Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application and her complaint about that. There were faults in the way the Council considered Ms X’s application. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £300 for the uncertainty caused by the fault. The Council also agreed to remind its staff of the correct test to apply when considering its duty to provide interim accommodation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. Ms X said the Council did not offer her interim accommodation she was entitled to and advised her to go to another council. Ms X also complained about the way the Council handled her complaint. Ms X stated this caused her to lose her belongings and caused her distress and time and trouble.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 read Ms X’s complaint and discussed it with her on the telephone.
6. I considered the documents the Council provided.
7. Ms 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

Relevant law 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. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department.
10. The code of guidance states it is not reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable this will lead to domestic violence. Domestic violence includes controlling behaviour and threats of violence that are likely to be carried out. Councils should not approach the alleged perpetrator in making their enquiries due to the risk this may lead to further violence and abuse.
11. 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. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability, old age.

In December 2020 a person fleeing domestic abuse was not automatically in priority need. They needed to show they were more vulnerable than others who became homeless due to their physical or mental health or for some other reason.

12. 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.

Complaint policy

13. The Council’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days, which may be extended to 20 in complex cases. It also states that if it decides there are no grounds to investigate at stage 2 it will explain that decision.

What happened

14. Ms X approached the Council on a Wednesday in December 2020 and completed a homelessness referral. In the referral she stated she had been made homeless the previous day, and she needed help finding accommodation and with her finances. She stated she may be pregnant and had stayed the previous night in a hostel.
15. The following day a Council Officer, telephoned Ms X. Its record shows Ms X reported:
• her parents had excluded her from the family home;
• she was a victim of domestic abuse;
• she had symptoms of pregnancy but could not get a fully conclusive test for up to 2 weeks because of a medical condition;
• she was unsure how she would fund the next night at the hostel as she had no money or access to money.

The Council Officer booked a telephone interview for the following day.

16. Officer 1 interviewed Ms X by telephone on the Friday. Officer 1 noted that Ms X had “been through some culture issues and controlling issues” and that a family member was violent. They also noted Ms X had previously been in hospital after a suicide attempt and had a social worker when she was younger to support her wellbeing.
17. The record shows Officer 1 discussed the case with Officer 2. Officer 2 recorded the family member reported as violent was possibly not living in the family home and therefore there was no reason the Council could not contact the parents to see what they said. They also recorded there was no reason to believe Ms X was pregnant as there was no positive test but a further test could be considered.
18. Ms X states she asked the Council Officer not to contact her family members as she did not want them to know where she was. Ms X states the Officer told her the call was necessary to progress her homelessness application. Ms X asked the Officer to contact family member B rather than family member A. The Council stated Ms X did not raise an objection about it contacting her family members however there are no records of this discussion or of Ms X consenting to the Council contact.
19. Officer 1 contacted family member A and established Ms X could not return to her parent’s house. They told Ms X:
• she would need to continue to fund her own housing arrangements over the weekend;
• the Council would continue to explore a refuge and consider if it owed her the homelessness duty; and
• they would send Ms X some information on foodbanks.
20. On Monday Officer 1 sent Ms X an email asking her to contact refuges and advised her to tell them she suffered abuse from her family, a family member was very aggressive and that she had nowhere to go. Ms X contacted the refuges and informed Officer 1 the refuges were uncontactable and she had no money for food.
21. Ms X states Officer 1 telephoned her that evening and told her the Council would not be able to offer assistance and advised her to approach another council. Ms X states she was not given this decision in writing. The Council’s records of the call states Ms X advised Officer 1 she had applied to Council B as she would be at less risk of seeing her family there. It records Officer 1 asked her to send them confirmation she wanted to withdraw her homelessness application.
22. Ms X sent Officer 1 an email which stated, “After our conversation on the phone, I am writing to you as advised to withdraw my application with yourselves regarding my homelessness. It has been determined that [the] Council has failed in finding me an accommodation”. Ms X complained to the Council on the same day.
23. Two days later Officer 1 contacted Ms X by telephone and confirmed that they did not believe she was in priority need and that she could continue to look for a refuge. They also emailed Council B to confirm Ms X had withdrawn her homelessness application to the Council.
24. In the complaint made by Ms X discussed in paragraph 22, she said the Council;
• failed to recognise that she was in priority need;
• did not provide her with food stamps as it said it would and she was not able to eat as a result;
• told her that it could not help and to contact another council;
• left Ms X without housing for six days; and
• Officer 1 was not professional in the way they dealt with Ms X and used their private telephone to contact her;
25. The Council responded 11 weeks later and partially upheld Ms X’s complaint. In its response it:
• recognised Officer 1 should have explained why they were using their personal telephone and provided alternative contact details, for which it apologised;
• recognised it failed to provide Ms X with details of the foodbank, for which it also apologised;
• said there was insufficient evidence for the Council to believe she was in priority need at the time she applied to it;
• said Ms X withdrew her application as she preferred to apply to council B to avoid the risk of being seen by family members.
26. Ms X complained again to the Council. She stated she had never expressed a preference for Council B and, if it had been her preference, she would have applied to Council B initially. Ms X stated Officer 1 had been unprofessional in their telephone calls, suggesting it was her own fault she was homeless and asking why she had returned to the area. Ms X further stated the telephone number she was given to appeal the decision was incorrect and she had received no response to complaint emails she had sent to 5 council officers.
27. The Council responded three days later and rejected Ms X’s request to review the decision. It stated it was unlikely to come to a different decision to the one previously reached.
28. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response Ms X complained to us. She raised the points she had already complained to the Council about. She stated as a result of the Council’s failings she lost her belongings because her parents destroyed them after the Council’s call, and she was now living in an area where she was at risk of domestic abuse from her ex-husband.

My findings

29. The Council has already accepted Officer 1 should have provided information and contact details around calls and did not provide foodbank details. It has offered an apology. The fault caused Ms X injustice as she could not access the foodbank over the weekend and had no money for food.
30. The Council accepted Ms X was homeless. Its records show it was aware she may be pregnant, that she had previously attempted suicide, and that she was subject to domestic abuse. It was also aware she had recently returned from abroad. It is not clear from its records why it did not consider this meant she “may” be in priority need. Its complaint response says it decided there was insufficient evidence to show she “was” in priority need, which was the wrong test. If a person “may” be in priority need, the Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation. If, after making enquiries, it later decides the person was not in priority need, that duty ends. The failure to properly record the test applied and its reasons for deciding it did not owe a duty to provide interim accommodation was fault. I cannot say, if it had properly considered the question, it would have decided to provide interim accommodation but Ms X suffered uncertainty about whether it would have done so.
31. I am also concerned the Council did not provide information about refuges before the weekend, given it had decided not to provide accommodation. This was further fault. However, I cannot say whether Ms X would have been able to contact the refuges, given that they were uncontactable on the Monday or that they would have had space for her.
32. When Ms X approached the Council she informed it she was the victim of domestic abuse and her parents would not allow her to return to the family home. The Council’s records indicate it understood the perpetrator was another family member, possibly not living in the family home. It should have clarified this. Instead it contacted her parents to check her account of what happened. That put her at risk of further abuse and was fault. This caused Ms X distress. However, I cannot say this caused her to lose her belongings as this could have happened anyway given the breakdown in her relationship with her parents.
33. Ms X states she was advised by Officer 1 they could not help her, she should withdraw her application and apply to Council B. The Council record states that Ms X informed it she would withdraw her application as she would feel safer in Council B’s area. However, I am persuaded by Ms X’s argument that if she was not safe, she would have applied to Council B at the outset. On the balance of probabilities, I find it is more likely than not Officer 1 advised Ms X to withdraw her application. Although it is not fault to suggest to applicants they may wish to apply in another area if they are not safe where they are, the decision about where to pursue a homelessness application is for the applicant to make, not the Council. There is no record the Council gave advice and information to help Ms X make an informed choice about what to do. The poor advice amounts to fault and adds to the uncertainty about whether there may have been a different outcome if this issue had been properly considered.
34. After accepting a homelessness application, councils should make enquiries to decide whether a housing duty is owed. They should write to the applicant with their decision and explain their reasons. They should also provide information about review rights. In this case, the Council was only considering the case for a few days before Ms X withdrew her application so it did not get as far as issuing a decision letter.
35. The Council took 11 weeks to respond to Ms X’s complaint at stage 1. The complaint was not complex. This was nine weeks more than the Council’s policy states, which was fault and caused Ms X frustration.
36. Ms X also complained Officer 1 was unprofessional in the way they spoke to her on the telephone. In the absence of any other record of the unprofessional comments, I cannot establish whether Officer 1 did act unprofessionally and there is nothing more I can achieve by pursuing this further.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. The Council agreed to, within one month of this final decision, apologise to Ms X for:
• not giving her information about refuges when it first discussed them with her;
• not properly recording the test applied and its reasons for deciding it did not have a duty to offer interim accommodation;
• contacting the perpetrators of domestic abuse, putting her at risk of further abuse;
• poor advice about whether she should pursue an application elsewhere; and
• poor complaints handling.

It will pay her £300 for the injustice caused.

38. The Council agreed to, within one month of this decision, remind relevant staff of the correct test to apply when considering whether it has a duty to offer interim accommodation, and the importance of keeping a clear record of the reasons for its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I have found faults causing injustice and the Council have agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman