exceeded it. This is fault. I consider it had enough information at this interview to believe he was homeless. The Council then had to ensure accommodation was available to him if it had reason to believe he may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and had a priority need. Mr L had mental health problems so had a priority need. The Council could have met this duty by way of offering him interim accommodation.
4. This failure meant it delayed issuing a PHP by about 2 months.
5. The notes of conversations between officers and Mrs L show there was discussion about offers, yet the Council could not provide details of any offers made to him. I consider the failure to provide details of any of the properties offered, and how it considered their suitability for him, amounts to fault.
6. Had the Council considered he may be homeless in November 2019, I am satisfied it would have had to make him an offer of temporary accommodation.
7. Nor have I seen evidence of the Council exploring what Mr L’s limits were with shared accommodation. The notes refer to officers telling him it only had accommodation with shared rooms or a bed in a hall. There is nothing to show whether he had concerns about sharing a bathroom or, a dining room in a bed and breakfast or hotel, for example. Indeed, the Council’s claim Mr L refused to go in to any form of temporary accommodation contradicts what he said about wanting a hotel room, which would also have some degree of shared facilities (for example, a dining room).
8. I am satisfied the identified fault caused Mr L injustice. It caused him distress in the form of uncertainty and lost opportunity. This includes: whether the Council would have provided him with temporary accommodation had it considered him homeless when he visited in November 2019; its decision to end the relief duty on the ground of him withdrawing the application through lost contact. Had he been offered suitable accommodation or hotel accommodation this might not have occurred as arguably it would have known his whereabouts if he was in temporary accommodation.
9. While the Council, in its response to my draft decision, said it closed the case because of his failure to respond to requests to bank statements, not because of lost contact, I am not convinced this is correct. Its letter to Mr L in May 2020 refers to having ‘lost contact with you’. The chronology the Council sent to us in response to our enquiries, also refers to working with the police to find Mr L to re-establish contact.
10. I am also satisfied the fault caused a lost opportunity due to the failure to send him the PHP earlier as this may have provided some benefit to him. In addition, the fault caused him stress and frustration.

Complaint b): housing register

27. The Council placed Mr L in Band E under its housing allocation policy because he failed to show a local connection to the area. He told the Council his local connection was his wife and son who lived at her father’s property. Despite this, and sending evidence of his P45, P60, and correspondence received at his father-in-law’s house, the Council insists he does not have 2 years’ residence in the district to qualify for the housing register. Mr L complains the Council failed to tell him what he needed to show as proof.
28. The Council wrote to Mr L and said he failed to meet the local connection criteria. He had to show he lived in the district for at least 2 years or have immediate family (parents, siblings, or adult children) who have done so for the last 5 years.
29. In response to his formal complaint, the Council said he needed to provide evidence of benefits registered to an address in its district for 2 years or more. The Council explained all the evidence he sent did not show he lived in the district for the time required.
30. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it could not find any evidence of the P45 and P60 Mr L said he sent.

Analysis

31. I found no fault on this complaint and in reaching this view, took the following in to account:
1. Mr L only lived in his father-in-law’s house since July 2018. Before that he lived in London. This means the earliest he could possibly provide evidence to satisfy the local connection criteria was July 2020. He made his application several months before this date.
2. There is no evidence of Mr L providing the Council with copies of his P45, P60, or the correspondence he says he received while at his father-in-law’s house to support his claim of a local connection.
3. The Housing Options Form he completed and signed in November 2019 when he presented as homeless set out what the Council needed to see. While this was for his homeless application, evidence it requested could have also helped him later prove a local connection. What it wanted to see included copies of: recent play slips; 2 months bank statements; benefit letters, for example.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. I considered our guidance on remedies.
33. The Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send him a written apology for failing to: consider him as homeless in November 2019; failing to send him the PHP earlier than it did; provide details of the temporary accommodation offered; show how it considered the suitability of this accommodation taking account of his vulnerabilities; show it explored with him the limits he had about sharing accommodation such as a hotel room.
2. Pay Mr L £200 for the distress caused.
3. To contact Mr L, look again at his accommodation needs, and consider whether he needs to make another homeless application.
4. Take steps to ensure the reasons for failing to:

• consider him homeless in November 2019;
• send the PHP earlier than it did;
• keep proper records of the details of the temporary accommodation offered, and how it assessed its suitability for Mr L;
• explore his limits on accommodation with him;

are identified and acted on so they are not repeated in future.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I found fault on Mr L’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman