Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide assistance after he made a homeless application and that the lack of settled accommodation caused considerable problems for him and his family. There is evidence of fault in this case regarding failure to act on information and failure to make timely enquiries. However this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. The failure to issue a decision notice in November 2022 can be remedied by now issuing the notice which will give Mr X a right of review if he disagrees with the decision.

The complaint

1. The Council failed to provide assistance when Mr X made a homeless application.
2. He says the lack of settled accommodation has caused considerable problems for himself and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X says he was evicted from a property he owned in January 2022. At the time of the eviction he was in France after having surgery there. He submitted a homeless application to the Council on 7 January 2022.
7. The Council asked Mr X to provide information in support of his application twice. When Mr X did not provide the requested information, his application was treated as withdrawn and closed. Mr X says he sent the requested information on 19 January.
8. Mr X returned to the UK in March following his discharge from hospital. He says that on 30 March he went to the Council and was told to call after 6pm as there was no one available in the daytime to attend to homeless people.
9. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council on 18 May saying he needed accommodation for himself and his two children. The Council responded accepting that he had provided some of the requested information in January. It said his case should have been allocated to a housing advisor to make enquiries to determine if it owed him any duties under the homelessness prevention act. It upheld his complaint, apologised and allocated his case to a housing advisor. It noted the officer had spoken to Mr X and arranged an appointment for the following day and that he had confirmed he was staying with friends and did not need accommodation that night.
10. The Council wrote to Mr X on 26 May requesting evidence in support of his application. Mr X provided a large amount of information in response to this request. This included information about where Mr X had been staying for the previous five months but not the previous five years.
11. Mr X made a stage two complaint to the Council on 20 July. He complained about the delay in providing accommodation and that he had been asked to provide the same documents he had already provided. The Council upheld his complaint saying there was no evidence his caseworker had contacted him between 16 June and 15 August. It apologised and said it hoped it would soon identify and acquire a one bedroom self contained unit for him.
12. In August 2022, the Council notified Mr X it was removing his children from the homeless application as he had confirmed they were living in France with their brother. It also emailed Mr X explaining how it would assist him to secure a one bedroom private sector property. It explained he should view the properties but not sign any tenancy agreement. If he wanted to accept the property, he should tell the landlord and explain the Council was assisting him. It would then liaise with the landlord regarding the deposit and rent in advance.
13. The Council passed on details of three properties to Mr X. He says that he viewed one property but refurbishment works were still being carried out. There is no evidence to suggest Mr X wanted to accept the property he viewed. Mr X says he received no follow up in respect of two other messages to view properties.
14. Mr X complained to the Council on 4 October about the problems with the viewings and the conduct of three members of staff. Mr X says the Council did not respond.
15. In November 2022, the Council obtained evidence to show that Mr X had not lived in the property in Newham he claims he was evicted from. It says the evidence shows he had rented it out since 2005. The Council decided it would make a “not homeless” decision and discuss the case with its fraud team.
16. Mr X went to Cameroon in November 2022 to take the children to see their mother who was ill. He said that he would be returning in January 2023.
17. The Council emailed Mr X saying that as he was out of the country it was withdrawing his current homeless application. It said he could submit a new application on his return which would consider his circumstances. The email provided advice that he should make an application in an area where he has a local connection and that this meant living in an area not just owning a property.
18. It also quoted section 124 of the Housing Act 1996 which states it is an offence to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement with the intent to induce the housing authority to believe they may be entitled to accommodation or assistance. The Council said Mr X had been unable to explain how or why he lived in Newham from 1999 to January 2022 while employed in Skegness. It said he had failed to provide a five year address history and had just said he lived at different locations. It said it would need this information for any future application.

Analysis

19. This complaint concerns Mr X’s homelessness application. Mr X made the application in January 2022 but was out of the country at the time. The Council wrote seeking further information in support of his application. Mr X did send some of the information required but the Council failed to act on it. This is fault.
20. After making a complaint, the Council re-opened Mr X’s homeless application. It again sought information from him and again he provided some, but not all, of the information requested. The Council should have made enquiries into Mr X’s circumstances in order to ascertain whether he was homeless and in priority need. In response to my enquiries I asked the Council to provide a copy of Mr X’s housing file. I cannot see any evidence of the Council making enquiries other than asking Mr X to provide information. There is no evidence it prepared a personal housing plan or that it took any action from May until August. This was fault. The Council has already provided an apology.
21. In August, the Council’s private rented sector team contacted Mr X with details of how it would assist him to find accommodation. There is evidence that more than one available properties were identified and Mr X was invited to view them. Mr X says that the first property he viewed was still under going refurbishment. He contacted the Council about this but the notes indicate the landlord went with another tenant. There is no evidence to suggest Mr X viewed any other properties.
22. Mr X complained about the offers made and the actions of the officers concerned. There is nothing to suggest the Council responded directly to this complaint. However, I am not persuaded there was any fault in respect of the offers to view properties. These are private rented properties and so the decision regarding who to let the property to is for the landlord and it seems the landlord went with other applicants.
23. In November it appears the Council was in receipt of information that meant it could make a decision on Mr X’s homelessness application but it did not do this. This is fault. It did send an email to Mr X saying his application had been treated as withdrawn but I consider that if it was in a position to make a “not homeless” decision then this is what it should have done and it should have provided Mr X with his right of review.
24. As I have found fault I have to consider the injustice caused to Mr X and whether to recommend any remedy. While there was fault in the decision to close the case in February when Mr X had provided some information, Mr X was not in the country and so did not require accommodation at that time. When the case was re-opened in May, Mr X declined interim accommodation. I therefore do not consider Mr X suffered any significant injustice as a result of this fault.
25. I found fault with the Council’s failure to carry out enquiries into Mr X’s situation from May/June onwards and the Council accepted there was a lack of contact between June and August. In his complaint dated July Mr X said he was struggling to survive with this two children moving from friends to hotels and sometimes sleeping at train stations. However, Mr X subsequently told the Council his children were in France with their brother. There is nothing to suggest Mr X made contact with the Council seeking accommodation during this period. Mr X had previously refused the offer of interim accommodation and so without evidence to show Mr X requested accommodation I do not consider there is significant enough injustice to warrant a remedy.
26. In respect of the failure to issue a decision letter in November when the Council was in a position to make a “not homeless” decision, I consider this failure resulted in Mr X losing his right to request a review and causing uncertainty. This should be remedied by the Council now issuing a decision notice and giving Mr X his right of review. This will put Mr X back in the position he would have been in but for the fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. To remedy the injustice identified the Council will, within one month of my final decision, issue a not homeless decision letter with details of how Mr X can request a review if he disagrees with the decision reached.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman