Summary: The Council has already accepted fault for its handling of Mr X’s homelessness in 2021. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X for the injustice caused. There was no fault in the Council’s decision Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council decided he did not qualify to join its housing register in 2022 and failed to provide homelessness advice and assistance. Mr X says the Council only considered his offending history and failed to take into account his individual circumstances and the continuing risk of gang violence.
2. As a result, Mr X remains homeless and cannot bid for social housing.

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. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. Mr X and and the organisation 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 law and guidance

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. 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)
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
14. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Housing allocations

15. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
16. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
17. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:
• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
18. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
19. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council’s allocations scheme says an applicant with reasonable preference will not qualify if they are considered “guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make them unsuitable to be a tenant”. The policy gives examples of such behaviour which include:
• Conviction for illegal or immoral purpose
• Committing certain criminal offences in or near the home and still posing a threat to neighbours of the community.

What happened

20. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in October 2021. At that time, he was in prison and due to for release. The Council contacted Mr X by email to ask for documents in support of his application. Mr X did not respond to this email.
21. In December, Mr X’s probation officer made a homeless application on Mr X’s behalf. The probation officer provided more details about Mr X.
22. In early January 2022, the probation officer asked the Council for an update on Mr X’s homeless application. An officer from the Council spoke to the probation officer a few days later. The note of the call says the officer advised that Mr X had no local connection to the area and there was no risk to him in the council he lived in before going to prison. The Council said Mr X should therefore approach the council in that area for help.
23. A few days later, the Council closed Mr X’s homeless application as “advice only”. An officer from the council Mr X lived in before he went to prison contacted the Council to ask why it had refused to take a homeless application from him. The officer told the Council Mr X was not safe in the area as he was stabbed there.
24. In February, Mr X made a new application to the housing register. The Council asked him to provide supporting information and documents. Mr X’s probation officer supported him to provide the relevant documents in March and April. In May, the probation officer shared a letter from Mr X’s mother explaining they had experienced hate crime in their previous council area and that Mr X sometimes slept on her sofa.
25. In late May, the Council accepted Mr X onto the housing register. It awarded Band E because it decided Mr X had a reasonable preference but no local connection to the area.
26. In June, Mr X’s probation officer asked for a review of the priority banding. The probation officer asked the Council to consider the risks to Mr X of returning to the other council area. The Council asked for more information about the risk to Mr X and details of his offending history. Neither Mr X nor his probation officer provided any further information.
27. The Council completed the review in July. It decided that Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register because his offending history meant he was not “suitable to hold a social housing tenancy”. The Council said Mr X could apply again once his conviction was spent.
28. The Council responded to a complaint about its handling of Mr X’s case in November 2023. It said:
• It took too long to assign Mr X’s cases to a homeless adviser in December 2021
• It should have assessed Mr X and decided what duty it owed him
• It should have issued a warning letter before closing his case
• Its decision that Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register was in line with its policy.
29. The Council said it had acted to improve its homeless service since the matters complained about in Mr X’s case:
• It now has a procedure to ensure it assigns all cases to an officer within three days
• It provided extra training to the individual officer about the correct homelessness processes
• It now has a process to ensure all cases where there has been no contact get a warning letter before the it closes a case.
30. The Council said it had started a new homeless application for Mr X and tried to contact him. It asked him to get in touch and provide contact details.
31. The Council accepted a duty to Mr X in December 2023.

My findings

32. Mr X’s complaint concerns matters from 2021 and 2022. The complaint is therefore late. I have exercised discretion to investigate this complaint. I consider Mr X’s individual circumstances, including his homelessness and issues communicating with his probation officer, mean there are good reasons he could not complain to us sooner. The Council has records from the relevant period so the passage of time has not impeded my ability to investigate and reach sound conclusions.
33. The Council has accepted that it acted with fault in its handling of Mr X’s homelessness in 2021. It had reason to believe he was homeless and so had a duty to make inquiries and decide what further duty it owed him. Instead, it told him he had no local connection and so it could not help him. The duties to prevent and relieve homelessness apply regardless of any local connection.
34. On balance, had it properly considered his case, the Council would have accepted the relief duty to Mr X. He was homeless on release from prison and was sofa surfing. The Council should have assessed his circumstances and issued a personalised housing plan with steps for him and the Council to take to try to relieve his homelessness. I cannot say that Mr X would have been housed if he’d had this support. However, the uncertainty and missed opportunity to access support on release from prison are injustices to Mr X.
35. Mr X says the Council should not have decided he did not qualify to join the housing register. The Ombudsman cannot question a decision made without fault. This means we look at whether the Council made its decision properly, taking into account the relevant policies and information. If it made a proper decision, we cannot find fault.
36. The Council’s allocations scheme includes details of when an applicant will not qualify because of their behaviour. This includes where an applicant has criminal convictions. The Council considered all the information it had about Mr X’s circumstances before deciding he did not qualify to join the housing register. There was no fault in how it made this decision.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the fault identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of his avoidable uncertainty and distress.
38. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
39. I have not recommended the Council take any action to improve its services. I am satisfied the actions identified in response to Mr X’s complaint were suitable steps to prevent recurrence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There was some fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman