Summary: Mr X complained about errors in the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness application. The delays and errors in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained about errors in the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness application. In particular he complained:
• There are errors in the Council's records regarding the actions and decisions taken and the timing of these actions/ decisions;
• The Council delayed in referring his case to the medical advisor for an assessment and in issuing a relief duty letter;
• The Council advised him to try and secure accommodation in the private rental sector but failed to assist him in arranging viewings of the affordable properties he had identified. He complains the Council sent him to view properties he had not identified and falsely accused him of only being interested in renting expensive properties.
• He was discriminated against by an officer on 10 March 2020, and the Council did not properly investigate his concerns as it did not review the CCTV footage of the incident.

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. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• Mr 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

5. 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.
6. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries to establish if the council has a duty to assist them.
7. Councils should work with the person to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the person to take to help them keep or find suitable accommodation. These steps must be tailored to the household and provided to the person in a personalised housing plan (PHP). The PHP must be kept under review and updated as circumstances change. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
8. If a council is satisfied someone is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is known as the council’s prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, Section 195)
9. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. 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)

What happened here

11. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2019 as his landlord had obtained an order for possession and he was due to be evicted. The Council accepted a homeless application on 4 October 2019 and provided Mr X with interim accommodation. Its records note it considered Mr X may be in priority need, but it was likely he would be found intentionally homeless due to his rent arrears. Mr X understood the Council’s medical advisor would assess his medical condition and the Council would then make decision on his application.
12. The Council’s records note that the relief duty started 24 September 2019 and would end 20 November 2019, when the main duty would take effect. The notes record the date of its assessment of Mr X’s circumstances and the PHP appointment as 7 October 2019.
13. The notes for 7 October 2019 state Mr X visited the Council offices to provide his business accounts, medication, and additional bank statements. An officer also gave Mr X details of a private rental property available to view that day. Mr X subsequently advised the Council he was unable to take up the property as the landlord needed to see proof of his income.
14. According to the Council’s records, its next contact with Mr X was 11 December 2019, when an officer asked Mr X for an update on his housing situation and for proof of his income. The Council arranged an appointment for Mr X on 16 December 2019. Mr X advised the Council shortly before the appointment that he would be unable to attend. The Council completed a PHP and issued a letter dated 16 December 2019 confirming it had carried out inquiries and was satisfied Mr X was homeless and eligible for assistance. It accepted a relief duty and confirmed this would come to an end on 10 February 2020. Mr X did not receive this letter.
15. In February 2020 Mr X visited the Council offices with further bank statements and enquired about properties available to rent. As he was interested in a few properties an officer, Officer 1 sent Mr X’s details to the procurement officer to arrange viewings. Mr X states he did not hear anything from the procurement officer. He visited the Council offices again a couple of weeks later to enquire about available properties. Mr X identified four properties he was interested in, and Officer 1 again agreed to contact the procurement officer. Mr X complained he had not heard anything in relation to the properties previously identified and asked for evidence Officer 1 had contacted the procurement officer. Officer 1 could not provide any evidence but assured Mr X they would contact the procurement officer again.
16. Mr X visited the Council offices again on 10 March 2020 and again expressed an interest in the four properties he had previously identified. Mr X complained that he had not heard from the procurement officer in relation to these properties and states the officer, Officer 2, told him the Council had not contacted the procurement officer.
17. On 12 March 2020 Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He complained that he had still not had a decision on his homeless application. Mr X also questioned why the Council sent him to view a property in October 2019 that he would not have been able to afford. And complained the Council had not assisted him in viewing the properties he had expressed an interest in. Mr X also complained that Officer 2 had initially refused to speak to him on 10 March 2020 and had suggested he had jumped the queue while other people were waiting to speak to them. Mr X states Officer 2 then went on a lunch break and did not assist him until they returned, an hour later. He asked the Council to watch the CCTV footage of his visit.
18. Mr X also made a separate complaint about the way his case officer had dealt with his homelessness application. He did not consider they were acting in accordance with the Council’s policy and procedures.
19. In March 2020 the Council’s medical advisor confirmed Mr X would be considered to have priority need due to his medical condition. The Council wrote to Mr X on 30 March 2020 confirming the relief duty had now ended and the Council owed him a main housing duty to secure accommodation was available to him.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 31 March 2020. It stated an email regarding the properties Mr X was interested in had been sent to the procurement officer but had been overlooked. The Council apologised it had not contacted Mr X regarding the properties and acknowledged he should have been updated. The Council had put measures in place to ensure this did not happen again.
21. The Council also acknowledged it would have been better to wait for the outcome of Mr X’s assessment for housing benefit or universal credit in October 2019 before starting to look at private rental properties.
22. In relation to Mr X’s concerns about Officer 2 the Council stated that although staff endeavour to see clients as quickly as possible, due to the need to take scheduled breaks this is not always possible. It also stated Officer 2 had not meant to ignore Mr X or keep him waiting unnecessarily.
23. Mr X was concerned the Council had not viewed the CCTV footage as he had requested. On 8 April 2020 he made a subject access request for a copy of the footage. The Council forwarded his request on to the team it said dealt with requests for CCTV. The Council subsequently advised Mr X it could not retrieve the footage as the system had already overwritten the data and there was no backup.
24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about his case officer in early April 2020, setting out the action taken on Mr X’s case. It noted Mr X had met with the case officer and completed the PHP which set out the steps Mr X would take to help relieve his homelessness. The Council acknowledged that although the PHP was published on 16 December 2020, the Council did not send the relief duty letter to him. It apologised for this. The Council also apologised for the length of time taken to make a decision on his application.
25. As Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s responses to his complaints he asked for them to be considered at the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. Mr X asserted officers had acted as part of a coordinated effort by the Council to intentionally cause him distress.
26. The Council responded to both complaints in June 2020. It stated there was no evidence actions were taken to intentionally belittle Mr X or cause him distress and apologised that this is what Mr X felt. The Council apologised that Mr X had not received the relief duty letter prepared in December 2019 until May 2020. While this was not acceptable, it noted Mr X had received the appropriate assistance.
27. The Council reiterated it was not possible to view the CCTV footage as it was stored for 28 days then deleted. It acknowledged Mr X felt belittled by Officer 2 going to lunch and that he felt this action was intentional. The Council noted its records show Officer 2 spoke with Mr X on returning from lunch and sent emails to the procurement team and informed the procurement officer of his interest in a property.
28. The Council also noted that officers had emailed the procurement team in February 2020 to inform them of Mr X's interest and to follow up on requests. It noted that showing interest in a property does not necessarily confirm it is available to view. The Council stated officers were actively working to source viewings for properties he was interested in.
29. In addition, the Council apologised for the error in the initial response which stated Mr X attended a meeting on 16 December 2019. It noted Mr X had been unable to attend and the case officer had completed the PHP without him present. It concluded officers had acted in line with the Council’s policy and procedure but accepted there were areas around customer service and administrative delay that required improvement.
30. In August 2020 Mr X made a subject access request for a full copy of the Council’s housing and housing benefit records for him. He was not satisfied that the Council had provided a complete response. Mr X made a formal complaint about the incomplete information and also inaccuracies in the Council’s records.
31. In April 2021 Mr X contacted the Council again. Mr X was unhappy the Council had provided a single response and felt the Council should have responded to each complaint separately. He was not satisfied by the responses and maintained Officer 2 had discriminated against him and that the Council had deliberately failed to secure the CCTV footage. He asserted the footage was stored for 30 days, not 28 as the Council had suggested.
32. Mr X also maintained Officer 2 had told him the properties he was interested in were available and that there was no record he had previously expressed an interested in the properties or that emails had been sent to the procurement officer. The Council advised Mr X he had completed the complaints process and his next step was to contact the Ombudsman.
33. Mr X believes the Council’s records show it was deliberately trying to run down the clock and claim that he was not cooperating during the relief duty process with the aim of rendering him homeless.

Analysis

34. The Council’s records suggest there were errors and delays in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application. There are also inconsistencies and inaccuracies in its records regarding the dates actions were taken and decisions made. The records state the relief duty started 24 September 2019 and would end 20 November 2019 when the main housing duty began. These appear to be administrative errors which do not reflect what actually happened.
35. The Council accepted a homelessness application on 4 October 2019 and noted Mr X was homeless and eligible for assistance. As it also considered it possible Mr X was in priority need and agreed to provide interim accommodation while it sought advice from its medical advisor. However it did not accept a relief duty for over 10 weeks. The records do not suggest the Council made any enquiries or took any action between early October 2019 and December 2019, when it asked Mr X for an update. Rather, the case appears to have been allowed to drift.
36. The Council’s records note the date of its assessment of Mr X’s circumstances and the PHP appointment as 7 October 2019. But the Council did not produce the PHP until 16 December 2019. And it did not contact its medical advisor until early March 2020.
37. I consider this delay and period of inactivity to be fault.
38. The failure to send Mr X the letter of 16 December 2019 accepting a relief duty also amounts to fault. As does the delay in sending Mr X notification the Council had accepted a main duty. This duty began on 11 February 2020 when the relief duty ended, but the Council did not write to Mr X until 30 March 2020.
39. Mr X asserts the Council has not assisted him in viewing affordable properties. The Council accepts an email to a procurement officer was over looked, and that it should have updated Mr X. But the documentation also shows the Council sought and advised Mr X of available properties he could view in February 2020. The records also show Mr X was unwell in February 2020 and unable to attend some viewings.
40. The Council accepts Officer 2 took a lunch break before assisting Mr X. I recognise this would be frustrating for Mr X, but it is not in itself fault. I am unable to comment on the nature or tone of any interaction between Officer 2 and Mr X before Officer 2’s lunch break. Our investigations are evidence based and I am unable to accept one person’s word against another’s. CCTV footage may have assisted in confirming the interaction between Mr X and Officer 2 but is unlikely to have recorded details of any conversation or comments.
41. I recognise Mr X believes the Council has deliberately avoided providing the CCTV footage. There is a lack of clarity regarding how long the Council would retain the footage: the application form to request footage states it is held for a calendar month; the Council’s website states 30 days and in response to Mr X’s complaint the Council advised the recordings were kept for 28 days. However, Mr X’s request for the footage on the 8 April 2019 was at best only a day within the retention period. And as Mr X did not provide proof of his identity and address, the request would not have been actioned that day.
42. It is unfortunate the Council was unable to retrieve the footage, but there is no evidence this was due to fault or a deliberate action by the Council to frustrate Mr X’s request.
43. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Mr X a significant injustice. The delay in making enquiries, accepting a relief duty, and notifying Mr X of its decisions caused Mr X unnecessary distress and uncertainty at what was already a difficult time. There is however no evidence the Council was seeking to run down the clock or suggest that it did not owe Mr X a homelessness duty. Nor is there evidence it was intentionally seeking to cause him distress.
44. It is possible that but for the delays Mr X may have been able to take up a tenancy on a privately rented property sooner, and he would therefore have a sense of missed opportunity. However I note that the Council provided Mr X with temporary accommodation until July 2020 when he entered a tenancy agreement with a housing association.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty he has experienced as a result of the delays and errors in the Council’s handling of his homelessness application.
46. Subject to Mr X engaging with the Council to facilitate payment of the remedy, the Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

47. The delays and errors in the way the Council dealt with Mr X's homelessness application amount to fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman