Summary: The Council’s failure to make inquiries and decide what, if any, homelessness duty it owed Ms B in June 2022 and January 2023 was fault. The Council was also at fault for delay accepting a duty to Ms B in February 2023 and failing to tell her about her right to ask for a review of its decisions that she didn’t qualify to join the housing register. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms B, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her housing and homelessness applications. In particular, that the Council:
1. Repeatedly closed her applications for failing to provide documents
2. Wrongly decided she did not qualify to join the housing register because she did not meet the residency requirement
3. Failed to act to address serious and repeated issues in her private rented tenancy, including violence and harassment
4. Visited her unannounced and shared her personal information over the intercom
2. As a result, Ms B says she was at risk of homelessness without any help, experienced avoidable distress and anxiety and was denied access to social housing.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. 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

What I have not investigated

8. Ms B complained about applications to the Council going back to 2018. These applications are late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now. I have investigated Ms B’s applications from 2022 onwards.
9. Ms B also complained about an individual officer visiting her unannounced and sharing her personal information over the intercom. I have not investigated the officer’s visit because Ms B has taken out a personal injury claim about this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the complaint and the information Ms B provided.
11. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
12. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
13. Ms B and the organisation 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

Homeless law and guidance

14. 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.
15. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
17. 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 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
18. 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)
19. Examples of applicants with priority need include those with children, who are pregnant, or who are vulnerable due to age or disability.
20. 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, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Housing allocations

21. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
22. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
23. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
24. The Council’s allocations scheme awards priority based on points. Applicants with more points have a higher priority.
25. The scheme says that to qualify, applicants must demonstrate they have lived in the area for five continuous years or been employed there for two years.
26. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards:
• 20 points to applicants receiving benefits because they cannot work because of a disability
• 5 points to applicants in insecure housing, including private tenants and those with a licence agreement
• 95 points to applicants owed the prevention or relief duty

What happened

27. Ms B applied to join the Council’s housing register in June 2022. In the application, she said her landlord had given her notice that she had to leave her private tenancy. In early July, Ms B provided copies of various documents. She asked the Council to tell her if she needed to provide anything else. The Council replied a few days later. It rejected her application because Ms B did not meet the five year residency criteria. It said if she was homeless, she should complete a different form.
28. In December 2022, a healthcare worker supporting Ms B wrote to the Council. The letter said Ms B received support from the Community Mental Health Team and that she was threatened with eviction in January.
29. In mid-January 2023, Ms B contacted the Council to say she needed to move. Her landlord had notified her of a planned rent increase which she said she couldn’t afford. She said her landlord had given her a notice seeking possession. An NHS service provided confirmation to the Council of Ms B’s physical and mental health ill-health.
30. The Council sent Ms B a link to complete its online housing advice form. Ms B replied to say she had already completed this the day before.
31. In early February, Ms B contacted the Council to ask for an update. She said she had completed all the required forms.
32. In reply, the Council said it sent Ms B an email in January setting out the tasks she needed to complete and the documents she needed to provide for it to allocate her case to an officer. It said that letter told Ms B it would close her case if she didn’t provide all the required information within 14 days. It said Ms B did not provide all the information so it closed her case at the beginning of February.
33. Ms B replied to say that she had completed all the forms asked of her and said she did not know why her case was closed. Ms B completed a further online form the same day. In the form, she said she was losing her current private rented accommodation and needed help to move. The Council sent its standard “triage letter” in response. This letter said: “in order to allocate your case to Housing Advice and Homeless Prevention Officer please complete the following within 14 days. Failure to do so may result in your application being cancelled or cause a delay in Officer allocation.” It then set out a list of tasks it said Ms B needed to complete.
34. In late February, Ms B contacted the Council. She said her application to the housing register had been cancelled and asked the Council to reinstate it. The Council replied the same day. The Council listed the outstanding documents it said Ms B needed to provide for her application to proceed. It also said it had allocated her case to an officer.
35. Ms B complained to the Council about her applications to the housing register being closed repeatedly. The Council responded at stage one of its complaint process in March. It listed all of Ms B’s applications to the housing register since 2018 along with the reason each was closed. Of relevance to this complaint:
• June 2022 – Ms B did not qualify as she did not meet the five year residency requirement
• January 2023 – Ms B did not provide all the required documents so the Council closed her application at the beginning of February.
• February 2023 – the Council had written to Ms B to tell her what documents it needed to complete her application.
36. It did not uphold the complaint. It said it had closed all of Ms B’s applications in line with its policy.
37. Ms B asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its complaint process. The Council responded in April. It said it had properly closed all her applications. It said she did not meet the residency requirement and so did not qualify to join the housing register.
38. Ms B’s housing officer wrote to her in mid-April asking her to provide a list of documents.
39. The evidence shows frequent communication from Ms B to the Council throughout April, May and June. In that time, Ms B set out her distress and anxiety about facing homelessness. She described issues in her private tenancy, including harassment and threats from other residents and her landlord. There is no evidence the Council responded to Ms B during this time.
40. In June, Ms B’s landlord wrote to her to say the court had granted possession towards the end of June. Ms B shared copies of this correspondence with the Council.
41. In response, the Council sent Ms B a further copy of the email from April about providing documents. The officer told Ms B that they were “not prepared to move forward on your case until I have received these. Once in receipt of the requested documents I will send you the first part of the Homeless Application”.
42. Ms B wrote to the Council a few days before the possession order was due to expire. She said she was very anxious about what might happen and asked the Council to confirm it now had everything it needed to proceed.
43. Ms B sent further emails over the following days asking for help and advice. The Council did not respond.
44. In July, the Council asked the police for information about the issues Ms B had reported in the building. The police confirmed Ms B had reported various incidents but there was nothing to indicate a current risk to her in the building.
45. The Council asked Ms B again for documents it said she still hadn’t provided. In particular, details of her five-year address history. The Council said once she provided all the necessary documents, it would invite Ms B to a meeting to do “part 2” of her homeless application.
46. In mid-July, the Council accepted the relief duty to Ms B following an assessment interview and issued a personalised housing plan. Ms B was, as a result, able to bid on the housing register for the 56 days of the relief duty with 120 points. The Council agreed that Ms B’s medical needs meant accommodation with shared facilities would not be suitable for her.
47. In late July, Ms B’s landlord applied to court for a bailiff warrant to gain possession of her flat.
48. At the beginning of August, the Council offered Ms B interim accommodation in a hotel about 12 miles away. Ms B told the Council she didn’t have any way of getting from the hotel to her health appointments and said the area was not safe for her.
49. In mid-August, the Council wrote to Ms B. It said it had decided she was intentionally homeless. Ms B did not seek a review of this decision.

My findings

Homelessness

50. The law says the Council has a duty to make inquiries and decide what, if any, further duty it owes if it has reason to believe someone might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Reason to believe is a low threshold.
51. Ms B’s application to join the housing register in June 2022 and the additional evidence she provided in July were sufficient to give rise to this duty. The Code is clear that applicants do not need to complete a specific form or approach a particular department. Instead of considering whether it owed Ms B any duty, the Council told her to fill in a different form if she was homeless. This was fault.
52. I cannot say, even on balance, whether the Council owed Ms B any homeless duty at this time. However, the Council should have issued her a formal decision. That decision would have given Ms B statutory review rights. Instead, it closed her case. This is an injustice to Ms B.
53. Ms B’s application in January 2023 also contained sufficient information to give reason to believe she might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Instead of making inquiries into what, if any, duty it owed her the Council closed her application because she didn’t provide all the information set out in its “triage letter”. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not consider, at this stage, that Ms B had “made a homeless application” and so it did not yet have any duty to make inquiries. This was fault. The duty arose as soon as the Council had reason to believe Ms B might be homeless. Her initial application more than met this low threshold. The Council therefore had a duty to decide if it owed her any further duty.
54. As Ms B had a valid notice requiring her to leave the property, it is likely that but for this fault, the Council would have accepted the prevention duty to Ms B. This was a missed opportunity to take steps to help Ms B prevent her homelessness. I cannot say that had it accepted a duty, it would have been able to prevent Ms B’s homelessness. But the missed opportunities and resulting uncertainty are injustices to Ms B.
55. Ms B applied again in February. This time, the Council did allocate her case to an officer. However, it then took no action to help her until July. The records show the Council took an overly rigid approach in requiring Ms B to provide all the documents and information it thought it needed before accepting a duty. This was fault. The information the Council told Ms B it needed was about where she had lived in 2018. This was relevant to whether she qualified to join the housing register. It was irrelevant to whether the Council owed her any homeless duties.
56. Throughout this time, the evidence shows Ms B became increasingly anxious and distressed about her impending homelessness. Instead of accepting a duty and issuing a personalised housing plan setting out the steps Ms B and the Council would take to prevent her homelessness, the Council ignored Ms B for several months. Only responding to prompt her to provide documents, without which it refused to proceed. This caused Ms B significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty at an already difficult time. This is an injustice to Ms B.
57. By the time the Council accepted a duty to Ms B in July, her landlord had already been to court for a possession order and this had expired. The Code of Guidance says it is “highly unlikely” to be reasonable to continue to occupy a property beyond the date of a possession order. The Council appeared to recognise this because it accepted the relief duty to her. This means it was satisfied she was homeless. However, despite having reason to believe Ms B was in priority need because of her disabilities, the Council failed to offer Ms B any interim accommodation until after the landlord went to court to seek a bailiff’s warrant. This is not in line with the Code of Guidance and was fault.
58. Ms B refused the Council’s offer of interim accommodation in early August. She said it was unsafe for her because she was assaulted there in 2019. The property had its own facilities and so met Ms B’s need not to share a bathroom. However, the Council should have considered whether it was suitable for Ms B in light of her disclosure. There is no evidence it did so, which was fault. I cannot say, even on balance, what the Council would have decided had it properly considered this. However, this uncertainty is an injustice to Ms B.
59. The Council decided in August that Ms B was intentionally homeless from her private rented property. Ms B had a statutory right to review this decision if she disagreed with it. It was reasonable for her to have used this and so I have not investigated this part of her homeless application.

Allocations

60. Ms B applied to join the housing register several times. Until the Council accepted the relief duty in July, Ms B did not qualify because she did not meet the five year residency requirement. There is no fault in how the Council made these decisions.
61. However, there is no evidence that the Council told Ms B about her statutory right to ask for a review of any of these decisions. This was fault. It denied Ms B her review rights, which is an injustice.
62. Ms B qualified to join the housing register once the Council accepted a homelessness duty to her in July. She could then bid for 56 days. However, as I have found above, the Council should have accepted the prevention duty in January 2023. Under the Council’s allocations scheme, Ms B would then have been able to bid while under that duty with 120 points. Given the significant demand for housing in the Council’s area, it is unlikely Ms B missed an offer because of this. However, it denied her access to a route to seek to prevent her homelessness and has resulted in avoidable uncertainty, which are injustices to Ms B.

Issues in private tenancy

63. Ms B complained that the Council did not do enough to respond to her repeated reports of harassment from other residents and her landlord.
64. The evidence shows that the Council contacted the police and other services involved with Ms B. These reports did not corroborate Ms B’s allegations. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Agreed action

65. To remedy the injustice to Ms B from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms B in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Ms B £750 in recognition of her avoidable uncertainty, distress, and missed review rights.
66. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
67. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff of the low threshold giving rise to the duty to make inquiries in what, if any, duty a person is owed where there is reason to believe they might be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• Remind relevant staff that they should accept the relevant duty as soon as they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. This decision should not be delayed by requiring information or documents not relevant to that decision.
• Remind relevant staff that case notes or other records should record the Council’s consideration of the suitability of interim accommodation for homeless applicants.
• Ensure all decisions telling an applicant to the housing register they are not eligible or do not qualify explain the right to request a review of this decision.
68. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

69. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman