Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in processing Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council also was at fault for delays in issuing Mr X with a Personalised Housing Plan after his assessment and for failing to review this. The Council agreed to provide Mr X with a decision on whether it owes him the full housing duty, make a payment to him for the delays in processing his application and consider what improvements it can make to its service to reduce delays in processing homelessness applications.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. Mr X says the Council:
• Did not provide him with suitable interim accommodation.
• Delayed in processing his homelessness application and carrying out enquiries.
• Did not send him his Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) or review this.
2. Mr X says he has had to pay for interim accommodation in the meantime and has not received a decision on his homelessness application.

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 an organisation’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 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

6. As part of this investigation, I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I considered the relevant parts of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

7. 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.
8. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
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 PHP. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
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)
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure 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)
13. 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)

What happened

14. On 14 July 2021, Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance. The Council provided Mr X interim accommodation at a hotel on 19 July 2020. Mr X contacted the Council the next day and asked it to move him. Mr X said he could not share bathroom facilities due to a bowel condition he suffered with.
15. The Council’s Housing, Health and Disability (HHD) team assessed the accommodation and decided it was not suitable for Mr X. The HHD team decided Mr X could not share bathroom facilities and agreed to look for alternative interim accommodation.
16. On 29 July 2021, the Council offered Mr X alternative interim accommodation. This was a self-contained studio flat. After visiting the property Mr X contacted the Council to raise concerns about the property. These included Mr X finding the property claustrophobic and noisy which impacted on his mental health. The Council’s HHD team considered the suitability of the property in early August 2021 and considered the medical information provided by Mr X. The Council decided the property was suitable for Mr X.
17. Mr X sent the Council further medical evidence in August 2021, which the Council considered but decided it was not clear why Mr X needed a one bedroom property. Mr X also contacted the Council and said he had not received a copy of his PHP.
18. The Council send Mr X his PHP on 22 September 2021. The PHP stated the Council would review it by 13 October 2021. In early October 2021, Mr X contacted the Council and asked for help with accommodation. Mr X said he could not borrow any more money to put towards accommodation.
19. The Council told Mr X at the end of October 2021, that its relief duty would end on 17 November 2021, however it was likely the Council would owe Mr X the main housing duty and then make him an offer of temporary accommodation. Mr X also asked the Council for a review of his PHP in October 2021.
20. On 29 November 2021, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Mr X said the Council delayed in providing him with his PHP and did not try to relieve his homelessness. Mr X also complained the Council had not provided him with a decision on his homelessness application.
21. The Council provided its stage one response on 16 December 2021. The Council said:
• It made Mr X an offer of interim accommodation which it considered was suitable, but Mr X refused this.
• Its private sector team contacted Mr X in August 2021.
• It agreed it had delayed in processing his homelessness application and delayed in notifying Mr X it owed him the relief duty. The Council also said it delayed in providing him with a copy of his PHP. The Council said this was due to staff shortages. The Council said the delay in completing Mr X’s homelessness application had been furthered by the difficulty in obtaining medical evidence from the professionals treating him.
22. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two on 16 January 2022. Mr X said the delay in providing his PHP was not due to resources but because the housing officer failed to send it. Mr X also questioned why the Council only sought medical evidence from the professionals treating him in November 2021. Mr X said he refused the interim accommodation as it caused him to relive his post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr X also said there was inaccurate information in his PHP.
23. In early February 2022, the Council sent Mr X two emails asking him for confirmation about his previous addresses. The Council did not receive a response so sent Mr X, on 11 February 2022, a decision letter saying it had closed his case as Mr X had not provided information requested.
24. Mr X’s brother contacted the Council in response and the Council re-opened Mr X’s case. The Council asked Mr X to supply the information it requested about his address history.
25. The Council provided its stage two complaint response on 16 February 2021. The Council said:
• It should have completed a review of Mr X’s PHP as he requested, and not withdrawn this. The Council apologised.
• It was sorry Mr X’s ongoing needs were not reflected in the PHP, as it was not reviewed.
• The interim accommodation it offered Mr X was suitable and Mr X left this of his own accord. The Council said its HHD team considered Mr X’s medical evidence and decided there was no need for Mr X to have a one bedroom property.
• It apologised for the delay in processing Mr X’s homelessness application. The Council said it had received medical information and was awaiting the outcome of enquiries on Mr X’s former address. The Council said it could make a decision once Mr X provided this.
26. Since the complaints procedure ended. The Council sent Mr X another letter closing his case, in April 2022. This is because it said it had not received the information about his address history it requested. The Council has again withdrawn this decision following Mr X requesting a review. The Council said it is now due to make a decision on Mr X’s homelessness application by the end of May 2022.

Analysis

27. The Council was at fault for the time taken to process Mr X’s homelessness application. Mr X applied as homeless in July 2021 and still has not received a decision on his homelessness application. I recognise the Council has requested information from Mr X about his address history to conclude its enquiries, however it only did this from the end of 2021, some six months after Mr X made a homelessness application.
28. The Council has rightly acknowledged the delays in deciding Mr X’s homelessness application and apologised. However, Mr X has suffered distress as a result of not receiving a conclusion to his homelessness case.
29. The Council also failed to provide Mr X with a copy of his PHP following his assessment or notify him it owed him the relief duty. This is fault. As a result, Mr X would not have known the steps he and the Council should take as set out in his PHP. In addition, delaying in sending Mr X the PHP meant he could not request a review the content of the PHP.
30. The Council did not review Mr X’s PHP. This is fault. The PHP had a review date of 13 October 2021, however I have seen no evidence the Council carried out a review of the PHP. The Council also did not address Mr X’s request for a review of the PHP in October 2021. This is also fault. Had the Council reviewed the PHP, it could have better understood Mr X’s needs and have been better placed to help relieve his homelessness.
31. Mr X also complained the Council did not provide him with accommodation and provided him with unsuitable interim accommodation. I have not found the Council at fault for this. The Council initially provided Mr X with accommodation with a shared bathroom. After Mr X evidenced this was unsuitable due to his bowel condition, the Council sourced alternative accommodation for him. This was a studio flat. While I recognise Mr X considered this accommodation was unsuitable, the Council’s HHD team considered the suitability and the medical evidence Mr X provided and decided it was suitable for him. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with this but it was a decision the Council was entitled to make. Without fault in the decision making process, I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified.
2. Pay Mr X £250 for the distress caused as a result of the delays in processing his homeless application, delays in issuing a PHP and for failing to review this.
3. Provide Mr X with a decision on his homeless application, specifying whether or not the Council owes him the full housing duty. Should Mr X not provide the Councill with the information it has asked for, it should make the decision on the information it has.
33. Within two months of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following and provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has done so:
1. In light of the Council’s position that the delays in this case were caused by staff shortages, the Council should consider what improvements it can make to its service to reduce the delays in processing homelessness applications. The Council should report its findings back to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s homelessness application. This caused him injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman