Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council responded to her homelessness application. The Council was at fault for poor communication. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council refused to take her homelessness application and when it arranged to take the application it did so too late to help her.
2. Ms X said this meant she had to live in an unsuitable fly-infested property which risked her health and forced her to use washing and toilet facilities outside her home. She said it was distressing.

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. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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. I have considered:
• all the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
7. Ms X and the organisation 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

Relevant law and guidance

8. Section 179 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. Homelessness is defined in law and one definition is when a person is classed as homeless where it is unreasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation.
9. 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.
10. Caselaw has shown that councils do not have to take a homelessness application on the day they accept they have reason to believe a person is homeless. It is acceptable to make an appointment to take the application in the future, provided the wait is not unreasonable.

What happened

11. Ms X owns a flat which is located above a vacant Council flat. In late February 2022, she called the Council to apply as homeless due to an insect infestation. Ms X says the person she spoke to told her the Council would not accept a homelessness application from her because she is a homeowner.
12. Ms X questioned the Council's decision and it responded to refer her to several its departments including its pest control team and the team responsible for empty Council properties. It also advised her to make an insurance claim.
13. Records show that following some internal communications that day, the Council accepted it need to offer Ms X an appointment to take her homelessness application. The Council told me it did this because it decided it had reason to believe Ms X was homeless on the basis her property was unreasonable to occupy in the long term. The Council offered Ms X an appointment for late March.
14. Ms X emailed the Council in early March to say the situation had not improved. The Council replied with information on who to call to make a homelessness application. Ms X was confused by this given she had an appointment booked and asked for clarification. The Council confirmed the appointment date.
15. Ms X continued to speak to the Council about the infestation throughout early March. The Council changed her appointment to mid-March and called her to take her homelessness application. Ms X said she no longer wanted to make an application because the infestation had resolved itself.
16. The Council subsequently sent Ms X a letter confirming it would not offer homelessness assistance because it did not now have reason to believe she was homeless. This was because she owned her property and had declined to make an application.
17. Ms X was unhappy and complained to the Council. She said it had first refused to take her application and then when it had offered her an appointment, it was too far in the future.
18. The Council responded to say it had not offered her homelessness assistance because at the time she first contacted it, it did not have reason to believe she was homeless because it was unreasonable to remain in her property.

Findings

19. The Council has a duty to take an application for homelessness assistance if it has reason to believe someone is homeless. The Council decided it had that ‘reason to believe’ the same day Ms X presented as homeless. It offered her an appointment for a month later. While Ms X would have liked the appointment to be sooner, the one-month wait does not amount to fault. The Council also acted appropriately in directing Ms X to other services who could support her.
20. However, the Council's communication with Ms X has been poor. Ms X says that during the phone call when she presented as homeless, the Council told her it would not take an application because she is a homeowner. Based on records I have seen; I am satisfied Ms X’s account is accurate. However, being a homeowner does not preclude someone from being made homeless if it is unreasonable for them to occupy their home. This information was wrong.
21. After Ms X questioned this, the Council arranged an appointment to take her application. When Ms X contacted it with an update, the Council told her to go to its homelessness department to make an application. This confused Ms X as she already had an appointment to make the application. When Ms X later declined to make the application because the infestation had resolved itself, the Council told her it would not offer homelessness support because it did not have reason to believe she was homeless, in part because she is a homeowner. Finally, in its complaint responses, the Council wrongly stated it had not offered assistance because at the time Ms X presented as homeless, it did not have reason to believe it was unreasonable for her to continue to occupy her home.
22. The Council's confused and at time, inaccurate, communication was fault. It caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty about whether the Council's decision making could be relied upon.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Ms X for the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of its poor communication with her.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman