Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. We found fault because the Council considered his local connection too early in the process. Because of this, the Council failed to act to possibly prevent his homelessness. To remedy his injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X. It will also undertake staff training.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled his homelessness application and its decision that he did not have a local connection. This negatively affect his priority banding for social housing.
2. He says this caused significant distress, inconvenience and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and reviewed the evidence he sent me.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
8. I considered the relevant law and guidance, as set out below.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness – Housing Act 1996

10. Part 7 of the 1996 Act sets out the powers and duties of housing authorities where people apply to them for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation in cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness.

Threatened with homelessness

11. 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)

12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Assessments, the prevention duty and personalised housing plans

13. 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)

Local connection

14. A person can have a local connection if the connection with it because of family associations living there. (Section 199(1)). Guidance says this may extend beyond partners, parents adult children or siblings (Prar10.9).

Local Government Association Guidelines “Procedures for referrals of homelessness applications to another local authority” (2019)

15. This states, “the residence of dependent children in a different district would not be residence of their own choice and therefore would not establish a local connection with that district.

The Council’s allocations scheme

16. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the housing register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
17. The scheme’s relevant priority bandings are:

• Gold – where there is a risk of homelessness, have a local connection and priority need.
• Bronze – a non-priority band.

What happened

18. This decision statement sets out the key events and is not intended to be a full account of everything that happened.
19. Mr X lived with his children in Council A, a neighbouring council close to the border of the Council. His children attended school in the Council area. Mr X lived in rented accommodation and was served with notice to quit by 11 November 2023. He was threatened with homelessness.
20. He wanted to move into the Council area and had been on the waiting list for affordable social housing with priority level “bronze” since 2022.
21. Prompted by his imminent homelessness, he made a homelessness application to the Council in September 2023. The Council’s case records show he was advised verbally that:

• he should move out of his rented accommodation by 11 November 2023 to avoid court costs; and
• his priority on the Council’s housing register would go up from bronze to gold on account of his homelessness.

22. He attended a homelessness assessment interview with Officer J in late October 2023. He was assessed as being homeless and in priority need.
23. He says he was told by Officer J that he would be upgraded to “gold” priority banding because his children gave him a local connection and he was homeless. This confirmed the advice he had already been given over the phone. Officer J did not record the assessment.
24. Officer J was a temporary employee and left his employment shortly after he interviewed Mr X. A few days after the assessment another officer, Officer M, reviewed his application. She carried out another assessment and decided Mr X did not have a local connection because this could not be acquired by his relationship to dependent children.
25. Officer M offered to either transfer his homelessness application to Council A or not open a homelessness application (as this had not yet been done). However, he could remain on the Council’s housing register with “bronze” level of priority.
26. Shortly afterwards, Mr X and his children became homeless and had no choice but to stay at his parents’ house for several months in Council A where they were severely overcrowded. Mr X says he could not work because he had to transport his children to and from school every day.

Mr X’s complaint

27. Mr X complained to the Council about how his application had been handled and the outcome.
28. He said the Council should honour its original commitment to accept his local connection and increase his priority banding. He said his children were his local connection to the Council area. They had been forced to move away from their friends and local area through no fault of their own. He said he was led to believe the Council would help his and then let him down two weeks before the eviction.
29. In response, the Council accepted he had been given incorrect advice about priority banding and apologised, but reaffirmed its overall position that Mr X did not have a local connection. It referred to Local Government Association Guidance (paragraph 15 above)
30. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
31. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council made the following points.

• Upon receipt of his Mr X’s homelessness application in September 2023, the Council should have reviewed his circumstances and recognised he was owed the prevention duty. The Council missed two further opportunities to spot this mistake.
• Reasonable steps should have been taken to assist Mr X to remain in his existing home or secure alternative accommodation in accordance with this prevention duty.
• If this was not possible, Mr X should have been progressed to the relief stage of homelessness where local connection would have been explored. A referral to the Council A should have been made at this point in the process.
• There were no records of Officer J’s assessment.
• It offered to pay Mr X £150 for his inconvenience and distress.

Analysis

32. There were several faults with the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application.
33. There are no case records from Officer J’s assessment in late October 2023. This was fault. We expect councils to keep a record of meetings such as this in the event of any dispute. On balance, I do not doubt Mr X’s recollection of what he was told by Officer J because the same advice was recorded by Officer J in an earlier case note. It is entirely understandable why Mr X was so disappointed and frustrated when he was later told otherwise. The Council had avoidably raised his expectations.
34. In response to my enquiries, to the Council’s credit, it has already accepted it acted with fault when it failed to accept Mr X was owed the prevention duty when he first made his application. It is disappointing that this was missed by other officers dealing with both his application and his subsequent complaint. This strongly suggests the Council should take immediate action to ensure appropriate advice is given at the correct stage in the process.
35. I have not found fault with the Council’s final decision that Mr X did not have a local connection. It followed relevant guidance that a local connection could not be acquired by virtue of a child either living or being a school in its area. This limits the injustice to Mr X.

Injustice and remedy

36. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that it is more likely that not that Mr X’s housing prospects would not have been any different had the Council accepted and acted upon its prevention duty at the correct time.
37. I say this because where a section 21 notice has been issued it is at the landlord’s discretion to extend the tenancy or not. It is likely the personalised housing plan would have required the Council to contact the landlord or provide Mr X with details of other private landlords. I do not have any evidence to suggest his tenancy would have been extended or that he could have acquired suitable private sector housing sooner.
38. For this reason, Mr X’s injustice, arising from fault with the Council’s initial actions is limited to his inconvenience and frustration. As there was no fault with the Council’s final decision about local connection, I cannot consider the remedy sought by Mr X. This was for his housing application banding to be upgraded to “gold”, as if the initial advice given to Mr X was correct.
39. The Council has accepted it acted with fault and offered to pay Mr X £150 for his stress and inconvenience. As this is in line with the Ombudsman’s published “Guidance of Remedies” I will not interfere with this proposal.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £150 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge his distress and frustration caused by the Council’s handling of his homelessness application.
3. Provide training to staff who manage homelessness applications to ensure they properly understand and apply the relevant legislation about when the prevention duty of owed and when a local connection can be considered. It should also remind all staff of the need to record all assessments and advice given.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I have found the Council to be at fault. I made recommendations to remedy the injustice to Mr X and improve its service that the Council has agreed to.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman