Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application causing distress. We found fault because the Council wrongly referred him to other councils and delayed accepting a relief duty towards him. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case so have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness situation. In particular Mr X says the Council:
• Failed to provide him with emergency accommodation when he approached for assistance in July 2023. And referred him to other London boroughs for assistance instead.
• Made offers of unsuitable emergency accommodation due to his physical and mental health conditions.
• Failed to explain the reasons for its decision to end the relief duty.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him anxiety and distress as he had been left homeless impacting onto his mental and physical health. Mr X wants the Council to provide him with settled accommodation.

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 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. 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 investigated Mr X’s complaints about the way the Council dealt with him when he approached as homeless in July and August 2023. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints once the Council issued him with decision on his homelessness application. I explain my reasons for this within the decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided with his complaint. I considered information from the Council and the supporting documents it provided along with the relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X 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

Relevant law and guidance

9. 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.
10. If someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they can seek help from the housing authority (Council). They must be eligible for assistance. Where the person is threatened with homelessness the prevention duty may apply.
11. Where the person is actually homeless the relief duty may apply. This will usually apply if the person is homeless and eligible for assistance. The housing authority will need to carry out an assessment and work with the person to develop a personalised housing plan (PHP).
12. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, be eligible and have a priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. When the relief duty period ends the housing authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. If the authority accepts the main duty it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
13. If the person does not have a local connection with the area, it may refer them to another housing authority. It may also do this during the relief stage.
14. The housing authority must put all key decisions in writing and give reasons for negative decisions. In most cases, there is a right to ask for a review of the decision. This includes:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;
• whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority;
• the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
15. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:
• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate, and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

16. The council must 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)

What happened in this case

17. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
18. In July 2023 Mr X contacted the Council’s Out of Hours (OOH) service for housing assistance. The service had a severe lack of emergency accommodation available and could only offer Mr X a hotel room. But when officers tried to book, the room was no longer available. The service offered Mr X alternative emergency accommodation. Mr X refused because he considered it was too far away. The Council gave him the contact telephone number of a homeless charity.
19. Mr X applied as homeless to Haringey London borough, a different council in July 2023. Mr X said he was informally renting a room from a friend but issues at the property made it uninhabitable. Haringey Council decided Mr X was homeless, eligible for assistance but had no local connection to the Borough. So referred Mr X to Westminster Council as it considered he had a local connection there.
20. Mr X completed an online self-assessment form for Westminster Council in August 2023 as he believed his landlord was illegally evicting him. The Council’s tenancy relations team noted Mr X was in private accommodation through a verbal agreement with the landlord. But had been asked to leave by 1 September 2023. The Council advised Mr X a resident landlord can verbally evict a tenant with reasonable notice. The landlord gave Mr X another eviction date at the end of September 2023, but Mr X left on 1 September 2023.
21. In September 2023 the Council referred Mr X to its single person service (service) which offers support to individuals facing homelessness. The Council’s OOH service offered Mr X emergency accommodation for one night which Mr X accepted. Council documents note Mr X booked himself into another hotel after that night.
22. The service assessed Mr X’s circumstances the next day and decided that he was homeless but had no local connection to Westminster. The Council referred Mr X to Haringey and Barnet Councils for the relief duty as it believed he had a local connection there. Mr X contacted the Council’s OOH service for emergency accommodation. But it did not offer him emergency accommodation as he had no local connection to Westminster.
23. Mr X complained to the Council under stage 1 of the complaint procedure in September 2023. In summary Mr X complained about:
• the actions of the OOH service in July 2023 and it did not consider his physical and mental health conditions when it offered accommodation.
• The advice given by an officer that he could leave his private rented accommodation when he raised concerns about an illegal eviction.
• The referral to Haringey Council even though he had no local connection.
• The failure to provide a decision letter explaining why the Council rejected his homelessness application.
24. Mr X said this caused him to be homeless impacting onto his health and asked the Council to provide him with interim accommodation.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in October 2023. It said it was not that officers did not consider his health conditions. But rather there was a lack of emergency accommodation available. And so, it could only offer Mr X the emergency accommodation it had in July 2023. The Council confirmed the advice given to Mr X about his tenancy and notice given was correct.
26. The Council partially upheld the complaint as it found no evidence officers had told Mr X in writing of the referrals to the two other councils. The Council apologised and explained it had made the referrals as Mr X had no local connection to Westminster. The Council confirmed once the two councils responded it would make a decision on his homelessness application.
27. The Council decided Mr X’s application on 25 October 2023. It acknowledged he was homeless, eligible for assistance but did not have a priority need for housing. So, the Council had no duty to provide him with interim accommodation. The Council confirmed it made the decision after considering his housing needs interview in September 2023, medical documents, housing file information and the code of guidance. The Council did not consider Mr X was vulnerable and advised of his right to review the decision.
28. In November 2023 the Council realised it had referred Mr X to the two councils in error as he did not have a local connection. So decided to accept a relief duty towards him. The Council told Mr X it was satisfied from his application on 30 August 2023 he was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a local connection to the authority. So, it accepted a relief duty to him to ‘secure that suitable accommodation becomes available for his occupation’. And he could request a review of steps it said it would take to help him secure accommodation.
29. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in November 2023 and submitted a medical assessment form referring to medical health conditions.

Stage 2 complaint

30. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage 2 as he remained unhappy with the Council’s actions. The Council responded in November 2023. It noted Mr X considered it failed to take account of his medical conditions and disabilities when offering emergency accommodation. The Council explained the accommodation offered was because it had no other accommodation available. It had investigated Mr X’s concerns about wrongly rejecting his homelessness application in July 2023 at Stage 1. And upheld the referral to other Councils was made in error as he had no local connection to them. The Council had apologised and decided to issue him with the relief duty. The Council offered Mr X a payment of £50 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the poor level of service he received when it processed his application.
31. It noted Mr X remained unhappy with the offers of emergency accommodation and alleged he was told it would be local. The Council apologised if Mr X felt he was given misleading information. But there was no evidence to suggest he was told the emergency accommodation would only be local as the Council could only offer what was available.
32. The Council accepted Mr X’s housing register application in December 2023 and awarded him mobility category 4. It did not award medical priority as he was not considered to have severe medical issues and not severely affected by his accommodation. The Council said Mr X could bid for a mobility category 4 studio and had the right to request a review of the decision.
33. In January 2024 Mr X requested a review of the decision on his housing application and be assessed for a one bedroomed property.

End of Relief Duty January 2024

34. The Council wrote to Mr X on 29 January 2024 to end the relief duty to him to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation as 56 days had passed. It told Mr X he could ask for a review of the decision. Mr X asked for a review. The Council acknowledged the review request on 7 February 2024. It said it was legally bound to make decision within 56 days and Mr X could appeal to the courts if it took longer.
35. The Council sent Mr X’s medical assessment to the medical adviser to consider his housing register category. The medical adviser did not support awarding Mr X medical priority or that he had need for a one bed roomed property.
36. The Council reviewed the decision to end the relief duty in February 2024 and overturned the decision. This was because it found that although the Council advised it would take reasonable steps to help Mr X secure accommodation the steps were insufficient as it had not completed referrals to Private Rented Schemes. And so, it did not perform the relief duty sufficiently. Because of this the Council would make further enquiries into his housing circumstances to assess whether it owed any duties to him.
37. The Council accepted a second relief duty towards Mr X on 11 March 2024. It noted he was homeless, eligible for assistance to help him secure suitable accommodation and had a local connection to the borough.
38. The Council and Mr X completed a personalised housing plan (PHP) to remain in place for 56 days. The PHP included Mr X providing information, registering for a housing application, searching for affordable private rented accommodation, and working with the private rented sector lettings (PRS) team. The Council agreed to provide information to Mr X on the local housing allowance and refer him to the PRS lettings team. The PRS team offered Mr X three properties via its letting company.
39. Mr X contacted the Council in May 2024 asking for temporary accommodation. The Council told Mr X it would not be providing him with temporary accommodation because it had only overturned the end of the relief duty decision and not the non-priority one. The Council advised it had offered Mr X three properties through its lettings service. Mr X asked the Council to reassess the mobility category and medical assessment for his housing register application. The Council says the review team registered an out of time review of the non-priority decision made in October 2023 in error due to confusion over the various decisions Mr X asked to be reviewed.
40. The Council asked Mr X to send more information to support his non-priority review request. It said it was required to make a final decision within 56 days unless he agreed to give them more time. If it took longer without his agreement, he could appeal to county court. The Council said the deadline for decision was in July 2024
41. In June 2024 the Council sent Mr X another end of relief duty letter and advised he had the right to request a review of the decision. Mr X requested a review which the Council decided in September 2024. It noted the steps taken by the Council to relieve Mr X’s homelessness including offering him further properties. The review upheld the June 2024 decision to end the Council’s relief duty. The decision letter advised Mr X of his right to appeal to the county court.
42. The Council says the review of the non-priority decision has taken longer to decide than expected and is continuing. Mr X agreed to an extension to the review time to be concluded by 1 October 2024. This was because Mr X needed time to register with a GP and then for the GP to send information. Mr X has also recently appointed legal representation. And they have asked the Council for more time to provide information about the decision.

My assessment

43. The documents provided show the Council did offer Mr X emergency accommodation when he approached in July 2023. Mr X refused the offers saying they were too far away, and the Council had not assessed his medical needs.
44. The Council does not say why it considered the emergency accommodation to be suitable even though it was some distance away. But I do not consider it is proportionate for us to investigate Mr X’s concerns any further. This is because the Council subsequently found Mr X was not in priority need and so considered it had no duty to offer him emergency or interim accommodation. And even if the Council had offered him accommodation in July 2023 while making enquiries it would have required Mr X to leave the accommodation when it made its decision, he was not in priority need.
45. When Mr X approached the Council for housing assistance in August 2023, it placed him in hotel after he was asked to leave his accommodation by his landlord. The Council then assessed Mr X as having no local connection and referred him to other London councils. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint at stage 1. This was because it failed to inform Mr X in writing it would be referring his application back to Haringey and Barnet Councils as it considered he had no local connection to Westminster. The Council then became aware of letter from Haringey stating that Mr X had no local connection there. Therefore, the Council upheld at Stage 2 it should not have made the referral. The Council decided to accept a relief duty in November 2023 as an outcome of the complaint. The Council confirmed Mr X was not eligible for interim accommodation.
46. The Council has accepted it made the referral to Haringey and Barnet Councils in error and this delayed accepting a relief duty towards Mr X between September and November 2023. This is fault by the Council. The Council has offered Mr X a payment of £50 in recognition of the poor service her received. But I consider the Council should apologise to Mr X in writing and pay him £200. This is because the fault has caused an injustice to Mr X through uncertainty and distress as to whether the Council would accept a relief duty towards him.
47. The Council made a decision in October 2023 it did not consider Mr X was in priority need. It was open to Mr X to ask the Council for a review of the decision. Mr X could then appeal to the county court if he disagreed with the outcome and the Council’s view it had no duty to provide him with interim accommodation. The Council is still considering Mr X’s review of the non-priority decision, so it is open to him to challenge the decision through the courts once a decision is made.
48. Although Mr X has been unhappy with the way the Council has considered his homelessness application after the non-priority decision, he has been able to challenge the decisions made through the review process. Mr X can then appeal to county court if he remains unhappy with the outcomes of decisions. As paragraph four 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. I consider it is reasonable in this case to expect Mr X to use that right. This is because the courts can consider the way the Council has dealt with the application and direct the Council or overturn decisions about Mr X’s application.

Back to top

Agreed action

49. Within one month of my final decision the Council should apologise to Mr X in writing and make him a payment of £200 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused by incorrectly referring him to other councils and delay in accepting a relief duty in August 2023.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault in the way it dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application in August 2023 as it incorrectly referred him to other councils and delayed accepting a relief duty towards him. I have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman