Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not award her a discretionary housing payment and did not process her homelessness application correctly. Ms B says because of this her mental and physical health worsened, and she accumulated rent arrears putting her at risk of eviction. We found fault with the Council for failing to process Ms B’s homelessness application and its delay telling her the result of her discretionary housing payment application. The Council will make a payment to Ms B to remedy the injustice caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Ms B, complained the Council did not award her a discretionary housing payment in 2022 and did not process her May 2022 homelessness application correctly.
2. Ms B says because of this her mental and physical health worsened, and she accumulated rent arrears putting her at risk of eviction.
3. Ms B also complained the Council did not support her when she had to flee her home because of domestic violence and about the Council’s handling of her May 2023 homelessness application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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 and have not investigated

8. I investigated Ms B’s complaint the Council did not award her a discretionary housing payment in 2022 and did not process her May 2022 homelessness application correctly.
9. I did not investigate Ms B’s complaint the Council did not support her when she had to flee her home because of domestic violence. This situation is historical and out of time.
10. I did not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her May 2023 homelessness application. This is because the complaint is premature. It is being considered by the Council through its complaint procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered:
• Ms B’s complaint and the information she provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• relevant legislation and guidelines; and
• the Council’s policies and procedures.
12. Ms B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance: homelessness

13. 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.
14. A person is to be considered homeless if they do not have accommodation they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 175)
15. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
16. The council will make enquiries to find out whether the person is:
• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need; and
• not intentionally homeless.
17. 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 ask for 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)

Legislation and guidance: discretionary housing payment

18. Discretionary housing payments (DHPs) provide financial support towards housing costs and are paid by a council when they are satisfied a claimant needs further financial assistance with housing costs and receives either:
• housing benefit (HB) or
• universal credit (UC) with housing costs towards rental liability.
19. DHPs can cover shortfalls between housing support and actual rental costs, for example, where there is a benefit cap. For those getting universal credit, the benefit cap for single adults without children in Greater London is £1284.17 per month.
20. In May 2022, the department for work and pensions updated its ‘discretionary housing payments guidance manual’ for councils. The manual says the intention is that most claimants affected by the benefit cap will move into work and become exempt from the benefit cap.
21. Councils must tell the claimant of the DHP decision either in writing or electronically (if the claimant has agreed to this). When issuing a decision, councils should provide information about the process in place for reviewing the decision. Councils should tell claimants the review outcome in writing, including reasons, as soon as is reasonably practical. Council’s must be consistent and avoid unnecessary delay, considering that an application for DHPs is often to deal with an immediate need.

Council’s DHP policy

22. The Council’s scheme prioritises those who are at risk of homelessness, where DHPs can prevent homelessness.
23. The purpose of the award is to give the applicant time to resolve their immediate financial difficulties, therefore:
• Awards will mostly be time limited for three months with no expectation of automatic renewal.
• Any decision to renew an award will consider a number of factors, although the eventual decision will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Such factors may include any action taken by the applicant to try to make their housing situation financially sustainable, and any circumstances within the household that make them additionally vulnerable.
24. Repeat awards of DHPs may consider the actions the claimants has taken to resolve their long-term dependence on DHPs, such as actively seeking employment or seeking to move to more affordable accommodation. Where a significant barrier to moving or gaining employment is identified, such as a serious health issue, a repeat award may be made.

Council’s complaint policy

25. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure.
26. Stage one: the Council will investigate and respond within 20 working days.
27. Stage two: the Council will review any new information and consider if the original decision was fair. It will provide a response in 15 working days.

What happened

28. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
29. In January 2021, the Council awarded Ms B a temporary DHP because she was affected by the benefit cap. In the letter it sent to her it advised, ‘These payments are temporary and there is no guarantee that they will continue after [February 2021]. To avoid the benefit cap, you will need to move to a cheaper home or find employment with enough hours to claim Working Tax Credit.’
30. Ms B made another application for a DHP in April 2022. Ms B told the Council she was affected by the benefit cap and could not afford her rent of £1200 a month. She said she was in arrears. She told the Council she had asked it for help with rehousing and had health conditions that prevented her from living in shared accommodation or with strangers.
31. The Council’s homelessness prevention and advice service asked Ms B to complete a homelessness application. Ms B made a homelessness application in May 2022. She said she was faced with homelessness because of rent arrears caused by the benefit cap. She said she could not work because of mental and physical health difficulties caused by disrepair to her property.
32. The Council wrote to Ms B and asked her to provide supporting documentation. Ms B told the Council she had not been formally asked to leave her property. She gave the council information about her income and expenditure. The Council asked her for more information about her finances. The Council chased Ms B for the outstanding supporting information. Ms B gave the Council a medical assessment form and a letter of support from her doctor.
33. The Council referred Ms B to its money homelessness team in June 2022 to undertake an affordability assessment and give her advice about accessing employment and budgeting. Ms B told the team her rent was almost as much as her benefits so there was nothing to budget, and asked what kind of work it expected her to do given her health problems. Ms B told the team, ‘At this point I have enough of this nonsense just leave me alone’. The money homelessness team told Ms B it would refer her case back to the housing team.
34. The Council’s homeless prevention service wrote to Ms B the same day. It said, ‘this authority has been unable to make contact with you in order to process the application you submitted for housing assistance…We therefore have no option but to assume that you no longer require our assistance and your application will now be deemed as withdrawn’. Ms B said she did not receive this.
35. The following week, the Council’s money homelessness team emailed Ms B. It suggested she speak to her adviser about her situation and to discuss how the Council could help her. It said her adviser would call her to book an appointment. The officer who sent this email did not record it on the Council’s system. The Council said her adviser arranged to meet with Ms B in June 2022. This is not recorded in the Council’s records.
36. In July 2022, Ms B complained to the Council and chased it for a decision on her DHP.
37. The Council wrote to Ms B with the result of her DHP application. It told her it would not be appropriate to award her a DHP because she was receiving her full eligible rent through universal credit. It told her she could ask it to review its decision, which she did.
38. The Council responded to Ms B’s complaint in August 2022. It acknowledged that it had not responded to her request for a DHP as quickly as would be ideal. It explained this was because of the large volume of applications it received.
39. The Council sent Ms B the result of its review of its DHP decision in August 2022. It upheld its original decision. It told her its main reason for not granting her a DHP was because she was in receipt of her full eligible rent through universal credit for a one-bedroom property. It told her it took account of her personal circumstances ‘chronic sicknesses and current mental ill health’, but it did not have enough evidence to decide her health concerns were exceptional. It said it took account of her housing needs and found no evidence of an exceptional need to remain in the area. Finally, it said although she said she had rent arrears, she had not said her landlord had threatened her with a possession order or was at imminent risk of homelessness. It said sustaining tenancies was one of its priorities for awarding DHPs, and she did not fall within this.
40. Ms B complained to the Council again in December 2022. She said the Council was not providing her with the service she was entitled to and discriminating against her based on her ethnicity, nationality, age, health conditions and marital status. In January 2023, the Council emailed her and asked her for more information about her complaint. She said her complaint was about the Council’s housing and benefit departments. She complained the Council:
• rejected her application for a DHP and refused to provide her with an explanation.
• did not rehouse her given her exceptional circumstances. She said her property was making her health issues worse and she was in rent arrears because she could not work and because of the benefit cap.
• discriminated against her.
41. The Council responded in March 2023. It apologised for its delay responding to her complaint. It did not uphold her complaint and:
• told her it awarded her two DHPs in 2020 when she was first affected by the benefit cap covering a ten-month period. It said DHP awards were intended to be short-term and not meant to be ongoing. It said the award was to give applicants time to resolve their financial difficulties by, for example, seeking employment or moving to affordable accommodation. It said it had taken account of her individual circumstances by awarding her DHPs for ten months instead of the usual three. It said it understood she was no longer affected by the benefit cap. It acknowledged she was affected by the local housing allowance (LHA). It advised DHPs could be used to cover the shortfall between the LHA and the cost of renting, but only in exceptional circumstances. It said Ms B had not demonstrated that her circumstances were exceptional. The Council said its staff had followed its DHP policies.
• said in the DHP notification letters it sent her, it told her DHP payments were short-term and she would need to move to a cheaper home or find employment with enough hours to claim working tax credit.
• advised she had not provided it with evidence or details of her medical issues. It said it could only make decisions based on the information on file.
42. Ms B told the Council she did not agree with its complaint response. She said she met the Council’s criteria for DHP awards and had given the Council details of her current medical conditions.
43. The Council responded at stage two in April 2023. The Council did not uphold her complaint. It said it agreed with its findings at stage one of its complaint investigation. It told her, as it was a new financial year, she may be able to make a new application for a DHP and sent her a link to information on its website.

Enquiry response

44. The Council explained the officer who closed Ms B’s homelessness application made a mistake and assumed she had not been in touch. It advised, since this time, it has changed its processes and it allocates cases to specific triaging officers to ensure situations like this cannot occur. It said it has restructured the team and provided training.

Analysis

45. When Ms B approached the Council for assistance, she explained her accommodation was unaffordable and she was accruing rent arrears. The Council asked Ms B to provide supporting information. She gave the Council details of her finances, immigration status, and medical needs. Although, Ms B did not provide all the information the Council asked for, on balance, it had enough information to decide it had ‘reason to believe’ Ms B may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. This meant it was under a duty to make inquiries and decide what duties it may have owed her, including whether it owed a prevention duty. The evidence shows it closed Ms B’s case before it decided what duties it might have owed her, and this was fault. This fault meant Ms B lost the opportunity to access support under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
46. The Council’s internal communication and record keeping about Ms B’s homelessness application was poor. The officer who closed Ms B’s homelessness application made a mistake and assumed she had not been in touch when she had, and an email the Council sent to her the following week was not recorded on the Council’s system. These mistakes were fault and caused confusion for Ms B. I welcome the changes the Council has made to its procedure for processing homelessness applications.
47. The Council refused Ms B’s application for a DHP. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and it is for the Council, not the Ombudsman, to decide whether someone should receive a DHP. The Council followed its own policy when deciding whether to award Ms B a DHP, and this is what we would expect. However, there was a delay in the Council deciding whether to award Ms B a DHP. It took over three months for the Council to decide it would not grant Ms B a DHP and this was fault. This delay caused Ms B unnecessary uncertainty about the result of her application.
48. There was a delay in the Council’s complaint response. Ms B confirmed her complaint in January 2023, the Council should have responded at stage one of its complaint procedure in February 2023 but did not do so until March 2023. At stage two, the Council took twice as long to respond than stated in its complaint policy. These delays were fault and caused Ms B unnecessary frustration.
49. I did not find any evidence the Council discriminated against Ms B.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms B for the faults found in this investigation.
• Pay Ms B £500 for the opportunity she lost because of the Council’s failure to process her homelessness application and the confusion created by the Council’s poor record keeping.
• Process Ms B’s May 2022 homelessness application and decide if it owes her any duties under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Pay Ms B £200 for the unnecessary uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay processing her DHP application.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have completed my investigation and uphold Ms B’s complaint. Ms B was caused an injustice by the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman