Summary: The Council accepted there was fault in how it dealt with Mr B when he first approached it about his housing situation. It has apologised. There is no need for the Council to take more action in that regard. There was no further fault by the Council in how it supported Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• failed to direct him to make a homelessness application when he asked it for assistance;
• delayed in taking his homelessness application and failed to communicate with him; and
• failed to offer him the necessary support to find accommodation.
2. Mr B has been living in a storage shed, not designed for residential use, and has had to endure this longer due to the Council’s failings.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s actions in taking Mr B’s application, communicating with him and supporting him to find accommodation.
4. I have not investigated whether the Council should have ended its relief duty or if it was right that he is not in priority need for the reasons set out below.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered the information provided by Mr B’s representative. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents and its response to my enquiries. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement, and I have taken any comments into account.

Back to top

What I found

The 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. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. This is (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty (s193(2) of the Act) to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. A person may be assessed as having priority need because they are vulnerable due to old age, mental ill health, physical disability, or having been in prison or care.

What happened

12. Mr B is a single man. He is an immigrant and has indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Mr B lives in a storage container. It is not for residential use and has no electricity, heating or internet access. He has lived there for some years and works on ‘zero hours’ contracts.
13. Mr B says he telephoned the Council in September 2020 for help with his housing. He says the Council told him he was not eligible for help because he was working. The Council says it has no record of this conversation or contact by Mr B.
14. In November, Mr B sought the help of a specialist housing advocate who after contacting the Council, made a homelessness application on his behalf. He indicated that he had mental health problems and that he lived in a shed with many other sheds housing people who were substance misusers and violent, though he had not reported this to the Police. The Council referred him to Streetlink, an agency that helps rough sleepers. The Council asked Mr B for his addresses for the last five years, his GP address and whether he had made an application for Universal Credit.
15. The Council then assessed Mr B by telephone. Mr B explained that he had lived in different sheds over the last five years. He now had indefinite leave to remain and so wanted help to get settled housing. He explained he was working, but on zero hours contracts. He said this puts landlords off and also he cannot afford the rent in advance or deposit. The Council established that he had no priority need because he had no physical or mental health issues and did not fit any of the other categories that might suggest he is particularly vulnerable or in priority need.
16. The Council explained to Mr B that he was homeless and eligible for help but not in priority need. It explained that he might be eligible for a discretionary housing payment to help with the rent in advance and that he should seek private rented accommodation. The Council advised him to make a claim for Universal Credit. The Council accepted that it had a relief duty, but it did not formally write to Mr B about this or tell him that he had the right to ask for a review
17. Mr B’s advocate emailed the Council for advice on Universal Credit and the discretionary housing payment. The advocate chased the Council for an answer twice in early December. The Council then sent Mr B his PHP. This said:
• that Mr B struggled to get private rented accommodation because he has no deposit or rent in advance, and the fact that he has zero hours contracts puts landlords off;
• the Council had told him to apply for Universal Credit even if he did not get a payment as then landlords would see he had a live claim and would get a payment if his earnings were too low. Also, when he found a place he might get help with housing costs via Universal Credit;
• the Council would offer him the first month’s rent in advance and deposit via a discretionary housing payment;
• his support needs were a history of homelessness and rough sleeping and that he was a former asylum seeker; and
• the steps he should take were to apply for Universal Credit and seek private rented accommodation.
18. In December, the Council accompanied Mr B to view private rented accommodation but the landlord would not let to him due to his zero-hour contract which meant there was no guarantee the rent would be paid. Mr B’s advocate asked the Council to help him negotiate with landlords regarding his employment status.
19. In January, the advocate chased the Council three times for an answer on what help it could give Mr B to negotiate with landlords. In March, following another chasing email, the Council responded to the advocate. It said that Mr B had not made the Universal Credit application that would allow him to be considered by landlords in the private sector, but that in any case there were no suitable offers coming through.
20. The advocate made a formal complaint that the Council had not done enough to help Mr B and had not responded to his contact in good time. The Council response:
• said Mr B should have been directed to complete an online form as soon as he contacted the Council for help;
• accepted that it had not written to Mr B with its decision that it owed him the relief duty and had not sent him the PHP sooner. This meant that the Council had not notified Mr B of his right to request that the Council review its decision or the PHP;
• explained its officer had been off sick for some time and there had been delays in responding to the advocate; and
• said that it should have referred Mr B to Croydon Reach so that he could be verified as a rough sleeper and have additional support put in place, especially during the challenging winter months.
21. The Council apologised to the advocate, agreed to send the decision notification letter and make the referral to Croydon Reach. It would also put in more support to help the individual officer who had dealt with Mr B.
22. In April 2021, the Council referred Mr B to a letting agency as it had a suitable property. However, Mr B did not pass the referencing checks. He had not disclosed two addresses and had not given the letting agency an explanation for this. It also could not get verification of his immigration status. It wrote to him and his advocate twice about this but said it did not get a reply and so cancelled his application.
23. In May, the Council referred Mr B to another potential letting agency. However, it would not accept Mr B due to his employment status.
24. At this time the Council also wrote to Mr B that the relief duty had come to an end and that it did not consider he had a priority need. Its letter says it had considered that Mr B has a chronic lung condition, as well as mental illness due to the length of time he had been sleeping rough. It had considered his medical evidence as well as advice from its own medical officer and also taken into account the length of time he had been sleeping rough. The Council explained in detail how it had considered his situation and set out how he could ask for a review of this.
25. In June, the Council made a referral to another agency supporting rough sleepers. This led to Mr B being housed in short term accommodation, pending his immigration status being resolved. The housing provider liaised with a charity to support Mr B who had secured the necessary appointment for him to resolve this, but it could not move him on in the meantime. The appointment would not be until the end of July. However, the housing provider said that Mr B was not using the accommodation it had booked for him.
26. The case notes show the Council liaised with the housing provider, pointing out that it had accepted the relief duty, and that Mr B has leave to remain in the UK but his resident’s permit had expired, and that as he just needed the right documentation this should not be a barrier to him renting.
27. Mr B’s representative says the Council failed to offer meaningful support as it did not take into account that he had no internet access or electricity, and that he needed help with his lack of references, explaining his immigration status, and his employment status.
28. In response to my investigation, the Council says it offered Mr B a range of support including organisations that could help offer him short term accommodation and work with him to find a more permanent home.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B?

29. The Council cannot trace contact from Mr B in September or the advice he was given then. However it has established that it did not refer him or later, his advocate to its online process to make a homeless application. It has apologised for this. However, any delay in starting the process has not impacted significantly on Mr B because he has not been housed as a result of the application.
30. The Council has acknowledged that it did not handle the early stages well. It did not respond in good time to Mr B or his advocate; it did not send him the written decision that it owed him the relief duty or the PHP. The Council apologised, sent Mr B the formal decision, and provided more support to the officer. This is fault but the Council has already provided a suitable remedy of this part of the complaint.
31. I have looked in detail at the support the Council offered and the referrals it made. The Council’s advice that Mr B should make a Universal Credit claim was not fault, but this did not allow him to rent a property as the Council had hoped.
32. The advocate wanted the Council to negotiate with landlords to explain Mr B’s prior housing situation, referencing and immigration status. Whereas this might have resolved Mr B’s problems, the Council referred him to other agencies. Overall, these referrals were appropriate. I accept that Mr B did not pass the agency’s reference standards when he was considered for housing in April 2021, but the correspondence indicates that the agency was open to discussion on this and needed more information from Mr B about former addresses he was linked to.
33. Also the Council’s referrals to agencies supporting rough sleepers meant Mr B got help to renew his immigration documentation. In addition, the Council advocated on his behalf with agencies that his status itself had not lapsed, but that his resident’s permit had expired. Given that he had applied to renew this, the Council assured the agencies that Mr B had the right to remain in the UK, and there should be no barrier to him renting a property.
34. Although the Council’s efforts did not lead to Mr B being housed within the relief period, there was no fault by it.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council but it has already remedied this.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

36. I have not investigated whether the Council was right to end the relief duty and in its decision that he does not have a priority need and so the Council do not have a main housing duty. This is because the law gives Mr B the right to ask the Council to review these decisions. Mr B is in a very difficult position but he does have the support of an advocate who can help him with the review process. We would expect Mr B to use this process to challenge the decision before the Ombudsman can consider this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman