Summary: Mr X said the Council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and its housing duties and failed to properly assess his application for a discretionary housing payment. We found the Council was at fault for failure to fulfil its homelessness duties causing him to miss out on accommodation. This caused Mr X frustration, uncertainty, distress and put him to the time and trouble of complaining. We have not made a finding about Mr X’s application for a Discretionary Housing Payment. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly assess his homelessness application and failed to fulfil its duties. He also said it failed to properly consider his application for a discretionary housing payment. Mr X said this has caused him distress, left him homeless which caused physical injury. He says the fault caused him to miss out on available properties.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have not investigated any matters before October 2020. This is because this part of the complaint is over twelve months old. Mr X could have reasonably complained about this earlier and I see no reason to investigate this now.

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. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr X and the Council provided along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

8. 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.
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. 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) 
10. 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)
11. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts a maximum of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
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)

The Council’s complaints policy

13. The Council has a two-stage complaint policy. It should respond to a Stage One complaint within ten working days. If the complainant remains unhappy, they can request a Stage Two investigation. This should take no more than 20 days to complete.

Background

14. Mr X first applied to the Council for homelessness relief in December 2019, the Council accepted its homelessness duty to Mr X and offered him supported accommodation. It closed Mr X’s case in April 2020.

What Happened

15. This decision statement sets out the key events and is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened.
16. Mr X contacted the Council for homelessness assistance on 10 September 2020. He said he had been sofa surfing since December 2019 and had been asked to leave the address he was currently staying at. He told the Council he suffered from mental and physical health issues.
17. Mr X already had an allocated housing needs officer assigned to his case which was allocated and reopened on 6 October 2020.
18. The following day, the Council emailed Mr X asking him to answer 17 questions in order to progress his application. The Council said it would re-contact Mr X on 12 October to discuss his application further.
19. Mr X responded to the Council on the same day. He said it had taken too long to deal with his application, he said he had made it aware he had housing issues in April. He answered all the questions and said he had lived at two addresses up to December 2018, from this date he answered, “no address since this.” Mr X also said he was unable to complete some of the attached documents contained in the email and asked the Council for help and advice.
20. The Council responded on the same day and asked Mr X for his address history. It also noted Mr X should provide documents by photographing and emailing them, and offered to send Mr X paper copies of any documents and asked him for an up-to-date address.
21. Mr X told the Council he did not have a smart phone and could not photograph documents. He explained he did not have a current address where the Council could send paper copies of documents. He asked the Council when its offices would be open. He also told the Council he believed it was its responsibility to secure his medical documentation. He explained the situation had left him feeling anxious and stressed.
22. The Council responded and told Mr X that due to the COVID-19 pandemic the office was closed to the public, however, it offered Mr X the option to refer himself to housing support and suggested he contact an advocate to help him secure and provide his verification documents.
23. The Council contacted Mr X’s G.P on 12 October 2020 and requested his medical information.
24. The Council remained in constant email communication with Mr X throughout October 2020. It explained it would also contact housing support agencies and told Mr X he could apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) if he needed additional help when considering private housing costs. It said if Mr X needed emergency accommodation it could refer him to a further accommodation support agency.
25. The Council noted in an email on 26 October 2020 that it “would have normally completed a full assessment and personal housing plan but this has proven difficult as Mr X was unable or unwilling to provide detailed medical information and other documents.”
26. The Council emailed Mr X on 3 November 2020 and told him it had received all the information it had requested from his G.P. It said it hoped to complete his assessment and personal housing plan within a week.
27. Mr X contacted the Council in early December 2020 and said his G.P’s notes had missed out certain details. He told the Council of his previous injuries and mental health issues.
28. The Council re-contacted housing support and said it was reluctant to offer Mr X anything until it had a clear picture of his medical information so it knew what accommodation would be suitable for him.
29. Mr X recontacted the Council in late February 2021 and asked for an update about his application.
30. The Council said it tried to call Mr X in late March 2021, however it said it left a voicemail message.
31. Mr X chased the Council in March 2021 and said he wanted to raise a complaint. The Council’s notes said Mr X had become angry and was abusive on the call.
32. Mr X first complained to the Council in March 2021. He said:

• The Council had failed in its homelessness duties, leaving him homeless.
• He had not received any contact from his caseworker.
• His mental health had deteriorated due to the Council’s failure to find him accommodation.

33. The Council responded to Mr X on 13 April 2021, under Stage One of its corporate complaint’s procedure. It said:

• Mr X had previously presented as homeless in early December 2019.
• It re-opened Mr X’s case after he approached its Housing Solutions Team on 6 October 2020 asking for assistance.
• It would need to complete a new assessment as his previous assessment was out of date.
• It had given Mr X advice on 14 and 20 October 2020 and 25 March 2021 and had been in regular contact throughout October 2020.
• It had asked him to provide details to progress his application which he had not done.
• Mr X told it he was living with a friend.

34. Mr X chased the Council for a response to his application on 19 April 2021. He explained his mental health was deteriorating and provided the Council with details of an address where he had been staying. He said he wanted to make a further complaint.
35. The Council re-iterated its earlier response and said no duty was accepted as Mr X had failed to provide up to date details of where he was staying. However, it said it did provide Mr X with advice, referrals, and information to assist his search for accommodation.
36. The Council also held a multi-disciplinary meeting on 23 June 2021 and discussed Mr X’s case. However, I have not been provided with minutes of this meeting or what was discussed.
37. The Council closed Mr X’s case in October 2021, it said it had received information Mr X had found his own accommodation and was now privately renting.
38. Mr X made a further complaint in late November 2021. He reiterated his previous complaint and spoke about his earlier application in 2019, but said he was now in a desperate situation.
39. The Council responded to Mr X in December 2021 under Stage One of its complaints policy. It said it did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It explained it was aware Mr X had signed a tenancy agreement on 21 October 2021 and it had now closed his case.
40. The Council said it had provided Mr X with information about its Bond Scheme, suitable landlord contact details, information on Discretionary Housing Payments, and notified him by email of its homelessness decision letters in 2019. It said:

• Mr X did not supply information the Council needed to consider his application, despite it sending him numerous detailed emails about why this was needed.
• The Council had requested medical information from Mr X’s GP and obtained this.
• It had referred Mr X to a mental health and an adult social care team for assessment, along with referrals to housing and support trusts.

41. Mr X complained again to the Council in April 2022. He asked it why it had not housed him and re-iterated his old complaint from 2019 and 2020.
42. The Council responded and said it would look at Mr X’s complaint and reply no later than 16 May 2022.
43. The Council emailed Mr X on 14 July 2022, it said it had already addressed Mr X’s concerns in its complaints response in December 2021 and it would not provide any further responses.
44. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman in October 2022.

The Council’s Response to my enquiries

45. The Council responded to my enquiries in March 2023. It said:

• The Council did not accept a homelessness duty as Mr X did not supply it with the information it requested to complete an assessment.
• It said it provided detailed and tailored information for Mr X between 1 October 2020 and 31 October 2021 and sent clear instructions.
• It had no further communication with Mr X following his use of inappropriate language.

Analysis

46. Mr X told the Council in early September he was sofa surfing, suffering with mental and physical health issues and was homeless. The Council did not reply to Mr X’s request for assistance for over one month. This was fault. On responding to Mr X’s request, the Council asked him a series of questions which it said it needed answering before it could formally decide whether it owed him the prevention or relief housing duties.
47. The Council’s questions of Mr X indicate it had reason to believe he might be homeless. Its questions of Mr X’s GP indicate it had reason to believe he might be in priority need. Therefore, the Council had a duty to offer Mr X interim accommodation while it made its enquiries. Not to have done so was fault. As a result, Mr X missed out on an opportunity to be accommodated. This is an injustice to Mr X.
48. Mr X responded to the Council’s questions, but explained he needed assistance with producing or signing documents. He suggested he attend the Council’s offices as he did not have a smart phone or reliable access to the internet. However, as this was during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council explained its office was closed. I appreciate the Council suggested Mr X may benefit from the help of an advocate and that it would need a correspondence address so it could send paper copies of documents. However, during this time, I would have expected the Council to have had a system in place to assist persons to access its services and provide documents in an alternative way. I have seen no evidence the Council offered Mr X any other options. This was fault. Had the Council provided interim accommodation, Mr X might have been more able to provide the documents requested by the Council. This missed opportunity is an injustice.
49. The Council’s notes show it recognised in late October 2020 it would normally have completed a full assessment, however, it noted Mr X was either unable or unwilling to provide answers to the questions the Council needed to make an assessment. In early November 2020, the Council emailed Mr X and told him it expected to complete his assessment within a week and said it would issue him with a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) on doing so. I understand this to mean the Council was satisfied it owed Mr X a duty. I have seen no evidence the Council completed an assessment, told Mr X what duty it owed him, or issued a personalised housing plan. This was fault. It should have reached a decision and communicated this to Mr X. In not doing so it also deprived Mr X of his statutory rights to have his case reviewed. This was fault.
50. The Council should have accepted the relief duty to Mr X in November 2021. After 56 days, it should have decided whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. Not to do so was fault. I cannot say what that decision would have been. However, the decision would have carried a statutory review right. The Council’s fault denied Mr X this right and leaves him with uncertainty about whether his housing circumstances would be better were it not for the fault. These are injustices to Mr X.

Discretionary Housing Payment

51. Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider his application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). The Council’s notes show it provided Mr X with information about this in March 2021, however, I have seen no evidence Mr X made an application for a DHP. Therefore, I am unable to make a finding on this and do not propose to investigate it further.

Complaint Handling and communication

52. The Council’s notes show that when Mr X first approached it in September 2020 it did not respond until over a month later. The Council’s notes show it told Mr X it would complete its assessment and provide him with a PHP in November 2020 within a week. It did not do this. When Mr X chased the Council for a response in February 2021, it took over a month to reply. The Council closed Mr X’s case in October 2021, saying it believed he had found privately rented accommodation. The Council has provided no evidence it told Mr X it had closed his case. This was fault and caused Mr X further frustration and uncertainty.
53. Mr X complained to the Council on a number of occasions. I have seen two stage One responses dated 13 April 2021 and 14 December 2021. However, it did not escalate this complaint to Stage Two. It also took longer than it should to have investigated Mr X’s complaints. It did not adhere to its own complaints policy. This was fault and caused further frustration and put Mr X to the time and trouble of chasing the Council. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. By 4 October 2023 the Council will:

• Apologise to Mr X for causing him distress, frustration, and uncertainty.
• Pay Mr X £700 for causing him to miss out on accommodation and denied him his statutory right to a review. This caused him distress, uncertainty, and frustration.
• Pay Mr X a further £300 for poor communication and for putting him to the time and trouble of chasing the Council.
• Review its procedures for homelessness referrals, and issue reminders to relevant staff, to ensure it meets its statutory duties for homelessness applicants within the required timescales.

55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I find the Council was at fault causing injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman