Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application and housing priority. She also complained her initial temporary accommodation was unsuitable. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice in the Council’s failure to properly support Mrs X when she was threatened with homelessness, when it delayed accepting the homelessness relief and full housing duties, and through its failures to communicate with Mrs X. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £400.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application and housing priority.
2. Mrs X also complained about the initial temporary accommodation the Council placed her in, as she considers it was unsuitable.
3. Mrs X said the Council’s actions affected her heath and caused avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
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. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Housing Act 1996.
• The Homelessness Code of Guidance.
7. Mrs 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

Homelessness

Legislation and statutory 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)]

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

10. 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)
11. 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)

The prevention duty

12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

13. The relief duty applies when a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance.
14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. The relief duty will end automatically after 56 days if a council is satisfied a person has priority need and is not intentionally homeless. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Interim accommodation

15. 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)
16. 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.

The main homelessness duty

17. 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)

Suitability of accommodation

18. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
19. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household;
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Decision letters

20. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Delay

21. There are no statutory time limits for making decisions in homelessness cases. The new Code no longer contains a recommendation that authorities should complete their inquiries and make decisions within 33 working days.
22. However, we expect authorities to conduct assessments, take necessary actions and make decisions, in a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the duty in question and the applicant’s circumstances.

Housing Allocations

23. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
24. Councils must notify applicants in writing following an allocations decision and must give reasons for the decision.
25. Councils must also notify applicants of their right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
26. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
27. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
28. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
29. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. He may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s allocations policy

30. Eligible applicants to the Council’s housing allocations scheme will be placed into a Band (A, B, or C) based on their need. Applicants will also receive a priority date. The priority date is the date the applicant applied to the scheme, or the date they entered a priority Band.
31. Applicants with very high or urgent priority will be placed in Band A.
32. Applicants with high priority, such as those who are owed the full housing duty, will be placed in Band B.
33. Applicants with standard priority, such as those who are homeless and owed the prevention or relief duty, will be placed in Band C.

What happened

34. I have detailed below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
35. Mrs X’s former landlord issued an eviction notice in July 2019 due to rent arrears. She made a homelessness application to the Council on 9 July.
36. The Council accepted it owed Mrs X the prevention duty on 23 July.
37. Mrs X said her housing officer did not help and admitted to not looking at the case until a week before her eviction. She also said the officer made unhelpful and inappropriate comments, so she asked the Council to assign a different officer.
38. Mrs X was evicted on 15 November 2019. The Council placed her in temporary accommodation (TA) the same day.
39. Once in TA, Mrs X said the Council did not set up a rent account for her until March 2020, despite chasers, and didn’t issue her a rent card.
40. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 9 April 2020 about her housing allocations priority. It confirmed it placed her in Band C, with a registration date of 15 November 2019, and with a need for two bedrooms.
41. Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision on medical grounds. She also said she needed three bedrooms. She gave the Council references from her doctor and her son’s school.
42. The Council said its decision was correct about Mrs X’s banding, but it did agree she needed a three-bedroom home.
43. The Council accepted it owed Mrs X the relief duty on 28 August 2020. It told her it would make a decision about her homelessness within 56 days.
44. Mrs X questioned this because she was already in TA with an allocations Band. Mrs X said the Council told her she should be in priority Band B, because she was living in TA, but this was not recorded on the Council’s system.
45. Mrs X spoke to the Council on 9 November 2020 because it had still not decided whether it owed the full homeless duty. Mrs X said the officer she spoke to said they would change her allocations Band and write to her with confirmation.
46. Mrs X complained on 5 January 2021. She gave a detailed history of her contact with the Council since entering TA and its lack of responses. She said:
• Her first housing case worker was unhelpful and admitted to not having worked on her case. She had to get a local MP to write to the Council to get TA.
• She asked for a new case worker but did not get a response.
• An officer told her everyone in TA should be in Band B, but she is still in Band C and has not had any updates.
• The Council had not given her a rent card despite repeated requests.
47. The Council accepted it owed Mrs X the full housing duty on 7 January 2021.
48. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint on 29 January. It said:
• It produced a personalised housing plan for Mrs X on 23 July 2019 which included details of support from a housing trust and debt management organisations. Her allocated case worker should have contacted Mrs X, made a referral to HomeWorks (a community service helping people with housing needs), and asked the landlord to reduce the rent.
• The case worker did not realise they had been allocated Mrs X’s case. The Council apologised for the oversight and for not providing timely support.
• It accepted it took five months to respond to Mrs X’s request for a new case worker. It also accepted Mrs X received limited replies between 15 November 2019 and 13 August 2020, despite several requests. It apologised for the lack of contact, confusion, and upset caused by the uncertainty.
• It accepted it owed Mrs X the relief duty on 28 August 2020 and confirmed it changed her housing allocations priority to Band B with effect from 1 September 2020. It accepted there was a lack of contact about this and accepted it did not make relevant enquiries within expected timeframes.
• It apologised for the problems and confusion about her rent card and account.
• It was taking steps to improve the service provided to customers facing housing crises.
49. Mrs X made a stage two complaint on 23 April 2021. She said nothing had improved since her complaint in January and the Council continued to ignore her contact. She also said Shelter (the housing charity) advised her the relief duty should have started on 15 November 2019 when she was placed in TA and should have ended on 10 January 2020. She said this didn’t happen as the Council had not assigned her a new case officer. She said it was wrong to only backdate her priority to September 2020.
50. Mrs X also raised concerns about the place she was living, due to the presence of drugs and frequent Police visits. She said living in the TA was affecting her mental health.
51. The Council sent its final complaint response on 27 May. It said:
• It had changed Mrs X’s priority date to 10 January 2020 in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
• Delays in contacting and responding to Mrs X falls below its service standard. It apologised the delays had continued since her first complaint. It said it was working to improve case management.
• It found alternate TA and will offer it to Mrs X as soon as possible.
• As a gesture of goodwill, it offered Mrs X £50 to recognise the inconvenience and distress suffered.
52. The Council moved Mrs X into new TA on 28 June 2021.

Response to enquiries

53. The Council told me Mrs X has a live housing application and she is in priority Band B with a need for a three-bed home.
54. The Council accepts it did not deal with some of Mrs X’s housing application to an acceptable standard. It admitted failures keeping in contact with Mrs X, keeping her updated, and responding to requests for contact. There were also unacceptable delays in accepting a relief duty and accepting a full housing duty.
55. The Council told me its delays assessing Mrs X’s housing application have not affected her chances of securing a home. It said Mrs X has bid on several homes since April 2020. In all cases the successful bidder had a higher priority or earlier priority date.
56. The Council said it was unaware Mrs X thought her first TA was unsuitable. She did not highlight this to the Council or the housing provider. Based on emails it received from Mrs X about the condition of the property, the Council said it is satisfied her first TA was suitable.
57. The Council said it took steps to remedy its failings by restructuring its housing services with specialist advisors. It is also setting up a new housing solutions IT system, which will flag prevention and relief duties and when plans need to be reviewed.
58. The Council offered to increase its earlier offer to Mrs X from £50 to £100.

Analysis

59. When Mrs X first approached the Council, she was threatened with homelessness. The prevention duty therefore applied. The Council accepts it did not do enough to support Mrs X to prevent her becoming homeless. That was fault.
60. Mrs X was evicted and became homeless in November 2019. She was eligible for assistance, so the relief duty then applied. Unfortunately, the Council did not accept it owed the relief duty until 28 August 2020. That delay amounts to fault.
61. When Mrs X was evicted, the Council found TA for her. Mrs X complained her TA was unsuitable. The Council was satisfied the TA was suitable, based on email correspondence it received from Mrs X. On the evidence seen, Mrs X raised concerns about the place where she lived during her stage two complaint. At the stage, the Council agreed to find alternate TA. I have not seen evidence Mrs X raised any earlier concerns and I do not consider there was fault by the Council.
62. The Council accepted it owed Mrs X the full housing duty on 7 January 2021. That decision should have happened much sooner. It took the Council over a year after Mrs X was made homeless to accept it owed her the full housing duty. That was an unacceptable delay and was fault.
63. The Council first placed Mrs X in priority Band C in April 2020. It told me that was because she was homeless and owed a prevention or relief duty.
64. Mrs X asked the Council to review her priority on medical grounds and said she was entitled to three bedrooms.
65. The Council’s allocations policy requires applicants to give details about any disability related benefits to qualify for medical priority. While Mrs X listed some medical conditions, she did not give details of any disability related benefits or further medical evidence.
66. I therefore do not find fault with the Council’s decision not to increase Mrs X’s priority on medical grounds. The Council did agree Mrs X needed three bedrooms.
67. The Council confirmed it moved Mrs X into priority Band B after it accepted it owed her the full housing duty. That was in line with the Council’s allocations policy and was not fault.
68. The Council later agreed to backdate Mrs X priority date to 10 January 2020. That was correct, as that is the date when the Council should have moved her priority into Band B. On the evidence seen, Mrs X now has the correct allocations priority and date.

Injustice

69. I have considered the impact of the Council’s faults on Mrs X and whether she suffered any injustice as a result.
70. The Council accepts it did not provide acceptable support when Mrs X was threatened with homelessness. However, the Ombudsman cannot assess how this affected Mrs X’s housing situation. There is no evidence to suggest Mrs X’s landlord would have agreed to lower the rent or let her stay in the house.
71. What I can say is the Council’s fault caused Mrs X distress (in terms of worry and uncertainty) which the Council should remedy.
72. The Council’s delays assigning a new case worker or responding to Mrs X’s requests meant delays accepting it owed the homelessness duty. The Council has accepted the error and it changed Mrs X’s housing priority to Band B. It also agreed to backdate her priority date. I cannot say Mrs X suffered any added injustice here. That is because the evidence suggests she would not have been successful in bidding for new homes even if the Council had accepted the homelessness duty and set the correct priority sooner. I understand Mrs X is still waiting for a new home.
73. However, the delays lasted several months and again caused Mrs X distress in terms of frustration and time and trouble.
74. The communication problems persisted after Mrs X’s stage one complaint. That caused her further distress.
75. Unfortunately, Mrs X has reported the communication problems remain. This is something the Council should review, as it appears it is not meeting service standards at present.
76. The Council has offered Mrs X £100 to remedy the injustice. I do not consider that is enough for the impact caused.
77. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends between £100 and £300 for distress. However, in cases where the distress is severe or prolonged, we may recommend more.
78. I consider £100 to be suitable for the early distress caused when the Council failed to properly support Mrs X when she was threatened with homelessness.
79. The Council’s delays accepting the relief and homelessness duties, and establishing the correct housing priority for Mrs X, went on for more than eight months. I consider £300 is suitable for the distress that caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

80. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council agreed to:
• Pay Mrs X £400 to recognise the distress caused by its delays and failures to meet service standards.
• Apologise to Mrs X for the continuing communication issues.

Back to top

Final decision

81. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice in the Council’s failure to properly support Mrs X when she was threatened with homelessness, when it delayed accepting the homelessness relief and full housing duties, and through its failures to communicate with Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman