Liverpool City Council (22 008 745)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 28 Mar 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused to accept his homelessness applications when he was fleeing domestic abuse. This meant he missed out on being temporarily housed and was left at risk. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for is handling of Mr X’s homelessness applications. However, the remedy provided by the Council is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council refused to accept multiple homelessness applications from him when he was fleeing domestic abuse.
  2. Mr X complains the Council has not understood its duty to those fleeing domestic abuse and asked him to put himself at risk.
  3. Mr X also complains the Council’s failure to accept his homelessness application has meant that other Local Authorities no longer view him as in priority need.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I considered Mr X’s complaint and information he provided. I also considered information from the Council.
  2. I considered comments from Mr X and the Council on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Homelessness

  1. 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.
  2. 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 personalised housing plan.

Applications

  1. 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.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

  1. 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.

Priority need

  1. 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.
  • People fleeing domestic abuse

What happened.

  1. Mr X approached the Council in January 2022 and asked to submit a homelessness application because he was fleeing domestic abuse
  2. The Council at first refused to accept a homelessness application from Mr X and signposted him back to the Council he was fleeing from.
  3. Mr X tried again to make a homelessness application to the Council in April 2022 and was offered a telephone assessment. Following the telephone assessment, the Council asked information about Mr X’s connection to the area and made enquiries to Mr X’s independent advocate.
  4. The Council refused to consider Mr X’s allegations of domestic abuse but invited agreed to complete a homelessness assessment. The Council says Mr X refused the offer of an assessment however, Mr X denies this and says the Council refused to believe he was fleeing domestic abuse.
  5. In July 2022 Mr X again contacted the Council to make a homelessness application. The Council began an assessment.
  6. The application was not progressed because Mr X withdrew his application because he had made an application with an alternative Council.
  7. Mr X complained to the Council that it had twice refused his homelessness application when fleeing domestic abuse.
  8. The Councils stage one response said it could not locate records about the application in January 2022, but that it recognised the questions asked in the application in April were unsuitable. The Council apologised for the poor record keeping and for the handling of the application in April 2022.
  9. Mr X remained unhappy and asked the Council escalate his complaint to stage two.
  10. The stage two response said
  • The council recognised it had wrongly refused Mr X’s homelessness application in January 2022,
  • That it should have offered an assessment as Mr X had said he was fleeing domestic abuse,
  • That it should have created a referral and kept records of this,
  • That it should not have asked questions about local connection or health condition as it was not appropriate at that stage.
  1. The Council apologised for not correctly assessing Mr X’s homelessness applications. It offered him £500 in recognition of the failure to progress the assessment and the distress caused.
  2. It also carried out the following service improvements
  • Training for all housing options customer access team
  • Creating additional posts for specialist domestic abuse navigators.

Analysis

  1. Councils have a duty to provide interim accommodation to those it has reason to believe may be homeless and in priority need while it makes enquiries and decides whether to complete an assessment.
  2. In Mr X’s case, the second time he tried to make an application, the officer made enquiries about his circumstances. On balance, I am satisfied the Council believed Mr X may be in priority need. The Council should have provided him with interim accommodation while it made its enquiries and decided whether to assess him. I am satisfied the Council had enough information to do this the first time Mr X approached the Council.
  3. Failure to do so was fault by the Council. It meant Mr X missed being temporarily housed and meant that he was also not given review rights of any decision outcome.
  4. The Council’s stage 2 response has recognised the fault. The Council accepts that it should have progressed Mr X’s homelessness application on his first attempt. The Council has also recognised it should not have refused the application a second time.
  5. Mr X has confirmed that in the time where the Council refused to progress his application, he stayed with friends and made a homelessness application to a different Council.
  6. As the Council never reached the stage of deciding whether it had a homelessness duty, I cannot say what the Council would have found if it had done an assessment. However, the fault by the Council has left with Mr X with uncertainty about whether the Council would have decided he was homeless and owed him a housing duty.
  7. The Councils stage 2 response sets out that it has recognised it was at fault and the actions is has taken to ensure it doesn’t happen again. The stage two response provides a payment in recognition of the injustice to Mr X and sets out service improvements.
  8. I find fault with the Council for failing to accept Mr X’s homelessness applications and for failing to provide interim accommodation when it had reason to believe he may have been in priority need. However, the remedy provided by the Council is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
  9. Mr X also says that since the Council refused his applications, he was forced to stay with friends, and as a result other Councils do not see him as fleeing domestic abuse. Where Mr X has approached other Councils and made applications, if the Councils have provided Mr X with a decision about his application, he has appeal rights to appeal the decision given.
  10. Mr X has said he incurred financial costs in the interim for food, clothes and private renting. The costs for food and clothes are unavoidable regardless of housing. Mr X has yet to obtain private accommodation and therefore the cost of this is speculative.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to accept Mr X’s homelessness application. I also find fault with the Council for failing to provide interim accommodation when it had reason to believe he may be in priority need. However, the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings