Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and requests to join the housing register. The significant delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application and failings in communication, including within the complaints process are fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and requests to join the housing register. In particular he complained:

• there were significant delays in the Council’s consideration of his homelessness application and in reaching and notifying him of a decision;
• he spent longer than necessary in temporary accommodation out of the area which exacerbated his mental health problems;
• he was repeatedly required to attend unnecessary interviews with officers which exacerbated his mental health problems. Mr X complained he was insulted, mocked, laughed at, and argued with in these interviews and was not told why he needed to attend;
• that despite repeated requests, the Council failed to communicate with him in writing and he did not receive any written information, advice, or assistance from the Council;
• the Council refused to make reasonable adjustments or to assist him in applying to join the housing register;
• the Council failed to provide his homelessness application file to his solicitor; and
• the Council failed to respond to his complaints and did not act in accordance with it complaint policy.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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). We have exercised discretion to investigate Mr X’s complaint outside the normal timeframe in light of his long standing mental health conditions.
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 Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• 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

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for them. I will refer to this as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
10. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

What happened here

11. Mr X presented as homeless in September 2018. The Council accepted a homeless application and provided Mr X with interim accommodation while it made enquiries. A Housing Solutions Officer, Officer 1 completed a needs assessment the following day. The Council’s records state Mr X would be non – priority but the Council will provide interim accommodation for 14 days to alleviate the crisis he was experiencing.
12. There is no record Officer 1 told Mr X of their view and there was no further action on Mr X’s case until January 2019 when Officer 1 sent Mr X an online link to his Person Housing Plan (PHP).
13. Officer 1 then contacted Mr X by telephone in August 2019 to update the PHP. The notes of the call refer to changes in Mr X’s medication and the support he is receiving in relation to his mental health. Officer 1 also tried to contact Mr X’s mental health care coordinator but did not receive a response.
14. Another Housing Solutions Officer, Officer 2 took over Mr X’s case in December 2019 and chased a response from the mental health care coordinator. They also spoke with Mr X on 31 December 2019 and asked for information regarding his mental health. The records note that Mr X was reluctant to provide any details as they did not know Officer 2. Mr X also queried why it had taken over a year to make a decision on his application. Officer 2 arranged for the housing provider to confirm they worked for the Council and asked Mr X to obtain information from his psychiatrist or mental health care coordinator.
15. Officer 2 then called Mr X again on 7 and 14 January 2020. They asked Mr X to attend a face to face meeting on 20 January 2020. Mr X initially refused as he had already been interviewed twice. He asked officer 2 to confirm what he intended to discuss. Officer 2 told Mr X they would close his placement if he did not attend the meeting.
16. Mr X made a formal complaint on 15 January 2020 about Officer 2’s demand that he attend a further interview without confirming the purpose and the threat to end the interim accommodation. Mr X said that during the previous three interviews officers had insulted, mocked, laughed at, and argued with him, and he had found the process traumatising. He explained that he rarely leaves his home as he is unable to cope with normal everyday life and is increasingly anxious about being around people.
17. Mr X complained he had not received any written information from the Council since applying as homeless and had not been given any housing options or advice. He asked for the outcome of his application and for an explanation as to why it had taken so long to reach a decision.
18. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint but did not respond substantively.
19. Mr X attended the meeting on 20 January 2020. The Council’s records do not include any details of this meeting or what was discussed.
20. Officer 2 requested information from Mr X’s GP in February 2020 and chased this in July 2020. In October 2020 Officer 2 contacted Mr X to advise they had not had a response from his GP. The record of the call says Mr X responded briefly at the outset but stopped responding when Officer 2 began discussing his GP. Shortly after this call Mr X emailed the Council to say he had been contacted by someone who ended the call without saying why they had called. Mr X said he had no phone credit and did not want to talk to anyone. He asked that if the Council needed to speak to him they write to him instead. Mr X also told the Council he did not have access to the internet.
21. On 8 October 2020 Mr X made a formal complaint about how the Council had dealt with his homeless application. He noted he had made a homeless application in September 2018 and since then had not received any written communication. He asserted that whenever he spoke to anyone they were aggressive and threatening. Mr X referred to his phone call with Officer 2 and complained he had again threatened to make him homeless as he had done in January 2020. He said Officer 2 had interviewed him for two hours in January 2020 and Mr X still did not know the purpose of the meeting.
22. Mr X told the Council he found it difficult to talk and went weeks without talking to anyone. He was diagnosed with anxiety and depression and took prescribed medication.
23. He considered the Council had had sufficient time to investigate his homeless application and asked for the outcome and for an explanation as to why it had taken so long. Mr X also asked for all further communication to be in writing. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s complaint.
24. On 14 October 2020 Officer 2 wrote to Mr X with a decision on his homeless application. They found Mr X was homeless and eligible for assistance but he did not have a priority need and so the Council did not have a duty to rehouse him. The Council had a duty to provide Mr X with advice and assistance in finding accommodation for himself but had decided not to exercise discretion to provide accommodation. Officer 2 advised Mr X of his right to request a review of this decision.
25. Mr X, with the assistance of a solicitor, requested a review of the decision he was not in priority need. Mr X’s solicitor also asked the Council to provide a copy of Mr X’s housing file. On 30 October 2020 the Council withdrew the decision and wrote to Mr X confirming it owed Mr X a main housing duty. Mr X did not receive this letter. The copy of the letter the Council has provided does not include an address for Mr X.
26. There is no record of any further contact between Mr X and the Council until October 2021, a year later, when an officer asked Mr X to contact them regarding an offer of accommodation.
27. Mr X says he knew nothing of the offer and had received nothing in writing. When Mr X contacted the Council to discuss the offer of accommodation he questioned why he had not been able to bid on properties on the housing register. He says he was told that as he was in temporary accommodation he would never successfully bid on a property through the housing register.
28. In December 2021 Mr X made a further complaint to the Council about the way it had dealt with his homeless application. He noted that during his initial interview he had told Officer 1 that he does not go outside, does not go on line, or use the internet, does not like answering the telephone or talking to anyone. Mr X had totally isolated himself and does not talk to anyone and spends long periods, sometimes weeks, indoors.
29. Mr X complained about a deliberate delay in providing a decision on his homeless application. He did not receive the main duty letter until 6 December 2021, three years, and three months after he made the homeless application. Mr X complained the Council had refused to write anything down for him or communicate in writing. It had also ignored his complaints and his solicitor’s request for his housing file and had not returned his phone calls.
30. Mr X also complained about Officer 2’s conduct at the interview in January 2020 and the conduct of the officer he initially spoke to when he presented as homeless.
31. In addition he complained that despite repeatedly asking Officer 1 for forms to join the housing register he did not receive them. Mr X asserted this was disability discrimination as the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to allow him to access services when he had told the Council he could not access the internet.
32. Mr X also subsequently complained that the Council had not responded to his complaints of January and October 2020.
33. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint acknowledged his homeless application had taken longer than the average case to resolve. It said this was partially due to a change in officer, slight resistance to engage by Mr X and a review.
34. The Council said it had no record of Mr X’s complaint in January 2020 but acknowledged it had not responded to his complaint in October 2020. It apologised and partly upheld this complaint.
35. It did not uphold any of Mr X’s other complaints. It said that when Officer 1 left Officer 2 had to pick up the case and complete the enquiries regarding Mr X’s mental health. The Council acknowledged this may have been difficult for Mr X but explained it was essential for officers to understand how their clients are affected by their medical conditions. It said Mr X’s reluctance to engage led to a non-priority decision, bringing the relief duty to an end.
36. The Council considered that as this decision was subsequently overturned there was no need for Mr X’s solicitor to examine his housing file. It also disputed that it had been unwilling to put anything in writing and noted Mr X’s assessment notes were included in the PHP which Mr X had been given access to, albeit online. The Council noted Mr X had provided an email address and had told Officer 1 he was able to go into the town centre and access the internet free of charge.
37. In relation to the housing register the Council said applications to join could only be made on line in accordance with guidance set by the government. It said that anyone with difficulty accessing this is advised to seek support from local services such as the local library, Citizens Advice Bureau or Canterbury Housing Advice Centre.
38. The Council also noted that officers had regularly tried to reach Mr X by phone but there were no records of requests for calls back from Mr X. It also acknowledged it had not sent Mr X a letter with the offer of accommodation, which was an oversight. But he would receive a letter shortly.
39. Mr X was not satisfied by the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered at stage two of the complaints procedure. He was unhappy that he had been in temporary accommodation in an area he did not know for three years and four months when he could have been rehoused but for the Council’s failings. His placement in temporary accommodation out of area, with no awareness of local services and no social contacts caused him significant distress.
40. Mr X disputed he had ever said he could go into town to access the internet. He said he does not go outside, does not go on line, does not talk to anyone and has completely withdrawn from all communication with anyone. Mr X asserted the Council could have determined his application within a matter of days but chose to sit on it and did nothing for two years. Mr X also reiterated the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments to support him in accessing local authority housing.
41. The Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and again apologised for not responding to his complaint in October 2020 and the distress caused. It had now located Mr X’s complaint of January 2020 and apologised for any communication Mr X felt was inappropriate.
42. The Council also again acknowledged there had been delays in Mr X’s homeless application. It noted there were temporary staff within the team at that time which contributed towards the delay. The Council confirmed this was no longer the case and it was working to improve response times.
43. Although Mr X was in temporary accommodation for longer than he anticipated, the Council noted he was suitably accommodated and had since been rehoused.
44. The Council apologised for the delays in the complaint process and confirmed this was not the standard of service it aimed to provide. It told Mr X it had implemented new procedures to improve this. The Council also confirmed that since Mr X’s experience of the homelessness service it had implemented a development training plan to ensure all professionals have relevant training so that all empathetic needs of its clients are met.
45. The Council offered to pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the service failures identified and £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he experienced.
46. Mr X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. In response to my enquiries the Council has reiterated its comments in the stage two complaint response. It has also acknowledged it did not provide Mr X with written confirmation of any duty owed to Mr X such as the relief duty or of the discharge of this duty.
47. The Council says Mr X had been communicating via email and phone calls and it received his request for the Council to write to him on 7 October 2020, just before his homeless application decision was issued. It also says advice and information is contained in the PHP.

Analysis

48. The significant delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application and failings in communication are fault.
49. The Council accepted a relief duty in September 2018 and provided Mr X with interim accommodation. Alongside the relief duty is the duty to assess Mr X’s needs and produce a PHP. The PHP says Mr X’s application will remain open for 56 days and the Council will write to Mr X with its decision as to whether or not he is in priority need but cannot close his case until the 57th day. In the meantime the Council will work with Mr X to try to prevent him becoming homeless and link him with appropriate services to assist him.
50. However the Council did not tell Mr X it owed him a relief duty or what this involved. And did not provide an online link to the PHP until January 2019. This is significantly outside the 56 day period, and there is no evidence of any attempt to make enquiries or assist Mr X in securing suitable accommodation in the 56 days since September 2018.
51. The PHP also notes that Officer 1 will check that Mr X has applied to join the housing register by 28 September 2018. There is no evidence the Council offered Mr X any support or assistance in applying to join the housing register in September 2018, or at any point since.
52. Although Officer 1 noted on 21 September 2018 that they intended to make a no priority decision, the Council did not make a formal decision on Mr X’s application until 14 October 2020, over two years later. Such a delay is clearly unacceptable. It then withdrew this decision as it was deemed unsafe and accepted a main housing duty on 30 October 2020. There is however no evidence it sent this letter to Mr X on this date. The letter does not contain a postal address and there is no record it was emailed to Mr X until 6 December 2020.
53. The Council’s failure to respond to Mr X’s complaints in January and October 2020 is also fault. It is disappointing that the stage 1 complaint response in December 2021 could find no record of Mr X’s complaint in January 2020 despite it being acknowledged and given a reference number.
54. There are no audio recordings or verbatim records of Mr X’s interviews with any of the officers involved with his application. Indeed there is no record of the meeting on 20 January 2020 at all. This is a concern as this meeting formed part of the assessment of Mr X’s application and the details should have been recorded.
55. In the absence of any recordings I am unable to confirm what was said or the tone of these conversations. It is clear however that Mr X found them distressing and the Council has apologised for any communication Mr X found intrusive or uncomfortable. I am unable to add anything to this.
56. Having identified fault I must now consider whether this has caused Mr X an injustice. But for the Council’s failings I consider it likely Mr X would have been rehoused much sooner and he would not have experienced the levels of uncertainty, distress, and anxiety he did over such an extended period.
57. Mr X was in temporary accommodation outside the Council’s area of area with no right to request a review of the suitability for over three years. He says he did not know the area and was unable to access services. This affected Mr X’s health and wellbeing.
58. Mr X also missed the opportunity to join the housing register. I cannot speculate on whether Mr X would have been offered social housing during the three years he was in temporary accommodation. But the uncertainty about this is an injustice.
59. The delays and failings in communication and record keeping meant Mr X had to attend additional meetings and repeat sensitive information already provided. This will have exacerbated Mr X’s distress and anxiety.
60. The Council had apologised for and has paid Mr X £300 in recognition of the service failures. It has also paid Mr X £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience he experienced. While this is to be welcomed, I do not consider it is sufficient to remedy the injustice to Mr X

Back to top

Agreed action

61. The Council has agreed to:
• make a further apology to Mr X, taking account of our guidance on apologies, and
• pay Mr X an additional £500 to recognise the prolonged distress, anxiety and uncertainty Mr X experienced as a result of the delays and failings in the Council’s service.
62. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

63. The significant delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application and failings in communication, including within the complaints process are fault. This fault has caused Mr X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman