Summary: Mr Y complains about several failures by the Council in the way it handled his case when he became homeless in 2020. We uphold all parts of Mr Y’s complaint and recommend a total payment of £950, a review of his accommodation and support with applying to the Council’s housing register.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mr Y, complains about how the Council handled his case when he became homeless in 2020. In particular, he says the Council:
1. delayed in providing assistance to relieve homelessness because it insisted on the submission of documents before making enquiries into his case;
2. failed to make an offer of emergency interim accommodation whilst it made enquiries, despite Mr Y being vulnerable and street homeless;
3. did not accept a ‘relief duty’ and did not provide a Personalised Housing Plan;
4. failed to support Mr Y with applying for the social housing register and instead only provided information about private rented accommodation; and
5. did not take account of Mr Y’s medical diagnosis and mental health needs and ended its duty without satisfying itself the accommodation offered to him was suitable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. During my investigation I considered the information provided by Mr Y and made enquiries of the Council.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and consulted the relevant law and guidance around the prevention and relief of homelessness.
7. I exercised discretion to consider matters which Mr Y has been aware of since September 2020. This is because Mr Y has presented good reason for not complaining sooner and some of the claimed injustice is ongoing.
8. Mr Y 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

What should happen

9. 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.
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code 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, 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. 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). 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.
12. 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)
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to ensure 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)
14. 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)

What happened

15. Mr Y approached the Council for help in late September 2020 when he became unemployed and homeless. Mr Y has some chronic health issues. During his period of homelessness, Mr Y describes how he slept in his car or on the streets. After his approach, a housing officer asked Mr Y to submit documents in support of his request for assistance. Mr Y submitted the requested documents to the Council on 8 November 2020. The following day, the Council took an application to establish what action, if any, it needed to take to relieve Mr Y of homelessness.
16. At this time the Council says it made a verbal offer of interim hostel accommodation, which Mr Y refused because he could not live within shared facilities due to his medical needs. There is no evidence of the Council’s offer.
17. The Council also referred Mr Y’s case to its private tenancy team and invited Mr Y to view a property. Mr Y accepted the private tenancy on 12 November 2020 with a monthly rental payment of £996.67.
18. Mr Y received a letter from the Council in December 2020 confirming that he was eligible for assistance but the Council’s duty to secure accommodation was fulfilled because Mr Y had accepted a private tenancy.
19. Around one month later, Mr Y contacted the Council seeking a review of its decision to end the duty. The Council refused Mr Y’s review request because it was made more than 21 days from the Council’s letter.
20. Mr Y made a complaint to the Council. The Council apologised and concluded:
• it failed to issue a letter confirming the Council had accepted a relief duty. The Council should have also provided a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP)
• the possibility of interim accommodation was discussed with Mr Y at the time, but he declined hostel accommodation in favour of other living arrangements which he had made.
• an officer will contact Mr Y to issue the correct paperwork so that he can request a review.
21. The Council emailed Mr Y on 10 August 2021 to arrange to complete a suitability assessment of his current accommodation. The Council closed the case on 1 September 2021 when Mr Y failed to respond.
22. Mr Y approached the LGSCO for an impartial review of his complaint.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mr Y

23. In response to both Mr Y’s complaint and the LGSCO’s enquiries, the Council has acknowledged there was some fault in how it fulfilled its duties to relieve Mr Y of his homelessness. I will deal with each example of fault I have found, in turn, below.
24. Firstly, the Council delayed in assisting Mr Y between September and November 2020. The Council has not accepted fault here; it says that it required documentation from Mr Y before it could undertake the necessary assessment. This is fault. If the Council has reason to believe that a person may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, the onus is on the Council, rather than the applicant, to make prompt inquiries and carry out an assessment to determine if the person is eligible for assistance. Having ‘reason to believe’ is a low threshold.
25. The Council’s assessment should include:
• the circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the housing needs of the applicant, including what accommodation would be suitable for the applicant and any persons with whom the applicant resides or might reasonably be expected to reside (“other relevant persons”); and
• the support that would be necessary for them, and anybody who will be living with them, to have and sustain suitable accommodation.
26. The Code does not set out any statutory timescales for the completion of inquiries and assessments, however the LGSCO expects councils to undertake them without delay. This is because homeless people are, by the nature of their circumstances, vulnerable and usually require immediate assistance. With that said, although I consider the Council did not do enough when Mr Y requested help in September 2020, it did act promptly when it looked at his case again in November.
27. In my view, the primary injustice flowing from the Council’s inaction in September and October was the lack of accommodation offered to Mr Y. Councils have an immediate duty to offer interim accommodation to those in priority need, pending completion of its inquiries and assessments. There is no evidence to show the Council made an offer of interim emergency accommodation to Mr Y despite its duty under section 188 of the Housing Act. Although the Council was entitled to ask if Mr Y had made alternative private arrangements, it should have evidence of any such discussions. There is no record of any discussions or offers made to Mr Y during this time. Consequently, there is uncertainty around whether Mr Y was deprived of the opportunity to access emergency accommodation to relieve his homelessness pending an offer of temporary or permanent accommodation.
28. Secondly, the Council did not issue a PHP or offer adequate advice or support to Mr Y during his period of homelessness. The Code says councils must always provide access to advice and assistance during office hours and have arrangements in place for 24-hour emergency cover. Details of the homelessness service should be well publicised, and applicants given clear explanations of procedures. The Council accepts there is no evidence on file to show that Mr Y received any support or information about gaining access to the Council’s housing register.
29. Finally, the Council failed to review the suitability of Mr Y’s current accommodation. After Mr Y raised concerns about the suitability of the property in relation to his needs and medical diagnosis, the Council agreed in August 2021 to review his case and an officer made contact by email. The Council closed the case in September when Mr Y failed to provide his mobile number. Having reviewed the records, it is clear the Council already had Mr Y’s mobile number; it appears both on the homelessness assessment form and the signed tenancy agreement. Mr Y’s mobile number has not changed since these documents were created as the LGSCO made successful telephone contact with Mr Y upon receipt of his complaint to us. Therefore, I find fault with the Council for not making the necessary efforts to undertake the suitability review in August 2021.
30. In response to our enquiries the Council has proposed a remedy for Mr Y’s complaint. I will list the proposed actions in the section below, along with the additions which I consider are necessary to fully remedy the injustice caused by Council fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will undertake the following actions which it has already proposed:
• Pay £300 to Mr Y in recognition of the missed opportunity to accept his request for a review of the decision to cease the relief duty and for the time, trouble and frustration caused by poor record keeping and a failure to issue the necessary documentation.
• Pay £200 for the failure to make reasonable attempts to contact Mr Y in 2021 to assess the suitability of his current property.
• Contact Mr Y and assess the suitability of his property. The Council should undertake the review within the statutory timescales (eight weeks).
• If the Council concludes that Mr Y’s property is unsuitable, it should pay £200 for each month Mr Y has resided in the property. The Council will also take the necessary action to resolve any suitability issues it identifies.
32. In addition to the above, the Council has also agreed to undertake the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay £300 to Mr Y for the uncertainty around whether he was deprived of an opportunity to access emergency interim accommodation.
• Pay £150 for the failure to provide advice and support to Mr Y about applying for the housing register.
33. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will also:
• If it has not done so already, support Mr Y with applying for the housing register. The Council should backdate Mr Y’s entitlement to October 2020 and consider whether, based on his banding, Mr Y has missed the opportunity to receive an offer of housing since then until the present day. If so, the Council should make an offer of the next available, suitable property; and
• Provide evidence to the LGSCO that it has reminded all officers dealing with homelessness cases about the importance of record keeping and the statutory requirement to issue the necessary paperwork (such as decision letters outlining the acceptance of duties and PHPs)

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice for the reasons explained in this statement. The actions agreed above are, in my view, an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman