Summary: Mr R complained, on behalf of Mr C, about the Council’s lack of support when Mr C asked for help with housing. The Council was at fault for a delay in providing interim accommodation, a failure to make proper enquiries before deciding Mr C was not in priority need, a delay in making a fresh decision after the original decision was withdrawn, and a lack of support for Mr C to complete forms and to apply to its housing register. The Council should apologise, pay Mr C £500 for the injustice caused and take steps to prevent the faults recurring.

The complaint

1. Mr R complained, on behalf of Mr C, about the Council’s failure to:
• take a homelessness application and make enquiries about what duties it owed Mr C, before deciding he was not in priority need;
• provide interim accommodation for Mr C whilst it made its enquiries. He said it only provided interim accommodation after Mr R contacted its legal services team; and
• issue a fresh decision within a reasonable time, after withdrawing the initial decision during the review process.
2. Mr R also said the Council:
• delayed responding to a request for a hardship payment and provided a voucher Mr C could not use;
• issued two rent payments cards with different account numbers, did not respond to a request from Mr R for clarification about which one to use to pay the rent in the interim accommodation, and issued three letters stating Mr C was in arrears with different reference numbers and different amounts for the arrears. It did not respond to Mr R’s further request for clarification after receiving the arrears letters;
• failed to assist Mr C to make a housing register application; and
• failed to assist Mr C to complete the forms needed to progress the homelessness application after the original decision was withdrawn.
3. Mr R said Mr C, a retired disabled person, who does not speak English, was left street homeless in the winter for two weeks.

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 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)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
8. 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

9. Mr R asked for a review of the Council’s decision Mr C was not in priority need. The Council’s reviewing officer withdrew the decision, which meant Mr C did not have the opportunity to appeal to the county court. This means we can consider complaints about how that decision was made.
10. Mr R raised additional complaints during my investigation. We would not usually investigate matters the Council has not had a chance to respond to through its complaints process. I have decided to do so here because the issues were closely related to the original complaint, and the Council had a chance to respond to them during my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered:
• the information Mr R provided on behalf of Mr C;
• the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
12. Mr R, Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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. Statutory guidance on homelessness says applications can be made to any department of the council and do not need to be in any particular form. It will amount to an application if the communication gives sufficient information for the council to have reason to believe the applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. (Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities, 2018 paragraph 18.5)

Duty to make enquiries

15. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)

Relief duty and personalised housing plans

16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.
17. 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). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11)

Interim accommodation

18. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide emergency accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it.  “Reason to believe” is a low threshold. Examples of priority need are some elderly people and those with serious health problems.

Review rights

19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions including a decision that they are not in priority need. If the decision is upheld at review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

What happened

20. Mr C had been living with a relative as their main carer and became homeless following the relative’s death. He slept on the sofas of family and friends for a while, and later became street homeless.
21. On 30 January 2023, Mr R helped Mr C to complete an online homelessness application. This stated Mr C was sleeping rough and had support needs. It also stated Mr C did not speak much English and needed a translator. Mr C also made a referral to the Council.
22. The Council provided a record showing Mr C attended its offices on 2 February. He said he was sleeping rough and explained where he was sleeping. The Council referred him to its Streetlink service, which supports rough sleepers, and to its homelessness team for an emergency assessment. Its record stated: “Priority need could not be established but [Mr C] claimed he has medication”. There is no record to show that either the homelessness team or Streetlink took any action. The record also said a Council officer had called Mr C the previous day but had ended the call when Mr C started speaking in another language.
23. Mr R contacted the Council again on 6 February setting out the situation. The Council said Mr C would need to complete an online homelessness application. Mr R replied that:
• the law did not require Mr C to complete forms;
• Mr C had presented himself at the Council’s offices, which should be sufficient;
• Mr R had made a referral on behalf of Mr C the previous week. He provided the Council’s reference number for that contact.
24. Mr C attended the Council offices again on 6 February. Mr R said Mr C contacted him from the Council’s offices to say Council officers had refused to interview him and had told him to go away. Mr R spoke to officer 1, a housing officer, at around 4:30 p.m. Mr R reminded them of the Council’s obligations and said he had advised Mr C not to leave its offices until officers had spoken to him about his housing situation. At just after 5 p.m. officer 1 sent Mr R their decision by email.
25. The decision letter said:
• Mr C was homeless, eligible for assistance but not in priority need;
• the enquiries it had made consisted of considering the information Mr C provided. He had told them he took medication for a long term health condition, and he had memory problems and depression. However, he had not provided evidence that he was being seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist. (Mr R disputes this. He said Mr C had medical evidence with him but officer 1 did not wish to see it);
• in deciding Mr C was not in priority need, it had also considered that he was currently not receiving any income, but that he could undertake his own personal care and travel to GP appointments.
26. On 7 February, Mr R asked the Council to review its decision and to provide interim accommodation for Mr C pending the review. He said the Council had:
• not applied the correct legal test: the letter said the officer considered if Mr C would be vulnerable if homeless, but the correct test is whether he would be considerably more vulnerable than an ordinary person would be if they became homeless;
• not looked at Mr C’s circumstances as a whole;
• not considered Mr C’s severe mental and physical health problems or made enquiries, for example, of Mr C’s medical professional of the Council’s own medical adviser.
27. Also on 7 February, Mr R made a formal complaint.
28. As the Council had not acknowledged the review request or said whether it would provide accommodation for Mr C pending the review, Mr R contacted the Council’s legal services team. The legal services team responded on 13 February to confirm the Council would provide interim accommodation and asked Mr C to attend its offices, which he did. Mr R asked the Council to consider Mr C’s need to be close to his support network when arranging that accommodation.
29. Also on 13 February, the Council:
• completed an assessment of circumstances form, which recorded Mr C had a history of mental health problems, was an older person, and was in priority need. It also recorded he did not speak much English and needed an interpreter;
• completed a suitability of temporary accommodation and risk assessment form on 13 February, which recorded Mr C was “elderly and has poor health”. It did not address the need for him to be close to his support network; and
• arranged bed and breakfast accommodation for Mr C. Bed and breakfast accommodation (B&B) means the person does not have the sole use of kitchen and or bathroom facilities.
30. Mr C stayed at the B&B for one night. The following day, he was asked to more to a different B&B. He was still living there when my draft decision was prepared.
31. Mr C needs to make rent payments for this accommodation. The Council issued two rent cards with different rent numbers, which it told us was due to it using a separate rent card for each accommodation. Mr R wrote to the Council on 10 July to ask it to clarify which rent card Mr C should use to pay the rent and to point out it had sent three letters to Mr C on 3 July saying he was in arrears, each giving a different amount of arrears. The Council did not respond to Mr R.
32. In response to my enquiries about rent payments, the Council said:
• it gave Mr C details of the rent and service changes in writing when he signed for the bed and breakfast accommodation on 14 February;
• since then it had issued three rent statements (in May, July and October);
• it would arrange for an officer to meet with Mr C, using an interpreting service if needed, to explain how much was due, how Mr C could pay this, and to offer a payment arrangement for the arrears. It said it would do this within seven days of its response, which was sent to us on 16 November.
33. In a further response, the Council said it had offered an appointment, but Mr C did not attend. It provided a copy of its email to Mr C offering the appointment, which was also sent to the B&B with a request for the B&B to support Mr C to attend. The Council said it would contact Mr C to arrange another appointment.
34. On 20 February, Mr R requested a hardship payment for Mr C. The Council was initially not able to verify the address for Mr C. The Council tried to clarify this with Mr C but were unable to do so by telephone as Mr C was unable to communicate in English. On 23 February, Mr R called the Council and clarified the address given was an advice centre address as Mr C was street homeless when the application was made. On 27 February Mr R contacted a Council manager about the delay. The following day, the Council issued a £50 food voucher and a £50 voucher for clothing. Mr R says Mr C was not able to use the clothing voucher.
35. In response to my enquiries about the hardship payment, the Council:
• provided a copy of the application dated 20 February, which stated Mr C needed money for food, and that he only had the clothes he was wearing. The application did not include the B&B address, but did include contact details for Mr C;
• explained the food payment was made by bank transfer, which was processed on 28 February, but takes up to 3 working days to reach the applicant’s bank account. The clothing voucher was in the form of a card that was posted to Mr C and can be used in a number of stores, but only for clothing.
36. On 24 February, officer 2, a Council reviewing officer considering the review request told Mr R they agreed officer 1 had not made sufficient enquiries to establish whether Mr C was in priority need and they had withdrawn the decision. They said the homelessness team would complete a vulnerability assessment and make a fresh decision.
37. On 27 February, the Council responded to the complaint made on 7 February. It said:
• Mr C had approached it on 30 January and an appointment was made for 2 February;
• on 2 February, it carried out an assessment, with an interpreter. Mr C had no medical evidence and was advised to get some. He was advised where to stay so he would be picked up by Streetlink, but he did not follow that advice;
• on 6 February, it interviewed Mr C again but there were contradictions in his account, and it could not establish that he was rough sleeping. It issued a “no priority” decision. Mr C had the right to ask for a review of that decision and a review was underway.
38. Mr R was unhappy with the complaint response and asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. In response, the Council agreed there were flaws in the decision-making, for which it apologised. However, the decision was withdrawn on review. It had asked staff to take more care when carrying out initial assessments and to ensure they make adequate enquiries before making their decision.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it accepted it had failed to carry out a vulnerability assessment when Mr C asked for assistance, which it said was an oversight by officer 1, and it had taken corrective action;
• it questioned whether Mr C was street homeless between 30 January and 13 February 2023 as the organisation it commissions to deliver its Streetlink outreach work on a nightly basis, which visited the place Mr C said he was sleeping, did not identify him as street homeless and refer him for support, nor was there any record of the organisation doing so in the period from November 2022 when severe weather emergency protocols were in place, which meant emergency shelter was provided when the temperature fell below zero degrees;
• officer 1 is no longer employed by the Council so it cannot comment on any failure by them to make appropriate enquiries;
• it now undertakes a monthly case file audit in which team leaders peer review case management with officers to ensure the Council is complying with housing law;
• it has learned lessons from this case, which have been discussed at team meetings and service meetings;
• between January and June 2023, two other decisions were withdrawn: one was withdrawn due to insufficient detail and consideration being given to the public sector equality duty, and another was withdrawn because a more detailed vulnerability assessment was needed;
• housing officers had received training on recording and updating housing needs assessments and personalised housing plans, and it had plans to deliver further training around priority need, eligibility for assistance and discharging housing duties.
40. Mr R explained that a person who is street homeless will not stay in the same place for 24 hours. They will move to use the toilet or enter a shop to keep warm or sit in the waiting areas of hospitals. Therefore, the fact the Streetlink team did not identify Mr C as street homeless does not mean he was not on the streets.
41. Mr R helped Mr C to apply to join the Council’s housing register on 5 June 2023. In response, the Council sent Mr C a link to use to verify the account. The link was valid for 12 hours only. Mr R wrote to the Council on 19 June to explain Mr C was not able to read or write in English and had health issues, so he needed assistance and could not complete the verification in 12 hours. He asked the Council to either send a further email with a longer timeframe for responding or accept Mr R’s email as verification. Despite communications with several officers in June and a further email in July, he did not receive confirmation the Council had registered and would process the application.
42. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it had no record of receiving a housing register application for Mr C;
• the email Mr R referred to would have been to verify his email address so he could create a Homeseekers Online account and then make a housing register application;
• it would send Mr C a paper form to complete and he could attend the Residents Hub at its Town Hall for help if he needed support completing this;
• it is not able to extend the timeframe for the verification link, but where it identifies someone has difficulty completing an online form due to a disability, it will send a paper form by post or by email.
43. In response to my further enquiries about this, the Council said it had sent a paper application on 20 September 2023. Mr C said he handed the completed form to the Council a few days later, but the Council was unable to find this, for which it has apologised. A further copy was sent to the Council on 13 November, following which the Council said it aimed to assess the application within two weeks and notify Mr C of the outcome.
44. The Council accepted Mr C onto its housing register on 20 December 2023. Its decision letter said it had awarded band 2A priority on the basis of overcrowding. It assessed he needed a studio or one bedroom property.
45. On 14 September, the Council carried out a telephone assessment and completed a PHP. Mr C said there was no interpreter, but the Council said it used a language line interpretation service. The Council asked Mr C to attend its offices on 18 September so it could give him a paper copy of its decision to accept a relief duty and PHP. Also on that day, it gave him a vulnerability assessment to complete. It said it advised Mr C to contact his GP or someone else in his support network to help him complete the form and Mr B did not say he could not do this.

Analysis and my findings

Initial approach

46. The Council has a duty to make enquiries where it has reason to believe an applicant is homeless, and eligible for housing assistance. In addition, if it has reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need, it has an immediate duty to provide interim accommodation. Reason to believe is a low bar.
47. On balance, the information the Council had on 30 January was sufficient for it to have reason to believe Mr C was homeless, eligible for housing assistance, and in priority need. It should therefore have arranged interim accommodation on 30 January. It did not do so. This was fault.
48. It was not appropriate for the Council to suggest Mr C should sleep in a particular place so he could be picked up by its Streetlink team before it offered help. This was gatekeeping and fault. If the Council was not satisfied Mr C was homeless, it should have made enquiries and provided interim accommodation whilst it did so.
49. The Council had the chance to put this right when Mr C attended its offices on 2 February, when Mr R contacted it on 6 February, when Mr C attended its offices on 6 February, and on 7 February when Mr R asked it to arrange accommodation pending a review of its decision dated 6 February. It did not do so, which is further fault. The Council did not provide interim accommodation until 13 February, two weeks later than it should have done. In the meantime, Mr C remained homeless. He said he was street homeless, and I have no reason to doubt this, so this was a significant injustice to him.

Initial enquiries and decision

50. The Council made its initial decision on 6 February within one hour of an officer seeing Mr C to discuss his situation. The Council made no enquiries. It did not contact Mr R, who was assisting Mr C with his housing and benefits issues, nor did it contact Mr C’s GP. There is a dispute about whether it asked Mr C if he could provide medical evidence. On balance, I am satisfied Mr C could have provided this, if asked to do so. It also did not apply the correct legal test for deciding whether Mr C was vulnerable. As a result, it had no basis for deciding Mr C was not in priority need. This was fault.
51. Mr R assisted Mr C to ask for a review and the reviewing officer withdrew the decision, which was appropriate. We would not usually remedy the injustice caused by poor decision-making where this has been put right at the review stage, but the decision-making was so poor on this occasion that I will recommend a remedy for the uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused.

Rent payments

52. Mr C moved from one bed and breakfast accommodation to the other, which led to him having two rent cards with different references. However, that does not explain why he received three different statements on 3 July stating different amounts were owed. On balance, I find the Council provided inaccurate and misleading information to Mr C about the rent due and failed to offer sufficient support in light of Mr C’s difficulties with spoken and written English. When Mr R raised queries about the amount due and how Mr C should pay the rent, given he is not able to read or write, the Council did not respond, which was further fault.

Hardship payment

53. Mr R applied for a hardship payment for Mr C on 20 February. It was appropriate for the Council to carry out checks before arranging payment, including verifying the address for Mr C, which it completed on 23 February, a Friday. It is unclear why the payment was not processed until 28 February, the following Tuesday, given this was a request for emergency funds. However, the payment was agreed within five working days of receiving the application, so the delay was not so significant as to amount to fault.
54. It was not fault for the Council to provide a clothing voucher as well as funds for food, given the information on the application.

Housing register application

55. Mr R assisted Mr C to apply to the Council’s housing register on 5 June. This requires a person to set up an online account and, separately, make an application. The link sent to Mr C to verify his account was valid for 12 hours and he was not able to get support to do this within that timeframe. Mr R contacted the Council a number of times about this, but it did not respond. The Council did not send a paper copy until 20 September and did not register the application until 13 November. The failure to support Mr C to make the application and subsequent delay in registering his application was fault.
56. The Council has since accepted the application and back-dated Mr C’s priority, which remedies the delay. Although its letter said priority was awarded for over-crowding, which was incorrect, band 2A priority also applies to those who are homeless.
57. The Council told us it had apologised to Mr C for its loss of the original application in September 2023, but Mr R said it had not done so. It should now apologise for losing his housing register application and the frustration and avoidable time and trouble this caused him.

Delay in making a fresh homelessness decision

58. The reviewing officer withdrew the decision that Mr C was not in priority need on 24 February. They referred the case back to the housing team to carry out a vulnerability assessment and make a fresh decision. The Council did not carry out a housing assessment until 14 September, more than six months later. This delay was fault. This meant the Council did not accept a relief duty until six months later than it would otherwise have done.
59. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days, following which the Council will make a main housing duty decision. The delay in accepting a relief duty therefore means a delay of at least six months in making a main housing duty decision. This also delays Mr C’s right to ask for a statutory review of the suitability of the B&B accommodation. Mr C will not have a statutory right to ask for a review of the suitability of the B&B accommodation until a main housing duty is accepted. The delay in making the main housing duty decision will cause him an injustice if the Council does accept the duty, because the right of review is delayed. At this stage there is some uncertainty, which it itself an injustice to Mr C.

Support with language difficulties

60. The Council was aware from the outset that Mr C could not speak English, nor read or write in English.
61. It is a striking feature of this case that the Council has not given Mr C support to complete forms or pay his rent or apply to its housing register. It was clear Mr C did not have family members who could help him and Mr R was only able to give him limited assistance. It was not appropriate for the Council to say Mr C should ask his G.P for help. If the Council needed forms completing, it should have assisted Mr C to do so. It should also have provided an interpreter when it called him or spoke to him in its offices, and the records show it did not always do so.
62. The failure to provide support to Mr C was fault. Whilst being unable to communicate in English is not in itself a disability, the lack of support added to the difficulties Mr C faced in accessing services as a disabled person.

Back to top

Agreed action

63. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr C for the injustice caused by the failings identified. Mr C does not read or write in English. To be meaningful, the Council should either apologise verbally through an interpreter or write to Mr X in his first language;
2. pay him £500 to remedy the distress, frustration, uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused, including remaining street homeless for two weeks longer than necessary;
3. meet with him, using an interpreter, to provide clear information about how to pay the rent due and a repayment plan to address the arrears;
4. decide whether it owes him a main housing duty and write to him with that decision;
5. remind relevant officers of the Council’s duty to arrange interim accommodation for those it has reason to believe may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need in line with section 188 Housing Act 1996;
6. remind relevant officers of the importance of making proper enquiries before reaching a decision on whether an applicant is in priority need; and
7. review its processes to ensure it provides appropriate support to homeless applicants and those applying to its housing register, who do not speak or read and write in English, to complete forms and otherwise access these services. This should include providing interpretation services where appropriate.
64. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman