Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not properly consider whether it had reason to believe he was homeless when he asked it for homeless assistance. As a result, Mr X could have received help to move to alternative accommodation sooner. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council considered his request for homeless assistance. Mr X said the Council did not properly consider whether it had reason to believe he was homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have not investigated concerns Mr X raised about the time taken by the Council to provide him with a copy of his housing file after he raised a subject access request. This is because it I more appropriate for the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I discussed the complaint over the telephone with Mr X. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information received in response. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. If 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)
7. In (R (Aweys & Others) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC52 (Admin)) the judge held that: “In the vast majority of cases, the making of the application will mean that it is difficult if not impossible for the council not to believe that the applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.”
8. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.
9. Every person applying for assistance from a housing authority stating that they are or are going to be homeless will require an initial interview. If there is reason to believe that they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether they are eligible for assistance. If the applicant is not eligible for assistance or if the authority is satisfied that they are not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, they must be given a written notification of the decision reached. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 11.3)
10. In some circumstances it will be possible to determine that an applicant is not threatened with homelessness at first approach, but in most cases further enquires will need to be carried out to find out more about their housing circumstances before being satisfied that they are not threatened with homelessness within 56 days. If the applicant believes they are threatened with homelessness and there is reason to believe that this is the case then further investigations will be required. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 11.4)

What happened

11. In late January 2023, Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance. Mr X said he asked the Council for help as he was being attacked at his home and in his local area due to his sexuality. Mr X was already on the Council’s housing register and in Band four.
12. Mr X had a telephone call with the Council where it took his details. The notes from the call said Mr X was suffering harassment and mentioned Mr X had been spat at, verbally abused and had eggs thrown at his property.
13. On the same day the Council contacted the police to ask about the incidents Mr X had reported and whether it was safe for him to remain in the property, however it did not receive a response.
14. On 30 January 2023, the Council had a conversation with Victim Support who told it that Mr X was at risk living in his property and said he seems to have been targeted. Victim Support said it had provided Mr X with advice and items to help but had placed a red flag on his case as they were concerned.
15. Internal communication at the Council showed that it decided to close Mr X’s case as it did not have information from the police on file to show Mr X’s property was unsafe for him. The Council told Mr X this over the telephone and told him the Council could re-open the case if it receives more information.
16. In Mid-February 2023, the Council changed Mr X’s banding to Band two on its housing register. This was as a result of him obtaining social and welfare priority based on the incidents he had experienced living in his current home and the need to be closer to family members.
17. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision not to provide him with homelessness assistance. The Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint in October 2023 after progressing the matter through its complaints procedure. The Council said it did not have reason to believe Mr X was homeless at the time he contacted it, therefore did not take a homeless application.
18. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.
19. In response to my enquiries the Council said Mr X has obtained accommodation on its housing register and moved into this in late 2023. The Council said it did not have reason to believe Mr X was homeless when he approached it in January 2023 as the incidents Mr X reported appeared to be random and carried out by unknown perpetrators. The Council said they also took place away from his home address and there was never any evidence provided from the police to say it was unsafe for Mr X to remain at this property.

Analysis

20. When Mr X approached the Council has homeless, the Council said it did not have reason to believe he was homeless. The Council said it based this decision on the fact it considered the incidents of hate crime were random and took place away from his home. However the notes from Mr X’s initial telephone call said his home had been targeted. In addition, a letter from Mr X’s MP, dated January 2023, which the Council supplied as part of his housing file also mentioned some of the incidents had happened at Mr X’s home.
21. The Council also said it did not have evidence from the police that it was unsafe for Mr X to remain at his property. The Council asked the police for this in late January 2023 but did not appear to receive a response so closed his file. In addition the Council had spoken with Victim Support who told it they considered Mr X was unsafe at his property.
22. I cannot see that the Council has properly considered the fact that some of the incidents took place at Mr X’s home or the fact Victim Support told it Mr X was not safe at his property. Failure to properly consider this was fault. As a result, the Council did not take a homelessness application from Mr X.
23. Showing there is reason to believe someone is homeless is a low threshold. Given the reports Mr X made and the fact the Council had not received evidence from the police, I am not satisfied it properly considered the evidence it had.
24. If the Council had taken a homeless application from Mr X, I cannot say what the result of that would be. But if it decided he was not homeless, it could have issued him a decision which he would have had the option to appeal. The Council also would have had to carry out an assessment of Mr X’s housing needs to establish what duties it owed him. This could have resulted in Mr X potentially getting additional help with finding accommodation. Not doing this has caused Mr X distress and uncertainty about what other assistance he could have received from the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for the way it closed his housing application in February 2023.
• Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation and found there was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused to him.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman