Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council managed his homeless application. We found the Council at fault for excessive delay in making decisions on his case and failing to provide interim accommodation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council has handled his homelessness application since November 2021. He says it has delayed significantly in progressing it and the Council has failed to provide his family with interim accommodation when it should have. He says this has caused significant distress and frustration throughout the period, and his family still remains in unsuitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Mr X, reviewed the evidence he sent me, and considered his views.
5. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
6. Mr X and the Council 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

Law and administrative background

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 enquiries to establish if the council has a duty to assist them.
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant 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.) This is called interim accommodation. Applicants with dependent children will be in priority need.
10. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it 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 (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. At the end of the relief stage, the council must decide if it owes the person the main housing duty. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to ensure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Summary of key relevant events

12. In November 2021, Mr X made a homelessness application with the Council. He lives with his wife and children. He asked for help as they lived in overcrowded accommodation and needed more space.
13. In mid-December, the Case Officer (“CO”) interviewed Mr X. He and his family lived in a two bed property and was a three bedroom need. She noted one of his children had medical needs. She requested medical information from the GP.
14. Four days later, Mr X emailed the CO. It was his understanding the Council should issue a duty letter to him because he was homeless due to overcrowding, he was eligible for assistance, and in priority need. He asked if this was correct. I cannot see the Council responded to this.
15. At the start of January 2022, Mr X contacted the CO and received an out-of-office automatic reply. It gave contact details of its homelessness prevention team for urgent assistance.
16. In mid-January, Mr X emailed the CO to ask why it had not assisted him. The CO replied saying she was assessing the suitability of his accommodation and a decision had not been made yet. She sent him a Personalised Housing Plan.
17. At the start of February, the Council’s external medical advisors made an assessment after receiving a referral from the Council. It considered the information sent and said Mr X’s accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds as one of the children needed their own room. The CO informed Mr X he was now a four bed need.
18. Also in February, the CO asked Mr X for floor measurements of his house. A week later, Mr X forwarded his landlord’s phone number. He confirmed he wanted temporary accommodation. The CO responded with details of a four bed property available to view. Two weeks later, the CO chased Mr X for a response and asked Mr X for his landlord’s email. At the end of March, Mr X responded.
19. At the end of May, Mr X chased progress. The CO said she would organise a visit as the landlord had not replied. The landlord replied in early June and the CO cancelled the visit. The CO then had prolonged absence from work and not did not pick up emails during this.
20. At the end of October, Mr X formally complained to the Council after seeking advice from Shelter. The Council had not made or sent any decision to him about his homelessness application.
21. In mid-November, the Council responded to his complaint at Stage One. After it interviewed him in December 2021, it said it was satisfied he was eligible but did not have reason to believe he was likely to become homeless within 56 days. It did not consider it was at fault as it could not accept someone as threatened with homelessness until it made enquiries. It apologised for the delay in completing these and the delay in making a referral to the relief duty team because of officer absence.
22. A week later, Mr X said he escalated his complaint to Stage Two.
23. In late November, the Council accepted the relief duty to Mr X as it was satisfied he was eligible, the property was unsuitable on medical grounds, and he had dependent children. It said to him emergency B&B accommodation would not be suitable for his family as it would not offer further space. It advised him to keep looking for a suitable property.
24. In early December, Mr X asked the Council for an update as he had no further contact after it accepted the relief duty. He asked about temporary accommodation.
25. In late December, Mr X complained to us as the Council had not responded to his Stage Two complaint request.
26. In late April 2023, after contact from us, the Council informed Mr X it would investigate at Stage Two. It said it would respond by the end of May. It sent a final response in mid-June. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It also noted Mr X had not contacted the team during the CO’s absence after receiving her out-of-office message.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

27. The Council appears to have since accepted the main duty to Mr X, possibly between September and October 2023. The Council has not been clear to me on this. It said in late September, it approved a placement for emergency accommodation. It was searching for suitable accommodation for Mr X and his family.
28. The Council acknowledged delays due to high volumes of applications. It said it had introduced a new performance management framework to improve speed and quality of assessments. It was undertaking work and projects to improve performance, processes, systems, and culture.
29. The Council said there were difficulties in sourcing suitable accommodation due to lack of supply and affordability, especially with larger properties. It said there were multiple issues impacting supply and the Council had to deal with increased demands with homelessness. It understood the frustration that accommodation is not readily available.

Analysis

Delays and duty decisions

30. Mr X made a homeless application in November 2021. The Council failed to decide if it owed him a duty in a reasonable timeframe. It did not make a decision until nearly a year later. This took a significant and excessive amount of time. This is fault.
31. The Council accepted the relief duty in November 2022 after it was satisfied Mr X’s home was not suitable for continued occupation. It said this was on medical grounds, he was eligible and in priority need.
32. However, it already knew this by February 2022 as the Council had assessed his home as medically unsuitable for the needs of one of his children. The Council said it made enquiries to assess the suitability of his home, but this had been ongoing for six months until June. After this, the case did not progress until Mr X complained at the end of October. The Council then accepted the relief duty, but there is no evidence of what further information it received or considered here. On balance, it is my view the Council could have made this decision much sooner.
33. The CO’s unexpected long leave of absence contributed to this delay. It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure it checks emails and cases are handed over when needed. This is a lack of effective case management. It allowed the case to drift and there was no oversight on Mr X’s case at this point. This is fault.
34. The Council’s relief duty ended at the end of January 2023. It should have made a decision if it owed him the main duty at this point. There is no evidence the Council took any substantive action in Mr X’s case from December 2022 until September 2023 (apart from its Stage Two response in June). These further excessive delays are fault.
35. The Council says it is taking steps to address the delays in processing and making decisions on homeless applications. I welcome this. But given the significance of these delays, I make a recommendation on this and an additional service improvement to prevent reoccurrence of fault.

Interim accommodation

36. Under Section 188, if a council has reason to believe an applicant “may be” homeless, is in priority need and is eligible for housing assistance, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation for them.
37. The Council said after his interview in December 2021, it did not have reason to believe Mr X was threatened with homelessness. There are no records to show the Council’s rationale, what it considered, or any explanation as to how it came to this decision.
38. I also have not seen evidence of whether the Council considered if Mr X was already homeless at this point. A person can be legally homeless if it is not reasonable to remain in their current accommodation. The Council knew Mr X sought help because his home was too small, and he had a child potentially needing a separate bedroom due to medical needs. The Council has no records of if, or how, it considered these circumstances at the time when deciding how to proceed. As the Council cannot demonstrate its reasoning, it casts doubt on whether it properly considered these key relevant factors at this point. This is fault in its decision making.
39. In the absence of a properly evidenced and explained decision, I consider, on the balance of probabilities, there was sufficient information for the Council to have “reason to believe” that he “may be” homeless on these grounds. It is a low threshold. He was eligible and in priority need as he had dependent children. Therefore, it had a duty to provide interim accommodation while it made enquiries. It failed to do so, which is fault.
40. The Council said B&B accommodation would not be suitable for Mr X’s family’s needs and I recognise the difficulties the Council faces with its housing supply. But it is under a legal duty to find and offer something else that was suitable or consider other options. It has not taken proactive steps to do this since February 2022, even after accepting the relief duty. It has left Mr X and his family in accommodation it accepts is not suitable for them to reasonably remain. This is fault.

Complaint handling

41. Mr X said he escalated his complaint in November 2022, but I have not seen evidence he sent this to the Council or chased the Council for a response. The Council registered it at Stage Two after contact from us in April 2023 but did not respond until mid-June, despite setting earlier deadlines. I also consider the Council’s complaint responses did not appear to engage or acknowledge fault with his valid points when he outlined it had not complied with its legal duties. This is fault, causing additional frustration for Mr X.

Injustice

42. The faults identified have caused Mr X considerable frustration, distress and uncertainty over a notable period, with he and his family remaining in unsuitable accommodation. This is significant injustice.
43. I consider the Council failed to provide Mr X with interim accommodation from January 2022 (his interview was mid-December) to September 2023. This is around 20 months. I have recommended a remedy for this period up until the Council accepted the main duty to him. I considered the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies, and it says we will recommend between £150 and £350 a month in recognition of a complainant staying in unsuitable accommodation. I consider £250 a month is appropriate as Mr X is lacking two bedrooms which results in one of his children’s medical needs not being met.
44. As a new legal decision has been made with the main duty in September 2023 since Mr X has complained to us (which is a separate duty with different rights), I consider matters arising after this should be treated as new for the Council to address. If issues continue after this point, Mr X is entitled to raise a new complaint to the Council about these further concerns and complete its complaints process. If he remains dissatisfied, he can complain to us.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
46. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing for the excessive delays with making decisions, its handling of his homeless application and for not properly considering its duty to provide interim accommodation when it should have;
• Pay Mr X £5,000 to recognise he and his family’s time spent in unsuitable accommodation for the period considered in this complaint; and
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £750 in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and difficulties he has experienced with the Council's delays in handling his homelessness situation.
47. Within three months of the final decision, the Council should:
• Share its action plan, and provide an update, on its proposed improvements to address the delays in processing homeless applications. It should also explain how it will monitor the effectiveness of the new framework; and
• Implement a process to ensure the Council picks up and covers cases when an officer is off sick or on prolonged leave. It should communicate this to relevant staff.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman