Summary: The Council’s failure to take a homeless application from Mr X in June 2021 was fault. The Council was not at fault for refusing Mr X’s applications for Discretionary Housing Payments. The Council has already remedied its fault in failing to contact Mr X about his application to the housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Mr X £500, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed properly to help him when he was homeless. In particular, he says the Council:

1. failed to complete a homelessness assessment in March or June 2021, and again when he approached in October and November.
2. refused to pay him Discretionary Housing Payments that would have relieved his homelessness
3. failed to resolve technical problems which prevented him from making an application to the housing register.

2. As a result, Mr X says he had to stay in expensive hotels and other temporary accommodation. He says the Council’s inaction has also negatively affected his mental health.

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 question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance, including the Housing Act 1996, as amended, and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. 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

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 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.
11. 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))
12. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or assistance to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ that they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries to satisfy itself whether any other duties are owed to that person. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)

13. A council may award a DHP when someone needs help with housing costs and is claiming Housing Benefit, or Universal Credit which includes housing costs towards rent. (Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual February 2021, section 1.7, as amended)
14. The scheme is discretionary and there is no statutory right to payment.
15. Although Government guidance gives councils broad discretion, it stresses that DHP decisions must follow the ordinary principles of good decision making. Councils have a duty to act fairly, reasonably, and consistently, and must decide each case on its own merits. Councils can exercise discretion in questions asked of applicants and decisions made. (Discretionary Housing Payments guidance manual February 2021, sections 1.11 and 5.1, as amended)

My findings

Homelessness – March and June

16. A person does not have to approach a specific council department or complete a specific form to make a homeless application.
17. In March 2021, Mr X applied for a DHP to help him pay his rent at his private tenancy. In his application, he said his landlord had issued a notice requiring him to leave his private rented tenancy. DHP applications are processed by a private contractor acting on behalf of the Council.
18. Since Mr X was not seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation, the Council did not have a duty to assess Mr X and make inquiries. Nonetheless, Mr X was threatened with homelessness. Had the contractor referred Mr X to the relevant Council department for advice and assistance, the Council might have been able to advise Mr X and his landlord that his notice to quit was invalid and that Mr X did not have to leave his property in June.
19. In any event, in June Mr X contacted the Council to ask for a DHP to help with deposit and rent in advance to secure a new property. This application was seeking help to obtain accommodation. Therefore, the Council had a duty to assess Mr X’s circumstances and make inquiries to find out what, if any, duties it owed him. Failure to do so was fault.
20. The Council’s failure to fulfil its statutory duties in June 2021 means it missed an opportunity to support Mr X to relieve his homelessness. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.

Homelessness – October and November

21. Mr X contacted the Council about his homelessness in October and November. On both occasions the Council completed a “housing advice questionnaire”. The Council told Mr X that it had reason to believe he was homeless and offered to arrange an appointment to complete a homeless assessment with him.
22. On both occasions, the Council’s records show that Mr X declined to make this appointment. Mr X says the Council told him that since it had no reason to believe he was in priority need it could take an application but there would be little it could do to help him.
23. I cannot say how the Council conducted the telephone call with Mr X. However, the records show the Council recognised its duty to assess and make inquiries and offered Mr X appointments to begin the assessment process. Mr X refused these offers. There is therefore no injustice to Mr X from the Council not taking an application from him.

DHPs

24. Mr X asked the Council for DHPs to help him secure accommodation in June, August, and September.
25. On each occasion the Council refused the application because it considered the properties Mr X identified were not affordable.
26. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a decision unless there is fault in the way the Council made it. Whether the property would be affordable is a relevant consideration for the Council in deciding whether to award a DHP. There is no fault in how the Council decided not to pay DHPs to Mr X to secure private rented accommodation.

Housing allocations

27. Mr X says he could not complete an application to join the Council’s housing register. He said that he had technical difficulties accessing his online account to complete the form.
28. The Council says it is aware of a problem in its system that means applicants who it has also assessed under homeless services have to reset their passwords. It says it is waiting for its software supplier to resolve the issue.
29. In October 2021, Mr X asked the Council for help in completing his application to the housing register. The Council accepts that it failed to contact him within the 10 working days it aims for. It apologised for this fault. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.
30. The records show that in November, the Council offered to arrange for an officer to call Mr X to complete an application over the phone, which he declined. In its complaint response, the Council explained to Mr X how to arrange an appointment with the housing allocations team. There is no evidence Mr X has made an appointment to complete an application.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. To remedy the injustice to Mr X for the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing
• Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of his avoidable distress
• Contact Mr X to assess his current housing situation
32. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
33. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Ensure frontline staff and contractors delivering services on the Council’s behalf are aware that a homeless application can be made to any department and refer people who indicate they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness to the relevant department for advice and assistance. Provide guidance or training as necessary.
34. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation. There is some fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman