Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation when he became homeless. The Council has already accepted it acted with fault and offered a financial payment to Mr X. We do not consider this properly remedied the injustice to Mr X, including the distress caused by living on the streets for two weeks. The Council has agreed with our further recommendations. We did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about poor communication because the Council already accepted fault and provided an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to process his homelessness application properly. In particular, he complains about:
1. the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation when he became homeless; and
2. poor communication.
2. As a result, Mr X was street homeless for two weeks and had to incur the cost of providing his own temporary accommodation for four weeks. While the Council has accepted fault, apologised and made a payment of £210, Mr X says this is inadequate and does not properly reflect his significant distress and the costs he incurred during the time he was homeless.

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

5. 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

6. I have not investigated 1(b) above. This is because the Council has already accepted it acted with fault in response to his complaint about poor communication. It has apologised for the distress caused to Mr X and offered to make a payment of £150 in acknowledgement of its poor communication and Mr X’s time and trouble pursuing the matter. I consider this to be an acceptable remedy that is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. Any further investigation would not achieve anything further for Mr X. I am also satisfied the Council has taken action to improve its customer service.
7. The Council has also accepted it acted with fault in relation to 1(a) because it did not act quickly enough to source temporary accommodation in line with the homelessness legislation. I am satisfied the Council reached the correct conclusion about this part of Mr X’s complaint. For this reason, my investigation has focussed on whether the Council’s apology and payment of £60 is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by this fault.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
9. I considered information provided by the Council, including Mr X’s case records.
10. Mr X and the Council were given the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

11. 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.
12. f 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. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

What happened

14. Below is a chronology of key events. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
15. Mr X has several medical conditions including early onset Alzheimer’s Disease.
16. At the beginning of June 2023, he initiated his homelessness application by completing an online self-assessment form. He provided the Council with relevant information about his priority need and housing situation. He told the Council he would be homeless from 18 June 2023.
17. He attended a homelessness assessment interview in mid-June 2023.
18. On 18 June 2023, Mr X became street homeless. He slept on park benches for two weeks. When his family discovered he was sleeping rough, they lent him money to pay for temporary accommodation. He stayed there for four weeks.
19. Despite numerous emails and phone calls to the Council during this time by Mr X, his family and advocates, the Council did not decide his homelessness status until 1 August 2023.
20. Upon accepting he was owed the Relief Duty, the Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation.
21. Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to provide him with interim accommodation and poor communication. His complaint was upheld. The Council apologised and offered a payment of £150 in recognition of its poor communication and £60 to acknowledge his distress caused by its failure to provide interim accommodation.
22. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

23. After Mr X approached the Council as homeless and had an assessment, the Council did not consider whether he should receive interim accommodation in a timely fashion. I am satisfied that the Council was given sufficient information about Mr X’s personal circumstances to have reason to believe he was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need. Because of this, the Council was under a duty to provide interim accommodation straight away.
24. Failure to do so was fault. To the Council’s credit it has already accepted this should not have happened.

Injustice and remedy

25. As there was fault in this case, I need to consider what injustice this has caused Mr X and whether the Council’s remedy is sufficient. I acknowledge the Council has apologised and offered Mr X £60, in recognition that he should have been offered interim accommodation when he became homeless.
26. I welcome this offer but do not consider it goes far enough to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.
27. Mr X slept rough for two weeks. He has a number of medical conditions, so this was an understandably traumatic experience, during which time, he and others attempted to contact the Council. This added to his frustration because he did know how long he would remain homeless.
28. The Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies says that where a person has been deprived of suitable accommodation our recommendation is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 per month. I consider the highest figure of £350 per month is an appropriate amount, taking into consideration:

• Mr X was sleeping rough for two weeks;
• he had to go into debt to repay his family for accommodation they provided for him;
• he has dependent children under 16; and
• he has serious medical conditions.

29. In response to Mr X’s complaint and other similar complaints that have been the subject of investigations by the Ombudsman, the Council has explained that it has taken steps to address the delays in processing homeless applications. This included, staff training, restructuring housing casework teams, improved monitoring of cases and weekly meetings to review caseload and prioritise cases. On this basis, I will not make further service recommendations, but will request an update on whether these improvements have been effective.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
1. Make a payment of £525 to Mr X for not providing interim accommodation when it should have done. This is in addition to the £210 already offered to Mr X in recognition of the injustice caused by its poor communication and distress caused by his homelessness.
2. Provide the Ombudsman with an update on the impact of service improvements it has taken to address the delays in processing homelessness applications.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have found the Council to be at fault and the Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy the injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman