Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless and housing register applications. We found the Council at fault for failing to issue a written decision notice with her review rights, to provide some advice in a timely manner, and causing confusion. It also caused a service failure due to delays in processing her housing register application, but this did not cause her a significant injustice. The Council should apologise and make payment to acknowledge the injustice Ms C experienced as a result.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms C, complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness and her housing register applications. She said it:
• caused delays in her housing register application and banded her incorrectly;
• caused delays in her homelessness application, failed to assess her, advise and support her, and issue its decisions in line with the law; and
• communicated poorly with her and acted dishonestly and its response to her complaints was of a poor standard.
2. Ms C said, as a result she experienced distress and uncertainty, and had time and trouble in bringing her concerns to the Council’s attention.

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 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)
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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Ms C’s complaints and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaints with Ms C and considered the information she provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• had regard to the law, guidance, and policy relevant to the complaint.
7. Ms C 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

Relevant law, guidance, and policy

Homelessness

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. 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).
12. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
• preventing homelessness;
• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

Review rights

13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of most housing decisions. These includes:
• their eligibility for assistance; and
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
14. 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).
15. 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.

Equality

16. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
17. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
18. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act includes disability.

What happened

19. Ms C lives in a rented accommodation as a lodger, which means her housing rights are limited.
20. In October 2023 Ms C applied to join the Council’s housing register as her the property she was living it was put up for sale. She was told it was experiencing a delay in processing applications by up to 20 weeks.
21. In November 2023 Ms C lost her job and became reliant on benefits.
22. In December 2023 Ms C applied to the Council for homelessness support. She said this was because her landlord told her the property was being put up for sale. Ms C could remain in the property until it was sold.
23. In January 2024 the Council contacted Ms C. She told the Council she was unable to work due to ill health, the property she lives in was up for sale, and she cannot afford local private renting.
24. Ms C chased the Council for a response. Three weeks later it provided the details of its housing officer and asked her to complete some forms, including information about her income and expenditure. It also spoke with her and asked for evidence of homelessness such as a section 21 notice from her landlord and gave some information about renting privately.
25. In February 2024 Ms C continued to chase the Council regarding her housing register application and her homelessness application. The Council asked her to provide some further information to show her local connection and financial circumstances. She was subsequently place in Band D on the Council’s housing register.
26. In March 2024 Ms C told the Council she had only had one call and received some basic information regarding private renting. The Council again asked her for evidence on homelessness such as a section 21 notice, which she explained she did not have as a lodger. Ms C subsequently complained to the Council. She said:
• it had failed to assess her homelessness application and accept a prevention duty, and it had repeatedly asked for the same information and gave little time to provide this;
• it had caused delays in adding her to its housing register, and its officer had told her she would be banded in January 2024, but this did not happen until late February 2024. She also said her banding should be higher and provided a GP letter of her conditions, she disagreed she needed to provide more information to show how her health is impacted by her housing;
• she had only had two calls from its homelessness officer. This was to obtain information from her and she received information about private landlords. She felt this was not enough and it was not clear what affordable renting would be.
27. The Council subsequently asked Ms C for her landlords’ details, which she had previously shared. Ms C shared this again and provided a further letter from her GP.
28. The Council did not uphold Ms C’s complaint. It explained:
• based on the information she had provided it had not prioritised her homeless application, but apologised for its backlogs. It had subsequently spoken with her and informed her its view she was not at risk of homelessness within 56 days so no homelessness duties were triggered;
• it had kept her case open to confirm if there was a change of circumstances, but accepted its officer had wrongly asked her to provide an incorrect notice (a section 21) and apologised;
• it had correctly asked her to provide medical evidence on how her housing impacted her health conditions. It also said its officer had not agreed to get her banded or alter her banding. It would consider the additional medical information she had provided;
• its officer had provided information and advice based on Ms C’s circumstances and found this to be reasonable as she could remain in the accommodation until a notice was provided or the sale of the property had progressed; and
• it had considered Ms C’s income and expenditure form. It explained the rates for local housing allowance in its area and shared links to its website for support with costs of securing a home and discretionary housing payments.
29. Shortly after the Council considered Ms C’s GP letter and increased her banding on its housing register to Band C medium medical needs. The start date was backdated to when it received her GP information.
30. Following Ms C’s disagreement with the Council’s response. It further explained why it did not find her eligible for homelessness support and said it could provide a written decision if she wanted it. It also explained affordability compared with her personal circumstances and said her banding was from when she provided her GP’s medical evidence.
31. Ms C subsequently said she wanted a written decision, and the Council confirmed it would provide this. She also continued to question affordability and was unhappy it questioned transactions on her bank account.
32. Ms C told the Council she had a visit to a private rented accommodation. The Council says because of this, it did not serve the decision notice. It followed up with her afterwards, and Ms C said her viewing was unsuccessful.
33. Ms C submitted further complaints to the Council about events in May 2024. The key points and the Council’s final response were:
• The Council had not issued a decision notice as required;

The Council explained it had found she was not threatened with homelessness within 56 days, but apologised as it had not issued its decision notice when it said it would.

• another applicant with lower priority than her was successful with a bid on a property on the Council’s housing register;

The Council said this was because the property had a priority for local parish applicants, which Ms C was not.

• she had a call with a housing officer who as part of income maximisation wrongly suggested she could signpost Ms C to job agencies. She found the officer to be rude and to be discriminatory as she had told the Council about her circumstances;

The Council said it agreed the comment was unfortunate and inappropriate in the circumstances but was satisfied its officer’s advice was well intended. It apologised for the distress Ms C experienced. It also explained comments made by its officer regarding how it worked with local landlords.

• the Council called Ms C’s landlord and said it had been told she had to leave the accommodation in August 2024. Ms C said she had never said this, and it caused issues with her landlord;

The council confirmed it had spoken with Ms C’s landlord. It said Ms C had told its officer she had to leave the property in August 2024 and shared this with the landlord. It found it reasonable to seek an update and was told by the landlord she had taken the property off the market.

34. Ms C said in May 2024 another officer had called her, who was helpful. She was told a prevention duty would be opened and the officer was surprised there had been no housing assessment. The officer arranged a further meeting with Ms C. However, the meeting was cancelled, and her homelessness application was subsequently closed on its system.
35. The Council told Ms C it was minded to find her not homeless and offered a call to discuss this with her. Ms C said she subsequently closed her homelessness application.
36. Ms C remains dissatisfied with the Council's handling of her housing and homelessness applications and asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
37. In response to my enquiries, the Council shared information which has been included above. It also explained the steps it has taken to reduce backlogs in progressing housing register applications and its learning from Ms C’s complaint.

Analysis and findings

Ms C’s housing register application

38. The Council has confirmed it had significant backlogs in progressing housing register applications when Ms C applied in October 2023. It took the Council four months to process her application.
39. I found this to be a service failure as the Council was aware of the issue, informed applicants of the delays, and its practice is to backdate applications to the time it received the information necessary to reach its decision.
40. I have not found fault in how the Council considered Ms C’s application as it had regard to the medical information she provided and reached a view on her banding entitlement in line with its Allocations Policy. It also subsequently increased her banding when she provided the necessary information to show how her health was impacted by her housing.
41. I found the service failure did not cause Ms C an injustice as the Council had provided information to her around what information it needed when it could consider her case. Also, considering the waiting time on Ms C’s allocated priority bands, I am also not satisfied she missed out on an opportunity to move to a property.
42. I have not made any service improvement on this point, as I am satisfied the Council’s backlogs are now significantly reduced through its reallocation of resources and further recruitment of staff, and it continues to work through its plan to mitigate this further.

Ms C’s homelessness application

43. The evidence shows the Council initially considered Ms C’s application and found she was not homeless. I have therefore not found any initial delays were fault or caused Ms C an injustice.
44. In January 2024 the Council reached its view Ms C was not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. It based its view on the fact her landlord had not had an offer on her property. This was a decision it was entitled to make. However, it did not issue a decision notice and inform Ms C of her review rights.
45. The Council has since consistently said this was appropriate and in line with its existing practice. I have found this to be fault by the Council. This is because it is not for the Council to decide whether to issue a decision notice or not based on how this may impact its workload or the number of reviews it may receive.
46. Regardless of whether the Council was right in its view or not, it was at fault for failing to issue in writing its decision notice:
• when it had found she was ineligible for homelessness support and inform her of her review rights;
• when it said it would in late March 2024. I acknowledge Ms C told the Council she had a property viewing at the time. However, this should not have stopped it from correcting its failure to provide the decision notice as it had promised; and
• at any stage before she withdrew her homelessness application in June 2024.
47. While it appears unlikely Ms C would have succeeded in a review request, such decisions are not for the Ombudsman to make. I cannot therefore say whether this would have led to a different outcome. However, I am satisfied the Council’s repeated failure to do so caused Ms C some unnecessary distress and uncertainty, and she had a loss of her right to exercise her right of review.

Council’s communication and advice

48. The Council sought information from Ms C to reach its views on her homelessness application and her housing register banding. It also sought information around her financial circumstances to be able to provide some information and advice for alternative housing options.
49. The Council was entitled to seek information from Ms C to reach its views, this included information from her landlord and medical information. However, there were instances of it asking for incorrect information (Section 21 notice), it asked for information it had already received, and some delay in responding to Ms C’s requests. The Council acknowledged this and apologised to Ms C.
50. I am satisfied its apology was enough to remedy any injustice this caused her. In reaching my view I was conscious Ms C did not have a moving out date and any delays did not impact her homelessness.
51. Ms C also complained the Council failed to provide her with enough support and advice throughout. The evidence shows the Council provided some information in January about private renting, spoke with Ms C and shared its view on her homelessness entitlement, considered her financial circumstances, and shared information about its support scheme and discretionary housing payments.
52. I acknowledge Ms C feels the Council should have done more to support her in finding alternative accommodation. However, as the Council had found she was neither homeless or threatened with homelessness, it owed her no prevention duty or a relief duty. It was, however, required to provide her with advice and information.
53. I found it did provide her with the information I would expect, although it acknowledged this was limited to what was available locally and it would still be challenging for Ms C. However, its advice and information were in parts, and some was only provided after she had already complained. I therefore found the Council was at fault, for some delay in providing the information I would expect to Ms C, which caused her some uncertainty.
54. In addition, the Council caused further confusion through its promises of issuing its decision notice, informing her it would open a prevention duty in late May 2024, and arranging a meeting which was subsequently cancelled. I am satisfied this caused Ms C some further uncertainty and loss of trust in the Council’s ability to support her.

Discrimination and officer behaviour

55. Ms C said the Council’s officer had wrongly told her she could be referred to job agencies, when it was aware she had limited capabilities for work. She believes this amounted to discrimination.
56. I have considered whether the Council had regard to its equality duties in how it handled Ms C’s applications. I am satisfied it had. I cannot say whether its officer’s comment was a breach of the Equality Act 2010, only the courts can do so. However, I am satisfied the Council’s acknowledgement and apology for the distress this may have caused her was appropriate to recognise the impact it had on her.
57. The is no evidence available for me to reach a view on whether its officer was rude or showed poor behaviour during the call with Ms C. I have therefore not found fault on this point.

Complaints handling

58. The evidence shows the Council registered and responded to each of Ms C’s complaints, and some was combined in one response. While I acknowledge she disagreed with its views, I have not found fault in its handling or the standard of its responses. These were factual and acknowledged the challenges Ms C was experiencing.

Back to top

Agreed action

59. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Ms C, and pay her £200 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty the Council’s faults caused her, including her loss of review rights.

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.

60. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2. review its practice of not sharing some written decision notices for its homelessness decisions. It should ensure it always issues decisions on all applications in writing setting out the reasons for its decisions and the applicants review rights.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

62. There was some fault by the Council which caused Ms C an injustice. The Council has agreed with my recommendations, and it is on this basis I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman