• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Recommended action

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not provide him with enough support and advice when he was homeless. He says the Council should have advised him about how he would not be able to claim housing benefit when he was a student. His view is the Council should provide him with affordable housing. The Ombudsman’s view is there was some delay by the Council. But we accept Mr B’s housing options were limited and that affects the injustice to him.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I shall refer to as Mr B), complains the Council did not provide him with enough support and advice when he was homeless. And it has not let him bid for social housing.
2. As a remedy, Mr B wants the Council to allocate him an affordable flat.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
   • considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr B;
   • made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
   • spoken to Mr B;
   • sent my draft decision to Mr B and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s homelessness duties

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. For all applicants who are without accommodation, councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this ‘relief duty’ has ended, it must tell the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. While they are helping applicants, councils must arrange accommodation as soon as they have reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need (for example because they are vulnerable, due to a medical condition). (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. When the relief period ends the housing authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. To be eligible for the main housing duty an applicant must be eligible, homeless and in priority need.
12. Homeless applicants may seek a review within 21 days of being notified of many decisions. Relevant to this complaint is a right of review of a council giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end. After a review, an applicant can take the matter to court on a point of law.

What happened

13. Before June 2020 Mr B was living with his parents. He says he has several disabilities, including autism, dyslexia and depression. Mr B was 18 in the autumn of 2019.

Mr B has to leave his home

14. On 5 June 2020 the Council’s social work team were alerted to a “serious domestic incident” when Mr B was forced to leave his family’s home. A social worker contacted the Council’s housing team. The housing team accepted a relief duty.
15. The Council says it offered Mr B accommodation after making “further investigations” about Mr B’s vulnerability. It made a discretionary offer after speaking to Mr B’s social worker.
16. On 23 July the Council offered Mr B interim accommodation which he moved to. As Mr B was receiving universal credit, a qualifying benefit, he could receive housing benefit to help pay his rent for the interim accommodation.
17. In mid-August the Council placed Mr B on a waiting list for accommodation from an organisation providing housing for young people. Its letter ending its relief duty advised it was doing so because it had provided Mr B with suitable accommodation, as it had referred him to the housing provider. And it had allowed him to stay in the interim accommodation until it could provide him with a home.
18. Towards the end of September 2020, the Council’s Adult Social Care team ended its involvement with Mr B. Its assessment was he had no care needs. It referred him to an organisation providing support for help with matters like form filling and housing issues. That organisation says Mr B did not complete the referral form so it never provided Mr B with any support.
19. At the same time, Mr B contacted the Council to advise that the housing provider (see paragraph 18) had said it could not help him, as he was about to become a university student. Mr B told the Council’s caseworker he had found student accommodation to move to.

Mr B contacts the Council again

20. Mr B contacted the Council in February 2021. He advised his student accommodation was unaffordable. Mr B says the reason it was not affordable to him was because he could not claim housing benefit (welfare benefits are not available to most students).
21. In March the Council carried out an assessment of Mr B’s housing needs. It found he was eligible to make an application to its housing register. But he was not eligible for housing benefit while he was a full-time student.
22. Mr B says he left his student accommodation in May, as it was not affordable for him. Shortly before he did so, he spoke to the Council’s caseworker. He advised Mr B that, because he was a student, he would not be eligible for housing benefit. So he should approach his university’s student welfare officers.
23. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council noted Mr B “…had decided to stop receiving the maintenance loan from student finance, and instead wanted to make a claim for housing benefit. The accommodation was available to him until the end of his first year in July 2021.”
24. At the end of July, in response to a complaint by Mr B, the Council said it accepted its March assessment had not decided whether the Council owed Mr B a new relief duty. Its complaint response also noted:
    • there was a record Mr B had telephoned several times for updates, but the Council had not returned the calls;
    • it had asked a caseworker to deal urgently with his case, and whether the Council owed Mr B a duty;
    • offered Mr B £190 for its delay in deciding whether it owed him a duty;
    • apologised.
25. On 23 August, the Council accepted a new relief duty. The Council says this was delayed from 6 August, as Mr B was out of the country then. It offered Mr B interim accommodation on his return.
26. On 27 August 2021 the Council provided its stage two response to Mr B’s complaint. This advised the Council did not uphold his complaint about its actions in 2020. It said when Mr B first made a homelessness application he was not a student and, so, qualified for housing benefit.

After the complaint responses

27. In early September 2021 Mr B was still in the interim accommodation the Council had provided. But he was not paying his rent; he says he could not afford to do so. The Council has a note its Housing Officer advised Mr B he would need to seek advice about his options from his university’s student accommodation services. That was because, as a full-time student, he would not be eligible for benefits such as housing benefit. She also advised Mr B the Council’s duty would end.
28. The Council has records of contacts from various professionals from October advising it Mr B was not paying his rent and that he had been signposted to various support organisations.
29. The Council has a 1 November note that Mr B’s last direct contact with it was on 9 September. And he had stopped occupying his interim accommodation then. So the Council had closed Mr B’s homeless application. The following day a professional advised the Council Mr B was living in a tent.
30. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in September 2021. He advised us his view was:
    • the Council should have advised him about the effect of being a student on his housing benefit. He says the Council knew he was starting a university course. But he says he would have still started his course if he had known that his housing benefit would stop;
    • he left the second interim accommodation the Council provided as he could not pay his rent. He had been living with friends since then;
    • an advice service had found him a flat, but the rent was too expensive;
    • his view was the Council should provide him with social housing at a rent he could afford (he suggested a figure of £600 per month, including bills).
31. In response to our enquiries, the Council sent us its file and responded:
    • the first reference in the Council’s file to Mr B’s plans to go to university was from September 2020;
    • when Mr B contacted it again in 2021, the only advice it could give him was to contact the student welfare officer at the university;
    • it should have accepted a relief duty to Mr B in July 2021 when his access to student accommodation ended. So it accepted it delayed;
    • in 2021 it did not send Mr B an end of relief duty letter, due to an administrative error. But it closed the application later after it lost contact with Mr B after he left the interim accommodation.

Was there fault by the Council?

Jurisdiction

32. Mr B contacted the Ombudsman over 12 months after his first contact with the Council. So the restriction outlined in paragraph 4 applies. But, due to the delay by the Council in 2021, I have used our discretion to consider that earlier period.
33. Mr B could have asked for a review of the Council’s first decision to end its relief duty. But he says he was not aware then that the housing provider could not help him when he became a student. I accept that is a reasonable reason why Mr B did not use his right of review, so the restriction set out in paragraph 5 does not apply.

Mr B’s first approach to the Council

34. A council should secure interim accommodation for an applicant while it is carrying out its relief duties if it has “reason to believe” an applicant may be homeless, eligible and have a priority need. The code of guidance states this is a low threshold.
35. The Council says it was after receiving contact from another organisation that it offered interim accommodation. But it received a referral from its adult social care section and Mr B mentions a range of disabilities. My view is that met the low threshold that Mr B might have a priority need. So, the council delayed by around 6 weeks in offering Mr B interim accommodation.
36. The Council ended its relief duty after it referred Mr B to a housing organisation. There was no fault in that decision. Mr B later advised he was moving to student accommodation.

The advice about access to benefits for students

37. Mr B says the Council knew he was due to start a course in September 2020. So it should have advised him his housing benefit would stop when his course started. The Council’s records have no mention of this, until Mr B advised it in September that he had moved to student accommodation. This is a conflict in evidence and I cannot resolve it with the information I have before me.
38. I do not propose to investigate this part of the complaint further, as any injustice to Mr B would not have been significant enough. This is because, even if the Council was aware that Mr B was due to start university, there was limited advice the Council could have given him. Mr B is clear that he would have started his course, even if he had known his housing benefit would stop. The problem with funding rent is something many students face, most of whom do not have access to housing benefit. That is more a reflection of the way higher education is funded (through student loans), rather than something a council’s homeless service can resolve.

Mr B’s second contact with the Council

39. When Mr B contacted the Council again in February 2021, he advised he was in unaffordable accommodation. The Council took no further action until August 2021, after Mr B complained. The Council should have carried out an assessment of Mr B’s situation much sooner. This might first have been under the prevention duty and later under the relief duty. This is to make no comment on what, if any, assistance the Council might have offered Mr B then (although Mr B’s limited options, as set out in paragraph 38, likely still applied).
40. When Mr B left his accommodation in May, the Council took until the beginning of August before it considered whether he met the threshold for it having to offer him interim accommodation. Again, that was too long.
41. It is also likely the delay, in turn, led to a delay in considering whether the Council had a full housing duty towards Mr B. It says it did not make a decision on this duty as it lost contact with Mr B after he left the interim accommodation. But for the delay, the Council may have had time to make a decision – which would have given Mr B review/appeal rights.
42. There were also other faults:
    • an administrative error that meant the Council did not send an end of relief letter;
    • not returning some of Mr B’s contacts.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

43. The delays I have identified meant Mr B spent less time in interim accommodation than might have been the case. That is an injustice. For the first period the delay was around one and a half months.
44. For the second period the delay covers a both a time when Mr B was still in his student accommodation and a time after he left. But the injustice in this second period is more limited than in the first. This is because, after the Council did provide interim accommodation, Mr B did not pay his rent. There was no duty on the Council to provide Mr B with accommodation that met his views on what was an affordable rent. Having spoken to Mr B about this, it is likely there would have been no accommodation available to the Council for him at the rent he was prepared to pay (see paragraph 30). So if the Council had offered the accommodation earlier, the issue with the rent would have likely arisen earlier; maybe meaning Mr B left the interim accommodation earlier.
45. The delays in the second assessment meant Mr B likely missed an opportunity to have a written decision and decide whether to use statutory review/appeal rights. The Council has never formed a view about whether Mr B is in priority need as defined by homelessness law.

Back to top

Recommended action

46. To remedy the faults I have identified, I recommended that, within one month of my final decision, the Council:
    • write to Mr B apologising for the faults I have identified;
    • pay Mr B £225 for the distress caused by the delay in offering interim accommodation in the first period;
    • makes an added payment of £110 (in addition to the £190 it has already paid) for the second period. This is for the uncertainty stress and frustration Mr B would have been caused by the poor communications and delay, including in offering him interim accommodation;
    • contact Mr B to offer a fresh assessment about any housing duties the Council may owe him. This should include, if the conditions of entitlement are met, an assessment of whether the Council owes Mr B the full housing duty.
47. The Council has accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. So I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page