Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take effective action when his family was threatened with homelessness. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the homelessness application. However, the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in respect of disability needs which is fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take effective action when his family were threatened with homelessness.
2. He says this caused avoidable anxiety and court costs.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Threatened with homelessness

6. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

7. Assessments and Personal Housing Plans
   Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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)

The prevention duty

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. The relief duty
   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)

The main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
11. 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)

Equality Act

12. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
13. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Disability is one of the protected characteristics.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.

14. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
15. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

Key facts

16. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
17. Mr X lives with his wife, child and father-in-law. In April 2023, the family was living in a privately rented property but struggling to afford the rent and was facing eviction. Mr X contacted the Council for assistance. The Council emailed Mr X with a request for information and said that once received it would make an appointment for him and his father-in-law at its offices.
18. It was noted that there were two tenancy agreements for the property. One was in the name of Mr Z, Mr X’s father-in-law. The other in three names: Mr and Mrs X and Mr Z. The Council was paying housing benefit in the amount of one third of the rent in respect of a claim made by Mr Z.
19. The Council contacted Mr X to confirm a meeting for 1 June so it could complete an assessment. It said both Mr X and Mr Z should attend and asked for further information to be provided including full details of the household, proof of ID for all household members, bank statements from February 2023 held by all adults in the household, proof of income for all three adults to include three months payslips and/or benefit award letters. The Council also asked for documentation in respect of the possession action in the court.
20. Mr X provided some of the information requested but the Council requested clarification of some issues and said it had not received Mr Z’s ID, bank statements for all three adults and proof of income for all three adults. It also asked for the outcome of the possession hearing held on 30 May.
21. Mr X contacted the Council explaining he did not have a computer and was unable to print and scan the tenancy agreement. He said bank statements were attached. The Council emailed back saying it was important that all bank statements from February 2023 to present should be provided. Mr X said that he was unwell and so unable to go to the bank to get copies of his bank statements. An email from the Council suggested that there was incomplete information regarding universal credit awards, bank statements and earnings.
22. Mr X and Mr Z did not attend the arranged assessment meeting on 1 June. The Council contacted Mr X offering to re-arrange the meeting and again requesting the outstanding information. The Council notified Mr X it had booked an appointment for 13 June and reminded him of the information that he needed to bring. It said that Mr and Mrs X and Mr Z should all attend.
23. Mr X attended the meeting alone on 13 June. Following this the Council accepted the prevention duty and sent a letter to Mr X explaining this decision. It said following the assessment it was satisfied Mr X was threatened with homelessness and that it owed him a duty to take reasonable steps to help him keep his current accommodation or help him to find somewhere else that is suitable. It explained the duty was to help prevent him becoming homeless but did not mean the Council must offer a social housing property or other accommodation.
24. The Council also included a copy of Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan (PHP) which set out the steps the Council and Mr X should take to prevent homelessness. It stated Mr X had £15,000 in savings and Mr Z £2,000. The rent arrears for the current property were £9,000. The PHP said Mr X could use the Council bond to secure private rented accommodation and if not accepted, he had £17,000 that could be used as a cash deposit. It noted that bank statements for all adults in the household were outstanding and so it could only do projections for benefits and affordability. The PHP also listed all the evidence that was required but still outstanding which included medical information. A further appointment was booked for 20 June which Mrs X and Mr Z should attend. However, no-one attended.
25. The Council contacted Mr X about the missed appointment and said it had been re-arranged for 4 July and reminded him of the information to bring to the meeting. Mr X explained that they had been unable to attend due to ill health. He said that despite the letter being titled ‘duty to prevent homelessness’, nothing was being done. He said none of the lettings agencies he had spoken to would accept the Council’s bond.
26. At Mr X’s request, a manager reviewed the case. The review outcome was emailed to Mr X on 4 July saying the Council was required to investigate the circumstances around a homelessness application and it was happy with how the case had been handled to date. Mr X responded saying he believed the response was racially motivated and that nothing had actually been reviewed. No-one attended the meeting arranged for that day.
27. The Council sent a warning email to Mr X saying that its duty to help prevent his homelessness would be brought to an end if he continued to deliberately and unreasonably refuse to co-operate. Mr X responded saying he was upset the Council continued to deliberately and persistently ignore the information being provided to it. He said he had no confidence in the housing office and that his request to forward the case to a senior member of staff was being ignored. He said the Council was doing nothing to prevent his homelessness other than to provide a dodgy bond and advising him to find an alternative property.
28. On 12 July the Council wrote to Mr X saying the prevention duty had ended due to him unreasonably refusing to co-operate. Mr X requested an urgent review saying he believed his family was being discriminated against on racial and disability grounds. On 6 August, Mr Z made an official complaint regarding the closure of the prevention duty and refusal of a discretionary housing payment.
29. The Council responded to Mr Z’s complaint on 31 August saying that it was aware the courts had issued an order for the family to leave the home on 31 August because they had failed to pay the rent. It said that while the Council aims to prevent homelessness it relies on applicants to provide all requested information in order to make decisions and it requires all adult members of a household to be present for the assessment meeting. It said the family had savings which could have cleared the rent arrears and saved them from eviction. It advised the family to use the time before the courts instructed bailiffs to evict them, to find a property in the private rented sector with their savings.
30. On 15 September Mr X contacted the Council regarding the review of the decision to end the prevention duty. He said that a response was due on or before 4 September and so was two weeks late.
31. The Council wrote to Mr X on 22 September saying it would like to visit the family at home to discuss the situation. It also listed the documents that it still required. On the same day it sent the outcome of the review into the decision to end the prevention duty. It overturned the decision to end the prevention duty saying it was satisfied the failure to cooperate was not deliberate or unreasonable on account of the medical conditions of family members.
32. The Council re-opened Mr X’s case and wrote to him on 9 October saying it accepted the relief duty. It said this meant it had to take reasonable steps to help him secure suitable accommodation that would be available to him for at least six months. It included an updated PHP and explained that there was also a duty on him to take the steps in the PHP. The Council explained that it would now need to determine if it owed the main housing duty. It said that it could carry out a home visit if a meeting was required. It said that Mr X still needed to provide documents but it could collect these from him if he was unable to send them. It detailed what had been provided and what was still outstanding.
33. On 26 October the Council wrote to Mr Z with an updated PHP and asked for a forwarding address and information about the family’s current housing situation as it believed they had left the previous address. The information provided by the Council indicates it did not receive any response and so it printed a letter confirming the end of the relief duty due to no contact. It is not clear to me if this letter was sent to the family.

Analysis

34. Mr X complains the Council failed to take effective action to help when he was facing homelessness. The information provided shows that when Mr X approached the Council he was living in a privately rented property with his family. His concern was the affordability and I believe he was already in rent arrears.
35. I am satisfied the Council provided assistance in accordance with the Homelessness Reduction Act. It accepted the prevention duty in June, produced a PHP, offered Mr X a bond and gave general advice about securing alternative private sector accommodation. The Council noted the family had savings of £17,000 that could be used to secure a property. I find no fault by the Council in respect of these actions.
36. The Council repeatedly wrote to Mr X requesting specific information to support his homelessness application. Mr X told me he had provided it but I have not seen evidence to support this. Mr X sent emails explaining the difficulties he had providing the information the Council repeatedly requested but I have not seen emails in which he explains it has been provided and when. Therefore, it seems to me more likely than not that Mr X did not provide everything requested.
37. The Council ended the prevention duty saying Mr X had not co-operated. Mr X exercised his right of review in respect of that decision and the Council changed it. While I can understand Mr X’s frustration in respect of the decision to end the prevention duty, I note the review process was followed and it ended in his favour. As the review process has been properly followed, I find no fault.
38. After the review, the Council re-opened Mr X’s case and accepted the relief duty. At this point, the courts had granted possession to the landlord and Mr X and his family had been given an eviction date which had passed. The Council again asked Mr X for the outstanding information but there is no evidence to show Mr X made further contact with the Council. I find no fault.
39. I have also considered the Council’s actions in terms of obtaining the information from Mr X and his family. The Council requested all adults attend its offices for the initial homelessness meetings. While the Council is entitled to make this request, I am not aware of any legislation or guidance that says this is a requirement. Mr X did explain that family members had medical conditions and disabilities that made this difficult.
40. As explained above, the Council has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments so people can access its services. This duty is anticipatory meaning councils should ensure its services are accessible and not wait until someone asks it to make an adjustment. Mr X did not specifically request the Council to make any reasonable adjustments but he did set out the difficulties faced attending meetings and producing documents. I note that when re-opening his homelessness case in October 2023, the Council then offered to carry out home visits and to collect documents. It seems to me that this is a reasonable adjustment and that therefore it should have offered this earlier in the process. The failure to do so is fault.
41. While I have found fault by the Council, I am not persuaded this caused a significant enough personal injustice to Mr X to warrant any personal remedy. Even though all requested information was not provided, and Mrs X and Mr Z failed to attend meetings, the Council accepted both the prevention and relief duty and took action in line with the requirements of the Homelessness Reduction Act. I am not persuaded the failure to make reasonable adjustments earlier in the process, changed how the Council dealt with this case. I have set out my service improvement recommendation below.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within one month of my final decision the Council will remind all staff working with homeless applicants of the requirements of the Equality Act, meeting reasonable adjustments and the Council’s anticipatory duty. If considered necessary, specific training should be provided.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman