Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said it did not do enough to help him when he became homeless or act on his review request of its decision on his homelessness application. On the evidence available, we found evidence of fault by the Council. We ask the Council to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment in recognition of the uncertainty caused to him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr Y, complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said it did not do enough to help him when he became homeless and because of this he was without accommodation. He also says the Council did not act on a request he made for a review of its decision on his homelessness application.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 my investigation, I considered Mr Y’s complaint and invited him to discuss his complaint with me. I made enquiries of the Council, and I considered its response and documents it provided.
6. I set out my thoughts on the complaint and I invited the Council and Mr Y to comment. I considered the Council’s comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). PHPs should be kept under review. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11).
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. 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)

What happened

12. Mr Y lived with his mother and siblings. On 5 October 2022 his mother asked him to leave the family home and put this in writing.
13. Mr Y approached the Council for help with his housing on 6 October 2022.
14. The Council wrote to Mr Y in November 2022 accepting it owed him the prevention duty as he was eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness.
15. The Council completed a PHP for Mr Y in November 2022. The Council has not been able to provide a copy of the PHP and so the details of the PHP are unknown. However, it provided a copy of an email between it and Mr Y’s mother confirming that she was not willing for him to return to her home and of a file note demonstrating it worked with Mr Y to help him look for private rented accommodation to prevent his homelessness.
16. In December 2022 Mr Y told the Council he was sleeping rough. The Council told him to contact an organisation for rough sleepers. It also applied to Home Finders UK to help find accommodation in other areas.
17. Mr Y contacted the Council in December 2022 and early January 2023 explaining he could not find accommodation via Home Finders UK. Mr Y’s caseworker contacted Home Finders UK who said it told Mr Y it was wating for a suitable property.
18. On 27 January 2023 the Council wrote to Mr Y. It said it had ended its homeless prevention duty as 56 days had passed since it decided it owed Mr Y a prevention duty. The letter said the Council had carried out the tasks required of it in Mr Y’s PHP and that it had kept the plan under review during the period it owed him the duty. It advised Mr Y of his right to request a review of its decision within 21 days of its decision.
19. The letter also explained the Council’s decision on his homelessness application was that he was not in priority need. The letter advised Mr Y of his right to request a review of its decision within 21 days of its decision.
20. Following its decision Mr Y contacted his casework via text message asking for an explanation about the Council’s decision. His casework appears not to have replied except to refer him to the decision letter sent to him.
21. On 9 February 2023 Mr Y emailed the Council about its decision. The email asked for clarification about the Council’s decision. It did not request a review of the Council’s decision. The Council treated the email as a complaint.
22. On 20 February Mr Y’s MP emailed the Council after he contacted her for help. Her enquiry to the Council highlights that Mr Y has not made a complaint and that his email was seeking answers to his earlier communications and for advice and explanation.
23. The Council replied to Mr Y’s MP. Its response reiterated the details of its decision letter to Mr Y. It did not address concerns about the lack of communication or that he had not made a complaint.
24. On 3 March 2023 Mr Y emailed the Council. He explained he was sleeping on the streets and the impact this was having on his health and studies. He said he had anxiety and provided a letter from his doctor. He said he thought he was in priority need.
25. The Council treated Mr Y’s email as a request for a review of its decision on his homelessness application. It said the deadline to make a review request had passed and it was not aware of any good reasons for the request being made late. It said it did not consider the new information from his GP would alter the Council’s decision. It therefore decided the review request was out of time and there were no good reasons to extend the period for the review request.
26. Unhappy Mr Y approached the Ombudsman for help.
27. In response to our enquiries the Council said:

• Once a PHP is issued it is viewable on the person’s personal account. When the person’s case is closed (which happens when a decision is made) both the person and the Council no longer have access to the PHP. For this reason, it could not provide a copy of Mr Y’s PHP.
• In response to Mr Y advising the Council he was sleeping rough his caseworker referred him Street Link and other organisations. This happened on several occasions.
• It considers Mr Y’s caseworker took reasonable steps to help him find accommodation. He was not placed in interim accommodation as he did not meet the vulnerability criteria.

Analysis

28. The Council cannot provide a copy of the PHP for Mr Y. I consider this is fault. It should be keeping copies of the PHP including keeping copies of the different versions of the PHP showing how the Council kept the PHP under review. It will also need to access PHPs to consider review requests.
29. Without being able to view Mr Y’s PHP I cannot see details of all the actions the Council took to help Mr Y secure alternative accommodation. However, I have seen evidence the Council made referrals to other agencies to help Mr Y secure accommodation. It has also provided evidence it tried to mediate with Mr Y’s mother to prevent his homelessness and that it worked with him to try and find private rent accommodation.
30. Nevertheless, I consider the Council’s inability to provide documents vital to understanding how it handled Mr Y’s case causes uncertainty it acted as it should have.
31. In the Council’s rejection of Mr Y’s late review request, it says he did not ask for a review in his earlier post decision correspondence. I agree. Mr Y’s email of 9 February did not request a review of the Council’s decision. For this reason, I do not consider its decision not to treat this email as a review request to be at fault.
32. Additionally, as Mr Y did not request a review in his email of 9 February, I do not consider the Council’s decision not to act on his review request of 9 March is at fault.

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y by the fault identified the Council agrees to take the following action within one month of my final decision.

• apologise to him writing; and
• pay him £100 in recognition of the uncertainty and time and trouble caused to him in pursuing this matter with the Council and the Ombudsman.

34. Within three months of my final decision the Council will undertake a review of its process and procedures for storing PHPs following the closure of cases and produce protocols to ensure PHPs can be retrieved after a case is closed.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr Y. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman