Summary: We have found fault with the Council for causing the delays Miss X experienced during her homelessness application process. We are satisfied the Council took reasonable action to put Miss X back in the position she would have been but for the fault. The Council has also dealt with the backlog of cases that caused the delays.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness application. She said the delays during the process meant that she was sofa surfing which affected her physical and mental health.

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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss 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

Law and guidance

6. 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.

Threatened with homelessness

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• 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)

The prevention duty

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

10. 56 days after accepting the relief duty, the housing authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

What happened

11. Miss X approached the Council as being threatened with homelessness when she was required to leave the property she was staying. Miss X told the Council she could continue to sofa surf initially and did not need interim accommodation. The Council accepted the prevention duty, and later, relief duty.
12. The Council awarded Miss X a band C priority on the housing register and assisted her with visiting private rented properties.
13. The Council acknowledged that it had a backlog of cases and created a dedicated team to deal with this. Although Miss X’s case was allocated quickly within the team, once the case officer left the Council, Miss X waited for 3 months before the Council re-allocated her case.
14. The Council did not make the main duty decision within 56 days of it accepting the relief duty. The Council acknowledged this delay and put measure in place to rectify it.
15. Once the Council made a main duty decision, Miss X requested a review. The Council considered further evidence and changed its decision to accept the main duty. It then backdated this decision to the date Miss X first approached the Council in recognition of the delays Miss X had experienced.
16. Within a month of the Council accepting the main housing duty, Miss X was offered a property and was rehoused.

My findings

17. The evidence shows the Council was aware that it was struggling to manage the number of homelessness cases. It put measures in place to clear the backlog of cases.
18. The Council acknowledged it took longer than usual to process Miss X homelessness application due to the backlog. The Council maintained contact with Miss X during the delayed period and used its discretion to backdate Miss X’s priority date to when she first approached the Council.
19. I have found fault with the Council for the delays Miss X experienced. I am satisfied with the action the Council took to remedy Miss X’s personal injustice and the service improvements the Council made to improve the process for future applicants.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have found fault with the Council for delays during Miss X’s homelessness application process. I am satisfied the Council has taken actions to remedy any injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman