Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her and her children with housing support after she was found to be intentionally homeless. We did not investigate the Council’s decisions that Ms X made herself intentionally homeless, as these carried review rights which were reasonable for Ms X to use. However the Council was at fault for its delay in providing Ms X with interim accommodation in 2024 while it made further enquiries. The Council has adequately remedied this by offering her interim accommodation for a reasonable period since then. The Council has also agreed to apologise for its delay and carry out a service improvement to prevent recurrence of this fault in future.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide her and her children with housing support that she was entitled to receive. Ms X said as a result, she and the children became homeless and have been caused uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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. The Council decided on 3 April 2023 that Ms X made herself intentionally homeless. Before this decision, the Council offered her interim accommodation but Ms X did not initially occupy it, which was a breach of the conditions of the accommodation.
6. The Council told Ms X she could seek a review of its decision that she was intentionally homeless within 21 days if she disagreed with it. Ms X did not request a review.
7. It was reasonable for Ms X to request a review if she disagreed with this decision and the Ombudsman should not act as an alternative appeals body.
8. The Council also decided Ms X had made herself intentionally homeless on 3 July 2024. It said her change in circumstances did not break the chain of causation from the reason she became intentionally homeless the year before. Again it informed Ms X of her review rights.
9. It is open to Ms X to use her review rights to challenge this decision if she disagrees. She has until 24 July 2024 to do so but due to any confusion that may have been caused by waiting for the outcome of this Ombudsman investigation, I have recommended the Council grant her an extension to use this review right.
10. For the reasons set out in paragraph 3, I have not investigated the Council’s decisions from 2023 or 2024 that Ms X made herself intentionally homeless.
11. I have investigated whether the Council should have offered Ms X interim accommodation after she approached it for help in 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
13. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
14. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
15. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

16. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
17. 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)
18. 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 18.32 and 18.33)
19. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Intentional homelessness

20. The Council can end its main duty if an applicant is intentionally homeless from accommodation the council has provided to meet the main housing duty.
21. An applicant will be intentionally homeless if they do, or fail to do, something which results in them losing accommodation they would otherwise have been able to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 191(1))
22. People are entitled to a statutory review of a council’s decision that they are intentionally homeless, provided they request this within 21 days of being notified of the decision.
23. Regardless of whether a person is intentionally homeless, 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).
24. However if the Council makes further enquiries and decides they are intentionally homeless, councils only need to provide advice and secure accommodation for a period of time that will provide a reasonable opportunity for them to find their own accommodation. This may be for a period of a few weeks or may be longer depending on their circumstances. This is a lesser duty of support than applicants generally receive when they are unintentionally homeless. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 15)
25. An applicant a council decided was intentionally homeless can make a new homeless application if their circumstances have changed. The council must make inquiries if it has reason to believe they might be homeless. It must accept the relief duty if it is satisfied they are homeless. However, it may not accept the main housing duty if the applicant has not broken the ‘chain of causation’ from their previous intentional homelessness. An applicant can break the chain of causation by, for example, living in settled accommodation.

What happened

26. Ms X’s housing authority is this Council. Ms X’s social worker works for a different Council, Council B.
27. Ms X’s social worker approached this council on Ms X’s behalf for housing support in January 2024. The social worker said Ms X and the children were being asked to leave a property where they had been sofa surfing by the following month and Ms X was now pregnant.
28. The Council responded around three weeks later to say it could help with advice and providing a deposit for a privately rented property but would not provide Ms X with any accommodation as the Council had found her to be intentionally homeless last year, after she was evicted from her temporary accommodation for anti-social behaviour.
29. A few days later Ms X’s social worker asked the Council to provide them with details of landlords that accept housing benefit so Ms X could search for private properties herself. The Council did not respond until almost one month later, on 12 March 2024. The housing officer sent the requested information and offered further advice if Ms X needed it. The housing officer said the response was late as they had been off work for two weeks.
30. The social worker followed up with the Council again in April 2024. They said the Council did not appear to have taken account of her change in circumstances due to her being pregnant and her mental health condition worsening.
31. The Council responded to the social worker to say that this did not amount to a change in circumstances in terms of reviewing its intentionally homeless decision. It did not put this formally in a letter informing Ms X of her review rights at this time.
32. Ms X complained to the Council about this. The Council responded in April 2024 to say it did not uphold her complaint, so Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
33. Shortly after this, on 12 April 2024, the Council provided Ms X with interim accommodation while it considered her change in circumstances.
34. On 23 April 2024 the Council accepted a relief duty to Ms X and sent her a personalised housing plan.
35. The Council considered the change in Ms X’s situation but it sent a decision letter on 3 July 2024 to say that Ms X was still intentionally homeless, as the change of circumstances raised by the social worker did not “change or pardon” the facts which led to its original decision.
36. The Council advised Ms X in this letter that as she had still been found to be intentionally homeless, the Council had ended its relief duty to her and would end its provision of interim accommodation by 25 July 2024.
37. The Council offered Ms X a right of review of the decision and Ms X was given until 24 July 2024 to request a review.
38. In total the Council provided Ms X with interim accommodation for a period of almost fifteen weeks from April 2024 to July 2024.
39. During the period I am investigating, Ms X’s social worker from Council B was in communication with this Council’s housing team regularly. Council B has provided us with details of the contingency plan in place for the family if Ms X were to lose her interim accommodation.
40. On a longer-term basis, children’s social services at Council B are supporting the family to find private-rented accommodation.

My findings

January 2024 approach as homeless

41. When someone makes a homeless application and a council has made a previous decision in their case, the courts have decided that councils must take a new homeless application unless:
• There are no new facts; or
• Any new facts are “fanciful or trivial”. (Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, EWCA Civ 340 [2005])
42. The social worker told the Council Ms X was now pregnant and her health condition was worse. These were changes of fact that were neither fanciful or trivial. This means the Council could not rely on its earlier decision in Ms X’s case.
43. Ms X’s social worker told the Council Ms X was now pregnant and she and the children were sofa surfing. It therefore had reason to believe they might be homeless. It had a duty to make inquiries and decide what, if any, duty it owed Ms X. Failure to do so in January 2024 was fault.
44. Ms X has dependent children. She is therefore in priority need. The Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation while it made inquiries into Ms X’s case. The Council did not offer Ms X interim accommodation until April that year and this delay was fault.

Duties accepted after April 2024

45. From April 2024, other than the delay in the months before, the Council took the action as expected by the law and guidance.
46. It provided interim accommodation while it made inquiries into Ms X’s changed circumstances and continued to do so after it accepted the relief duty. Once the Council made its main housing duty decision on 3 July that Ms X was still intentionally homeless as she had not broken the chain of causation, it gave her notice that she had a further four weeks of interim accommodation and then it would stop providing this. It communicated with Ms X’s social worker and knew that children’s services were also supporting the family in relation to their housing.
47. The Council acted in line with the relevant law and guidance around intentional homelessness, as set out earlier in this decision. By providing interim accommodation to Ms X and considering her changed circumstances from April, the Council has remedied the injustice caused to her when it failed to do so in January. However I have also recommended that the Council apologise to Ms X for its delay and carry out a service improvement.

Communication

48. The Council was also delayed in responding to communications from Ms X’s social worker when they first requested homelessness support in January 2024. This delayed communication was fault. This fault caused frustration to Ms X as it delayed her being made aware of her housing options.

Review rights

49. The Council’s 3 July 2024 decision, that Ms X is still intentionally homeless, carries a review right which Ms X has until 24 July 2024 to use.
50. Given this has overlapped with this Ombudsman investigation and this may have caused confusion to Ms X about which route she should take to challenge the decision, I have recommended that the Council offer Ms X a two-week extension to request a review of this decision if she wishes.
51. Regardless of the progress of this Ombudsman investigation, if Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision she should use her statutory right to request a review by the extended deadline, as this is now the appropriate route to take.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the Council’s delayed communication and delay in providing her with interim accommodation;
2. Demonstrate that it provided Ms X with a two-week extension to request a review of the Council’s 3 July 2024 decision that she is still intentionally homeless; and
3. Remind homelessness staff that regardless of whether a person is intentionally homeless, a council must secure interim accommodation for them if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, and should provide this while it makes further enquiries into their situation.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence that it has complied with the recommendations above.
54. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and recommended an apology and a service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman