Summary: The Council took too long to deal with Mr K’s housing application. It also failed to send him key letters regarding his homelessness application, and took too long to deal with his complaint to it about his housing situation. The Council’s failings caused Mr K prolonged distress, uncertainty and frustration. However, it did not significantly affect his opportunities to be rehoused. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr K complains that the Council failed to deal with his homelessness properly. In particular, the Council:
• failed to make a decision about the homelessness application he made in 2022;
• failed to take action to prevent him from becoming homeless;
• delayed unduly in processing his housing register application from October 2021, incorrectly placed him in band 3 and then unreasonably suspended his application; and
• Failed to deal with his complaints about this properly or in good time.
2. Mr K says the Council’s failings caused him significant distress, meant that he had to live in his car, and that he could no longer have shared care of his child.

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. 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

5. 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)
6. Mr K has complained about matters from October 2021 when he first told the Council that his landlord had given notice for him to leave. He says the Council did not respond to him but he did not pursue the Council about this and did not complain to the Ombudsman until November 2023. His complaint to the Ombudsman was late and there are no good reasons for me to exercise discretion to investigate this earlier period. I have investigated the Council’s actions from August 2022, when Mr K contacted the Council again.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information provided by Mr K and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including its file documents. I also considered the law and guidance set out below. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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)
11. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. This is known as the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is known as the main housing duty. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children;
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• 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.
16. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
17. 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

18. Mr K was renting from a private landlord. The landlord gave him notice that the rent would increase. Mr K told the landlord he could not afford that and the landlord gave Mr K notice to leave the property. Mr K made a homelessness application in October 2021. The Council accepted his homelessness application but Mr K says he did not hear back from the Council about this.
19. Mr K approached the Council again in August 2022 as his landlord had served a section 21 notice on him to leave the property. The Council assessed Mr K’s housing situation in mid-September. It found that he was renting a two-bedroom property for him and his young child. He had been working but had recently become unemployed. The Council advised Mr K to apply for a discretionary housing payment as the rent was more than would usually be allowed by the benefits scheme. The Council told Mr K that it would support him to find somewhere to live.
20. The Council accepted that it owed Mr K a prevention duty with effect from 22 September 2022.
21. Towards the end of September Mr K contacted the Council again. He had been told to move out by 1 October and wanted the Council to help him speak to his landlord to explain that he would not be able to move out. He also told the Council that he still had not heard about his housing register application despite having applied in October 2021, and the stress of this was affecting his mental health. Mr K had applied for the discretionary housing payment.
22. The Council told Mr K that he did not have to leave the property until his landlord got a court order. It also said that he and it should look for alternative housing. The landlord again told Mr K he needed to pay the increased rent. The Council told Mr K that he could appeal to a tribunal against the rent increase and asked him whether he would consider moving to a cheaper area.
23. By January 2023, the Council still had not contacted Mr K about his housing application. The Council advised him to reapply and said that it would backdate this.
24. The Council placed Mr K in the Band C under its allocation policy. It told him that he was currently adequately housed but when the Council assessed his homelessness application, he might be placed in a higher band.
25. In February 2023, Mr K found work. He again asked the Council to place him in a higher band as he was threatened with homelessness. He also asked it to meet with him about his applications. By this time, the Tribunal had decided that the landlord did not have to reduce his rent.
26. In April 2023, Mr K complained to the Council. He said he had made a homelessness application in 2021 and the Council had not acted on this. He said the landlord was due to go to court next month for possession and the lack of communication or help from the Council was making his mental health worse. The case notes do not show that the Council responded to Mr K.
27. The Council responded to Mr K’s complaint in September 2023.
28. The landlord got a possession order telling Mr K to leave by 18 October 2023. Mr K sent this to the Council immediately. A month later, Mr K chased the Council and asked for a meeting or phone call to discuss his housing situation as his landlord had applied for a bailiff’s warrant. Mr K also told the Council it had suspended his housing application but he did not know why.
29. At the end of October, Mr K asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its process. The Council accepted that it owed him a relief duty in November. But it did not send him a letter about this.
30. The Council met with Mr K at the beginning of December 2023. It told him that it would not give him interim accommodation because he did not have a priority need. The Council could not tell him why his housing register application was suspended and it advised him to look for accommodation.
31. In February 2024, Mr K was evicted from the property and he slept in his car. Mr K visited the Council to discuss his housing situation. The Council again told him that he did not have a priority need. Mr K asked it to review that decision as his child lived with him part of the week. The Council told Mr K it would provide an incentive or deposit for a landlord if he could find somewhere affordable.
32. The Council reviewed its decision that Mr K did not have priority need. In March, it told Mr K it would quash this decision and the Council would make further enquiries before issuing another decision. The Council also reviewed Mr K’s housing register application. It backdated this to September 2022 when Mr K made his second homelessness application. Ultimately, however, the Council decided that Mr K did not have a priority need. It has explained that it accepts that Mr K has shared care of his child, but case law says that this does not mean it has to find that an applicant has priority need. The Council considered all the circumstances and decided that the child was not homeless and could live with their mother.
33. The Council responded to Mr K’s stage two complaint at the end of March 2024. It has acknowledged that this took too long and says there were unavoidable staff absences. The Council says it has reminded relevant staff that complaints should be dealt with in good time. The Council said:
• It registered Mr K’s homelessness application on 22 September 2022 and drafted a Personal Housing Plan but did not send this to him.
• It suspended his housing application but did not notify him.
• He is entitled to be on the housing register from 15 September 2022 and the Council accepted a prevention duty to him on this date. He has been given band 2A priority.
• It met with Mr K and has apologised. It has offered him £400 for the delays in processing his application and £250 for the distress and inconvenience he has suffered.
34. Mr K is not satisfied with the Council’s offer of compensation. He wants the Council to review his housing priority. He says he has missed out on housing as a result.

Analysis

35. In response to my investigation, the Council has explained that it considered whether Mr K having shared care of his child meant that he had priority need. However, the Council found that the child is adequately housed with his mother who receives child benefit for him, and so his child is not homeless. The Council’s duty is to relieve his homelessness but it has decided that it does not have a main housing duty as Mr K does not have a priority need. This also means the Council decided that it did not have a duty to provide Mr K with interim accommodation.
36. Mr K asked the Council to review its decision that he does not have priority need and it did so in good time. The Council went on to explain that Mr K does not have a priority need and he had the right to ask the Council to review this second decision.
37. It is for the Council to decide whether Mr K’s parenting arrangements means he has a priority need. The Council has explained how it considered this and the information it took into account. There is no fault in how it considered Mr K’s eligibility, nor in how it conducted the review, and so there is no basis for me to criticise its decision.
38. The Council accepts that it did not issue important letters to Mr K, such as his Personal Housing Plan, and its letter that it owed him the relief duty.
39. The Council also accepts that it took too long to determine Mr K’s housing application. It wrongly placed him a band 3 when he should have been in a higher band due to the Council owing him a prevention duty. Mr K queried this in January 2023 but the Council did not resolve it until March 2024 and so Mr K could not bid on properties until then.
40. However, the Council has explained that Mr K did not miss out on a housing application prior to this due to the numbers on the waiting list and the availability of properties.
41. The Council took too long to respond to Mr K’s complaint at stage two of its process. Mr K asked the Council to process his complaint at the end of October and it did not respond until almost five months later.
42. The Council’s failings have caused Mr K prolonged distress, uncertainty and frustration. Furthermore, the Council allowed this to continue longer than necessary when it failed to deal with Mr K’s complaint in good time. However, the Council’s shortcomings have not significantly altered Mr K’s chances of being rehoused and so its offer to pay £650 in compensation is an appropriate way to remedy Mr K’s injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. The Council will one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr K. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay to Mr K the amount it has offered: £650 in respect of the impact on him of the delays in processing his housing application, and the delays in dealing with his complaints about this.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing Mr K injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman