Summary: Miss F complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. The Council has accepted it gave her incorrect advice in May 2023. The Council also failed to issue a homelessness decision letter in October 2022. These faults have caused Miss F distress and uncertainty and to lose appeal rights but I do not find they caused her to miss out on accommodation. There was also fault in complaint handling, causing her time and trouble. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss F to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss F complains the Council:
• Failed to deal with her homelessness application in October 2022.
• Gave her misleading and incorrect advice in May 2023 that she was not eligible for homelessness assistance as she was a student.
• Was insensitive, impolite and unhelpful on the phone.
• Delayed dealing with her complaint.
2. As a result she was left without homelessness help, had to sleep rough and sofa-surf, which has caused significant distress, affected her mental health and made her ill.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 have not investigated point three of Miss F’s complaint, in relation to staff conduct in phone calls in May 2023. This is because the Council has already apologised and it is not now possible to listen to the phone calls. I am therefore exercising my discretion, as set out in paragraph 6, not to investigate as I cannot achieve anything further.
9. I have not investigated the Council’s October 2023 decision to end the prevention duty and that she does not have priority need. This is because it wrote to Miss F setting out the decision and her review rights. Following a review, an applicant can appeal to the county court. As set out in paragraph 4, we would not normally investigate if someone could take a matter to court.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I spoke to Miss F about her complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
11. Miss F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision. Miss F did not agree with all of my findings but they are based on the evidence I have seen.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness relevant law and guidance

12. 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.
13. Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 says a person is homeless if they have no accommodation in the UK or elsewhere which is available for their occupation and which that person has a legal right to occupy. A person who has accommodation is to be treated as homeless where it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy that accommodation.
14. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation, or help to get 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)
15. Whilst making these inquiries, a council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
16. Applicants in priority need may include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

Threatened with homelessness

17. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• 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))

Prevention duty

18. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
19. Once the council has accepted it owes the prevention duty, it must help the person for at least 56 days. The council can serve notice to end the duty before 56 days for a number of reasons, including if the applicant has suitable accommodation for at least six months. There is no requirement that the same accommodation has to be available for the whole six-month period. The Code suggests that the 'six month' condition might be met where a family member has agreed to allow the applicant to stay on an open-ended basis until they can find a longer-term address. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 14.11)

Relief duty

20. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
21. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found.
22. The relief duty usually ends 56 days after the council became subject to the duty, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Main housing duty

23. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
24. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Review rights

25. The law says the council must give the applicant some decisions in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 184) Decisions that must be given in writing include:
• Whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless so the relief duty is owed.
• Whether the prevention duty is owed.
• That the prevention duty has ended.
• That the relief duty period has ended.
• What duty, if any, is owed to the applicant after the relief duty ends (i.e whether the Council owes the main housing duty).
26. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. Applicants may request a review of the decision within 21 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
27. The council must also advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Housing Allocations

28. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing and how it prioritises applicants. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
29. The Council allocates its housing according to its Lettings Policy. The Council places housing applications into one of four bands according to an applicant’s housing needs. Band A is the highest priority and is for people who have an urgent need to be rehoused. Band B includes applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness and who do not have a priority need.
30. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which means once an applicant is given a priority band, they can bid on homes advertised by the Council.
31. The Council asks applicants on its housing register to renew their housing application annually. It writes to applicants reminding them to confirm they wish to remain on the register six weeks before the expiry of an application. If there is no reply the application is closed.

Complaint procedures

32. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure. It aims to respond to the complaint within 15 working days.

What happened

33. Miss F was on the Council’s housing register. She was living with a friend. In September 2022 she approached a homelessness charity as the friend could no longer accommodate her. The charity made a referral to the Council’s homelessness team.
34. On 12 October 2022 a Council housing adviser contacted Miss F to complete a homeless application. The case record notes that Miss F has a medical condition which affects her movement. Miss F said she was about to move to another area to be a student but had no accommodation.
35. The case records show the housing adviser made inquiries and had contact details for Miss F’s friend but was unable to contact them. On 20 October the Council told Miss F on the phone that, following inquiries, it had been unable to establish that Miss F was homeless or threatened with homelessness, so no relief or prevention duty was owed and her case was closed. No decision letter was issued.
36. The Council says it wrote to Miss F on 17 October asking if she wished to review her application for housing. The Council says it received no response so it closed her housing register application on 21 November 2022.
37. In May 2023, Miss F moved into a bed and breakfast funded by her university for three nights. On the day she had to move out, the university made a referral to the Council’s homelessness team. This said she had no accommodation and had a medical condition which increased her vulnerability. The Council spoke to Miss F and to a friend who agreed Miss F could stay with them for the weekend.
38. Miss F spoke to the Council again on the Monday. The case record says Miss F was a full-time student and would not be able to pay for accommodation. A manager tried to call Miss F back but was unable to make contact. A further attempt was made the next day but the phone connection was too poor to complete a homeless application.
39. The Council called Miss F again on 17 May. Miss F said she had slept in a park for the previous two nights. The case record says that as Miss F was a full-time student, she was not eligible for housing assistance and needed to speak to the university. The Council has accepted that this advice was wrong.
40. Miss F made a complaint that day. The Council says this went to a housing team and was not registered as a formal complaint.
41. In September 2023 Miss F came to the Ombudsman as she had not heard from the Council about her complaint. She said she had been moving around between friends. We contacted the Council which then issued its stage one response in October 2023. The Council apologised that Miss F had been given the wrong advice in May 2023. It would provide training to relevant staff.
42. The Council completed a homelessness application with Miss F on 31 October 2023. The Council determined she did not have a priority need. The personal housing plan says Miss F should bid for properties via the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme and look for accommodation in the private rented sector. The plan says she may need to stay with friends and family whilst she is searching for accommodation. The Council awarded Band B priority on Miss F’s housing application. This was backdated to 12 October 2022, when she had completed the homeless application.
43. The Council wrote to Miss F that day both accepting and ending the prevention duty. The letter said Miss F could ask for a review of the decisions.
44. The Council said it accepted Miss F did not have accommodation that was “reasonably likely to remain available for at least six months” but ended its prevention duty as she “was likely to find such accommodation soon.” In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it had accepted a prevention duty under section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 as Miss F did not have settled accommodation at that time. However it considered that her accommodation of living with friends would be available to her for at least six months, and it had taken into account that the Code says this does not necessarily need to be the same accommodation throughout.
45. Miss F asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two. It sent its final complaint response in November 2023. The Council said it was unable to listen to the May 2023 phone calls to determine whether staff had spoken to Miss F in an insensitive or impolite way. Its decision on the prevention duty and Band B allocation were subject to statutory reviews, but Miss F had declined to request these.
46. Miss F came back to the Ombudsman. She said she was staying with friends but it was overcrowded. She was not working so was unable to access the private rented sector as suggested by the Council.

My findings

Homeless application October 2022

47. When the Council took Miss F’s application for homelessness assistance, she had been living with a friend who could no longer accommodate her. The Council was unable to establish what had happened as it could not contact the friend. It therefore advised Miss F on the phone that it could not determine that she was homeless or threatened with homelessness.
48. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 says decisions on whether the Council owes a homelessness duty must be sent in writing, giving information about the right to a review. The Council did not write to Miss F. This is fault.
49. This fault has caused Miss F an injustice as she has lost the opportunity to appeal the decision that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness in October 2022.
50. As set out in paragraph 4, the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. Following a review, an applicant can appeal to the county court on a point of law. So normally we would not investigate a complaint about a decision that someone was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. But as the Council did not write to Miss F, she was not properly informed about her review rights. I have therefore exercised my discretion to investigate whether there was fault in the Council’s decision.
51. I do not find fault, as the Council was unable to establish what had happened, so it did not have evidence that Miss F was homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Homeless application May 2023

52. The Council has accepted it gave Miss F the wrong advice, which is fault. If there had been no fault it would have carried out homelessness inquiries and issued a written decision on whether it had found Miss F to be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Miss F therefore lost her opportunity to appeal, which is an injustice.
53. As the Council did not write to Miss F, and she was not properly informed about her review rights, I have exercised my discretion to consider whether, if there had been no fault, the Council would have decided that she was homeless or threatened with homelessness.
54. Miss F had told the Council that she had to leave her accommodation. She was then able to stay with a friend for a weekend, but this was not settled accommodation and when Miss F spoke to the Council on 17 May, she advised she had slept in a park for two nights. I therefore find that, on balance, she lacked settled accommodation where she was entitled to stay (rather than just being a guest). I consider that, if there had been no fault, it is more likely than not that the Council would have reached the view that Miss F was homeless and eligible for assistance. It therefore would have owed her the relief duty from 17 May 2023.
55. As the Council has found Miss F not to be in priority need, it is likely it would not have found her to be in priority need in May 2023. It therefore would not have provided interim accommodation and it is likely it would not have accepted the main housing duty after 56 days.
56. Nonetheless, the failure to accept the relief duty in May 2023 has caused Miss F distress and uncertainty about whether the Council could have helped her secure suitable accommodation. This is her injustice.
57. Miss F says this failure caused her to become ill. Only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and caused a personal injury.

Complaint handling

58. Miss F complained on 17 May 2023, but this was not passed to the Council’s complaints team. This was fault and meant Miss F did not receive a response until October 2023. This has caused her time and trouble as she had to come to the Ombudsman to pursue her complaint. This is an injustice.
59. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says a moderate amount up to £500 may be suitable to remedy distress and time and trouble caused by fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss F and pay her £600. This consists of:
• £200 to remedy her loss of appeal rights.
• £300 to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused by failure to accept the relief duty in May 2023.
• £100 for the time and trouble she was put to due to fault in complaint handling.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

62. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman