Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to provide her with appropriate support after she approached it for homelessness assistance. She says the Council’s communication with her was poor and she constantly had to chase for a response. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Miss D and for how long it took to reach a decision on her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to make an increased payment to Miss D to reflect her injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss D complained the Council failed to provide her with appropriate support after she it approached it for homelessness assistance. She says the Council’s communication with her was poor and she constantly had to chase for a response.
2. Miss D says the matter has affected her mental health and caused her distress.

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. 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. I considered information from Miss D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. Miss D 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

7. 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.
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
9. 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. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the 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)

What happened

11. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
12. Miss D approached the Council for homelessness assistance at the end of March 2022. She said her landlord was going to sell the property she was living in. The Council told Miss D to get a section 21 notice from her landlord. A section 21 notice is a formal document served by a landlord to notify the tenant of their intention to repossess a property. Miss D sent the notice to the Council in April.
13. The Council contacted Miss D at the beginning of May and said it was satisfied she was threatened with homelessness. It said an officer would get in contact with her. It also asked her for some further information. Miss D provided the information the same day.
14. The section 21 notice expired in June. Miss D called the Council several times in June, July, August and September and asked for an urgent update on her case. She said her landlord was chasing her for the date of when she would leave the property. She said she had nowhere else to live with her two young children.
15. The Council contacted the landlord at the end of September and asked for further information about Miss D’s tenancy. It chased the landlord for a response the following week. The landlord eventually responded and said they were selling the property and the new owner required it for their own use.
16. The Council wrote to Miss D at the end of October and said it owed her the prevention duty. It said it had a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent her homelessness.
17. The Council arranged for Miss D to attend an appointment to discuss her finances in November. The advisor emailed the Council after the appointment and said Miss D advised him the property was cold and the landlord demanded a high bill for the electricity.
18. Miss D sent the Council further emails for updates on her case in December. She also called and chased for a response.
19. The Council drew up a personalised housing plan and sent it to Miss D at the beginning of January 2023.
20. Miss D emailed the Council the following week and said she was sofa surfing because the property was cold. She said she could not afford the energy bills at the commercial rate which made the property unaffordable. She said the property fell below the minimum energy efficient rating. She called and chased the Council after she did not receive a response.
21. The Council noted the property did not meet the energy efficient legal requirements. It arranged for its private sector team to inspect the property. It updated Miss D.
22. The Council inspected the property and noted several disrepair issues. It contacted the landlord and said they had to resolve the issues. It said they could not serve an eviction notice until they had completed the works.
23. The Council noted on its internal records there was no valid section 21 notice in place. Therefore, there was no threat of homelessness for Miss D.
24. Miss D complained to the Council in April about its handling of her case. She said it failed to communicate with her and keep her updated on what it was doing to resolve her homelessness.
25. The Council responded to Miss D’s complaint and accepted it failed to maintain regular contact with her. It apologised for the upset caused.
26. The Council reviewed Miss D’s case. It noted the section 21 notice had expired and the landlord had not completed the works to the property. However, the landlord was still intending to sell the property and therefore Miss D was still potentially facing being homeless. It decided to award Miss D the relief duty.
27. Miss D referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said her case officer was still refusing to respond to her communication.
28. The Council issued its final response to Miss D’s complaint at the end of May. It said the case officer had worked to support Miss D, but she failed to communicate the action she had taken. It said the officer had failed to act in line with the personalised housing plan. It said it would carry out service improvements to ensure it responds to customers enquiries within reasonable timescales and it reviews personalised housing plans regularly. It said it would assign a new case officer. It repeated its apologies for the injustice caused and offered Miss D £250.
29. The Council is still working with Miss D and the landlord to resolve the issues and ensure she can still live in the property.

Back to top

Analysis

30. The Council has accepted it was at fault for its communication with Miss D. I agree with this finding. Miss D repeatedly contacted the Council for updates on her case. The Council often ignored her communication, or it took an unreasonable amount of time to respond. This caused Miss D frustration and distress at an already difficult time.
31. From the end of January 2023, the Council was in communication with the landlord about the disrepair issues. However, it failed to keep Miss D properly updated on what it was doing, which caused her distress.
32. The Council took an unreasonable amount of time to reach a decision on Miss D’s homelessness application, which caused her further frustration. There are no statutory time limits for making a decision on homelessness applications. But we expect authorities to conduct assessments and reach decisions within a reasonable timeframe. Miss D approached the Council at the end of March 2022, but it did not award her the prevention duty until the end of October 2022.
33. After the Council accepted the prevention duty, it did not take any substantive action on Miss D’s case until January 2023 when it drew up the personalised housing plan and started communicating with the landlord. This is fault, which left Miss D feeling unsupported.
34. I welcome the Council apologised to Miss D, offered her £250 and has carried out service improvements. However, due to the length of time the fault went on for and the distress and frustration Miss D has suffered, a payment of £350 is more appropriate. In my draft decision I recommended the Council should review how long its homelessness service is taking to determine homelessness applications and draw up an action plan to improve performance. The Council has provided me with evidence which shows it has made significant progress in this area. I have therefore removed this recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 8 December 2023 the Council has agreed to pay Miss D £350 for her frustration and distress.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

37. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman