Summary: the Council delayed considering Mr B’s homeless application, failed to follow the homelessness code of guidance and failed to respond to Mr B’s contact. There is no fault in the allocation of interim accommodation to Mr B but fault by the Council meant he could not challenge the suitability of that accommodation. An apology, changes to procedures and payment to Mr B is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application. Mr B complained the Council:
• delayed considering his homeless application;
• failed to respond to his contacts between February and August 2020; and
• failed to consider his representations about the suitability of the accommodation he was living in.
2. Mr B says fault by the Council caused his family significant distress and led to him going to time and trouble to pursue both his homeless application and his complaint.

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. 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr B 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

What should have happened

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the code) set out councils' powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• 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)).
9. The code says if there is reason to believe a person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case and whether they are eligible for assistance.
10. Section 195 of the Act creates the 'prevention duty.' This places a duty on housing authorities to work with people who are threatened with homelessness within 56 days to help prevent them from becoming homelessness.
11. The section 195 duty applies when the housing authority is satisfied the applicant is both threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance. The housing authority is obliged to take reasonable steps to help the applicant either remain in their existing accommodation or secure alternative accommodation.
12. The code says the reasonable steps taken by both the authority and the applicant to help prevent homelessness should be those set out in the personalised housing plan.
13. Section 189B of the Act creates the 'relief duty.' This requires housing authorities to help people who are homeless to secure accommodation. The duty applies when the housing authority is satisfied the applicant is both homeless and eligible for assistance. The housing authority is obliged to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure suitable accommodation with a reasonable prospect that it will be available for their occupation for at least six months.
14. Where the housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible and have a priority need they must provide interim accommodation under section 188(1) of the Act whilst fulfilling the relief duty.
15. The code says housing authorities may conduct and complete their inquiries into the duties that will be owed to an applicant under section 193(2) of the Act, (the main housing duty) during the period in which they are attempting to relieve homelessness under the section 189B duty. However, this activity must not detract from the housing authority’s work to relieve the applicant’s homelessness.
16. The code says housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless intentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.
17. Accommodation provided under Part 7 of the 1996 Act must be suitable for the applicant and their household. The code says housing authorities may take into account the interim nature of a placement when assessing whether or not it is suitable; as accommodation may be suitable for a few days or weeks that would not be suitable for a longer term placement. The applicant does not have the right to ask for a statutory review of the housing authority’s decision as to the suitability of interim accommodation.
18. The Council has a placement procedure for temporary accommodation and private rented accommodation (the procedure). This says as far as reasonably practicable the Council seeks to accommodate homeless households in Hackney and always considers the suitability of the accommodation, taking into account the circumstances of the individual household.
19. The procedure goes on to say due to an acute shortage of affordable housing within Hackney and close to it and rising rental costs an increasing number of households are likely to be placed outside the borough as it will not be reasonably practicable to provide accommodation within Hackney.
20. For interim accommodation the procedure says due to the shortage of suitable accommodation in Hackney homeless applicants who are housed under the Council’s interim duty to accommodate under section 188 of the Act will initially be placed in emergency accommodation, including bed-and-breakfast and short-term self-contained accommodation, while enquiries are carried out. It says this accommodation may be outside the borough.
21. The procedure states where the Council decides it has a duty to house the applicant under section 193(2) of the Act they may be moved to alternative longer term temporary accommodation. That accommodation may be outside the borough. It says where the Council has accepted a main housing duty under section 193 of the Act there is a right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
22. The procedure says priority placement within commuting distance of Hackney will be given to various applicants, including those who have been continuously employed for a period of at least six months and for 24 hours or more per week. In those cases the applicant will not be placed more than 90 minutes travelling distance by public transport from their place of employment.
23. The procedure says the Council will always try to source accommodation as close to the borough as practically possible.

What happened

24. Mr B was notified by his housing provider in February 2020 that he would be evicted from his home on 28 February 2020. Mr B made a homeless application and by 13 February the Council had identified Mr B had a local connection and was eligible for assistance. The Council therefore moved into the prevention duty phase and drew up a personalised housing plan. Mr B reported needing to live close to his current accommodation for work.
25. The Council provided Mr B with interim accommodation outside of Hackney at the end of February 2020. Shortly after that Mr B’s caseworker went on long-term sick leave.
26. Mr B contacted the Council repeatedly between March and June 2020. As part of his representations to the Council Mr B raised concerns about the suitability of his accommodation as it was outside Hackney. In June the Council explained if it provided alternative accommodation it would likely be shared accommodation rather than the self-contained accommodation he was occupying at that point.
27. Mr B continued to chase the Council to find out what was happening with his homeless application and to seek a bidding number for the housing register throughout July and August 2020. Mr B’s caseworker contacted him at the end of August to apologise for the delay. Mr B spoke to his caseworker on 3 September. Mr B’s caseworker told him he would need to stay in his current accommodation.
28. Mr B again raised concerns about being placed in emergency accommodation outside Hackney. In response the Council pointed out it had placed other families with similar circumstances in hostels with shared facilities whereas Mr B had been provided with self-contained accommodation. The Council reiterated if it moved Mr B into Hackney he would likely be placed in a hostel. The Council also explained securing a social housing tenancy would likely take 10 years and the Council would discharge any duty to house Mr B by securing accommodation in the private sector.
29. Following further contact from Mr B the Council told him in September that he would receive a bidding number for the housing register once the Council decided whether it owed him a housing duty.
30. Mr B continued to chase the Council in October 2020 but did not receive a response. On 16 October 2020 Mr B told the Council he had identified a private rented option. Mr B moved into that property on 3 November. As a result the Council treated the homeless application as withdrawn.
31. Following a complaint the Council accepted it had failed to respond to numerous contacts from Mr B and apologised. The Council offered Mr B £250 to reflect his time and trouble.

Analysis

32. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council unreasonably delayed considering Mr B’s homeless application, failed to issue a decision on that application and failed to follow the homelessness code of guidance. I say that because Mr B submitted a homeless application in February 2020 and the Council’s relief duty began on 28 February 2020 when Mr B was evicted. I refer to the homelessness code of guidance in paragraph 16. As I say in that paragraph, the relief duty usually comes to an end after 56 days. In this case though there is no evidence the Council was taking action to assess Mr B’s homeless application during the relief stage. Given the Council accepts Mr B was homeless, not intentionally homeless, eligible and in priority need I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the Council should have been in a position to accept a full homeless duty to Mr B by the end of the 56 day period if it had properly assessed the case. That means I consider the Council at fault for not ending the relief duty and providing Mr B with a formal decision on his application at that stage or at any time before October 2020 when he found his own accommodation. The Council accepts it delayed considering Mr B’s homeless application and failed to follow the homelessness code of guidance. The Council says this was because the caseworker allocated to Mr B was on long-term sick and it did not become clear until later in the process the caseworker would be off work for a significant amount of time. I am concerned the Council does not appear to have had in place a system for monitoring the cases of those caseworkers who are off sick for an extended period. Failure to do that is fault.
33. I now have to consider what injustice failure to properly process the homeless application caused Mr B. I could not speculate about whether the Council would have been able to secure alternative private rented accommodation sooner for Mr B. Nor could I say if the Council had done so it would have identified suitable private rented accommodation in Hackney, which is where Mr B wanted to live and where he subsequently found his own accommodation. While Mr B would have been eligible to be included on the housing register with priority as a homeless applicant had the Council properly dealt with his homeless application it is unlikely that would have resulted in an offer of social housing, particularly as the Council could have discharged its duty to house Mr B by sourcing private rented accommodation for him. Nevertheless, I consider fault by the Council has left Mr B with some uncertainty about whether his situation would have been resolved earlier. I also consider it likely if the Council had dealt with the case properly Mr B would not have had to go to so much time and trouble in contacting the Council to find out what was happening with his case. I also consider Mr B was likely caused significant distress during what would already have been a stressful period.
34. The evidence also shows that despite repeated attempts to contact the Council Mr B very often did not receive a substantive response. Often officers would simply refer him back to his caseworker, who was not at work at the time. That again led to Mr B having to go to significant time and trouble to find out what was happening. I am particularly concerned about the Council’s failure to respond to Mr B given he was also emailing the complaints department in July 2020. Failure to respond to Mr B’s contacts is fault.
35. Mr B says the accommodation the Council provided him with was outside Hackney and therefore unsuitable for his family. That is because Mr B works in Hackney and his children attend school there. While I understand Mr B’s point, as I say in paragraph 17, there is no right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation. The Council’s placement procedure, which I refer to in paragraph 20, also makes clear interim accommodation can be provided out of area. That is also the case for those applicants with children or who work in Hackney. I therefore cannot criticise the Council for the interim accommodation it provided Mr B with. I consider, however, if the Council had followed the code of guidance properly it would likely have accepted a duty to house Mr B and that would have given Mr B the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation the Council provided. I therefore consider fault by the Council denied Mr B his right to request a review.
36. I consider a suitable remedy for the complaint would be for the Council to apologise and pay Mr B £600. That is to reflect his distress, the time and trouble he had to go to, his uncertainty about whether he could have secured private rented accommodation earlier and his lost right to request a review of the suitability of his accommodation. In reaching the view that this is an appropriate remedy I have taken into account the fact the Council continued to provide Mr B with interim accommodation throughout the period until he identified his own private rented accommodation.
37. To address the procedural failings in this case I recommend the Council put in place a process to ensure managers oversee the workload of those who are not at work for an extended period due to sick leave and ensure cases are reallocated to another caseworker when it becomes clear the original caseworker will be off work for an extended period. That should include guidance on timescales and the types of cases requiring priority reallocation. I further recommend the Council review the way in which emails into its complaints inbox are dealt with to identify why Mr B did not receive a response to his contact in July 2020 and draw up an action plan to deal with that.

Back to top

Recommended action

38. Within one month of my decision the Council should apologise to Mr B and pay him £600;
39. Within two months of my decision the Council should:
• draw up a process for managers to follow when a caseworker for homeless applicants is absent from work on a long-term basis; and
• review what happened with the emails Mr B sent to the Council and draw up an action plan to address the learning from the investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman