Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her when she was homeless. The organisation delivering the Council’s homelessness service failed to notify Ms X that the Council no longer owed her the prevention or relief housing duties and delayed deciding if the Council owed her the main housing duty. This was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration, for which the Council will apologise. It will also work with the organisation acting on its behalf to ensure it sends notification letters in future and to reduce delays in main housing duty decisions in all instances.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her when she was homeless. She said an organisation (Organisation A) acting on the Council’s behalf to deliver its homelessness service:
1. failed to put her in emergency accommodation for three weeks in May 2023, meaning she and her son were street homeless;
2. then placed her and her son in unsuitable accommodation;
3. took too long to make a decision about whether it owed her the main housing duty;
4. wrongly called the police and ambulance service on her;
5. would not allow her to include her son in her homelessness application;
6. nominated her for two houses on its housing register, despite saying she was not homeless;
7. failed to ensure its stage two response to her complaint was sufficiently independent;
8. called her despite her asking for email only communication;
9. registered the date she left Council arranged interim accommodation incorrectly, causing a housing benefit overpayment; and
10. did not consider her application properly when she first told it she was being evicted from her home in 2022.
2. Mrs X said this impacted on her and her son’s mental health and wants compensation for their injustice.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. 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

7. I have investigated points (a) to (g) in paragraph one. I have not investigated points (h) to (j). I have set out my reasons below.
8. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

9. Ms X said Organisation A called her despite the fact she had asked it to communicate with her only by email. In its complaint response, Organisation A apologised for calling Ms X on one occasion. This was a suitable action so further investigation would not result in a different outcome.
10. Ms X said Organisation A registered the date she left interim accommodation wrongly which caused her to be paid a small amount too much in housing benefit. Ms X has confirmed the issue was resolved within a few months. Any fault did not cause Ms X a significant personal injustice, so I have not investigated the matter.
11. 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). Ms X complained Organisation A did not consider her homelessness application properly when she first told it she was being evicted from her home in October 2022. Ms X did not complain to the Ombudsman until April 2024. I have seen no good reason to investigate that far back. I have investigated the period from April 2023 to April 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I have considered:
• all the information Ms X provided;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
13. Ms 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

14. 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.
15. 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)

The prevention duty

16. 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. The prevention duty comes to an end when the person becomes homeless (Housing Act 1996, section 195). When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing.

The relief duty

17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. While the relief duty is ongoing, the council should make enquiries to decide if it owes the person the main housing duty. When a person is owed the main housing duty, the relief duty ends automatically after 56 days.
18. Councils can end the relief duty in a range of other circumstances including that:
• the person has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months; and
• the council has complied with the relief duty for at least 56 days.
19. As with the prevention duty, councils must notify the applicant in writing when the duty ends. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The duty to arrange interim accommodation

20. 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)
21. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

The main housing duty

22. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Priority need

23. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse

24. Caselaw has clarified that a person is ‘vulnerable’ if they are significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person if they become homeless. Councils must consider:
• whether the person would suffer or be at risk of harm while homeless when an ordinary person would not; and
• if that harm would make a noticeable different to the person’s ability to cope with being homeless.

Complaints handling

25. Organisation A has a two-stage complaint process. The stage one response is carried out by a complaints officer. The stage two response comes from a senior officer “who has not been involved in the case”.

What happened

26. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
27. In October 2022, Ms X told Organisation A that her landlord had issued her and her adult son with an eviction notice.
28. In early December 2022, Organisation A carried out a vulnerability assessment with Ms X. Records of the interview state Ms X did not report any past or current health issues and did not report any current drug or alcohol use.
29. A few days later, Organisation A, acting on the Council’s behalf, decided Ms X was threatened with homelessness and that it owed her the prevention duty. It invited Ms X to apply to join the Council’s housing register, so she could bid to occupy social housing. Ms X says Organisation A told her not to include her son on her housing application so she would be eligible for properties only available to people over 55 years of age. Ms X joined the register and had her son on her application.
30. Ms X sent Organisation A evidence of her and her son’s medical needs.
31. Organisation A appointed a medical advisor, who considered all the evidence Ms X had supplied.
32. The advisor concluded the information Ms X had given did not show her mental health needs significantly impacted her daily activities and the other medical issues she reported for herself and her son did not indicate they were vulnerable.
33. On the basis of that advice and the interview, Organisation A decided it did not have reason to believe Ms X was in priority need. This meant Organisation A decided the Council did not have to arrange interim accommodation for her and her son. Organisation A issued a letter setting that decision out in early May 2023.
34. Ms X was evicted from her home a week later.
35. In mid-May 2023, Ms X told Organisation A again that her son had dyslexia and learning difficulties and submitted medical letters about her mental health. Organisation A responded to invite Ms X to send any more information she had.
36. In late May 2023, Ms X visited the offices of Organisation A. She was unhappy about the decision that she was not in priority need. Ms X became upset, raised her voice, and refused to leave when asked. Someone from Organisation A called the police who attended the scene. Organisation A says the police called the ambulance service, which Ms X disputes. Ms X says Organisation A called the ambulance to have her sectioned under mental health legislation.
37. A few days later, Ms X attended another vulnerability assessment with Organisation A where she said her son had been self-harming at work. Organisation A offered interim accommodation as a result of the assessment. Ms X and her son moved that day.
38. In early June 2023, Ms X told Organisation A the bathroom in their accommodation smelt badly. The accommodation provider checked the bathroom the same day and did not smell any odour.
39. A week later the accommodation provider checked the bathroom again and did not identify any bad smells. Organisation A told Ms X it was satisfied there was no issue with the bathroom.
40. Ms X says that in mid-June, while she in hospital, Organisation A called her and shouted at her, demanding she remove her son from her homelessness application.
41. In mid-June Organisation A sent Ms X a letter setting out it accepted the Council owed her the relief duty and interim accommodation duty.
42. In early-September, Ms X asked Organisation A to remove her son from her housing register application.
43. As Ms X was now the only person on her application and was over 55 years of age, Organisation A was able to nominate her for two social housing properties available to over 55’s. Ms X was unsuccessful because people with greater priority on the housing register applied to move into the properties.
44. Ms X found private accommodation and moved out of the interim accommodation in late December 2023.
45. Because Ms X had found her own housing, Organisation A wrote to her in mid-January 2024 to say the Council no longer owed her the interim accommodation duty.
46. Ms X complained to Organisation A in February 2024. Her complaint included that the interim accommodation was unsuitable because she felt it was inappropriate for adults of mixed sex to share a bedroom.
47. Organisation A responded to explain the accommodation had one double bed and a single bed so it was satisfied it was suitable for her and her son’s needs. Ms X requested a stage two response in March 2024. A manager who had been present when Ms X refused to leave Organisation A’s offices responded to the stage two complaint. The stage two complaint response agreed with the stage one response. It noted Organisation A had delayed deciding whether the Council owed Ms X the main housing duty. Organisation A explained part of that delay was because of a shortage of staff.

Findings

May 2023 decision

48. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision (or the decision of an organisation acting on a council’s behalf) if it was made following the correct procedure. Ms X feels Organisation A’s decision in early May 2023 that it did not have reason to believe she was in priority need, and therefore that the Council did not need to provide her with interim accommodation, was flawed. Ms X feels the medical information she provided about her and her son’s needs showed she was vulnerable, which is one of the priority criteria.
49. However, the medical advisor appointed by Organisation A considered all the evidence Ms X submitted about her and her son’s medical needs. In their professional opinion, the advisor did not think the information indicated vulnerability. Organisation A considered the advisor’s view alongside the outcome of Ms X’s December 2022 vulnerability assessment before deciding it did not have reason to believe she was in priority need. Organisation A followed the correct procedure in coming to its decision so I cannot question it.

Ms X’s visit to Organisation A’s offices

50. Organisation A called the police when Ms X visited its offices, became upset, raised her voice and refused to leave when asked to. Organisation A was entitled to do this so was not at fault.
51. Organisation A says the police called the ambulance which Ms X disputes. She says Organisation A called them to have her sectioned. Ultimately, Ms X did not leave in the ambulance or have any mental health involvement because of the ambulance call. Given this, it would not be a proportionate use of public funds to investigate this matter further.

Interim accommodation

52. After Ms X provided more information on her and her son’s needs in late May 2023 Organisation A arranged for her and her son to move into interim accommodation. Ms X feels that accommodation was unsuitable. As noted above, the Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it was made without fault. Organisation A visited Ms X’s accommodation multiple times to see if it could smell the odour she complained of. It could not identify any problems in the bathroom. Organisation A explained it had put Ms X and her son in a shared room with separate beds and that this was suitable for their needs. Organisation A considered Ms X’s concerns about the suitability of the accommodation properly, so it was not at fault.

End of prevention and relief duty

53. Organisation A accepted the Council owed Ms X the prevention duty in December 2022. This was because it was satisfied she was eligible and threatened with homelessness. In June 2022, Organisation A accepted Ms X was now eligible and homeless, so the Council owed her the relief duty. Organisation A failed to notify Ms X that it had ended the prevention duty at that point.
54. In addition, despite the fact Ms X moved into private accommodation in December 2023, Organisation A has still not sent her a letter setting out the end of the relief duty. The law is clear councils must issue applicants with decision letters setting out the end of the prevention and relief duties. Organisation A’s failure to do this was fault. However, it did not cause Ms X a significant personal injustice because the failure to send the decision letters did not impact on her housing situation.

Main housing duty

55. After accepting it owed Ms X the relief duty in mid-June 2023, Organisation A should have made enquiries and decided if the Council owed her the main housing duty. By the time Ms X moved into private housing in December 2023, Organisation A had still not decided whether the Council owed her the main housing duty. This was an unreasonable delay and was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration. Organisation A has explained part of the delay was because of staff shortages which suggests other people may be being affected. I have therefore made a recommendation aimed at reducing any potential future delays.

Inclusion of Ms X’s son on her housing application

56. Ms X said Organisation A did not allow her to add her adult son to her application to join the Council’s housing register. However, Ms X’s son was on her application until September 2023, when she asked for him to be removed. Organisation A advised Ms X to be the sole applicant because it would mean she would be eligible for accommodation reserved for people over 55 years of age. This was accurate advice. There is no evidence Organisation A prevented Ms X’s son from joining her housing application so it was not at fault.
57. Ms X also said Organisation A called her while she was in hospital and shouted at her to remove her son from her homelessness application. It would not be proportionate to investigate this further given there is no recording of the call.

Nominations on the housing register

58. Ms X says Organisation A nominated her for two houses available to people on the housing register despite saying, in November 2023, that she was not homeless. Ms X feels she should not have been nominated if she was not being treated as homeless. However, Organisation A had accepted Ms X was homeless. The Council was not at fault. In any event, even if there was fault, Ms X benefited from it as she was nominated for housing.

Complaints handling

59. An officer who was present when Ms X visited Organisation A’s office at which the police were called responded to her complaint at stage two. Given the sensitive nature of what happened at the visit, I am satisfied this was not in accordance with Organisation A’s complaints procedure, which states stage two responses are sent by a senior officer not involved in the person’s case. This was fault. I have seen no reason to question the content of the complaint response, but the fault nonetheless caused Ms X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of Organisation A, I have made recommendations to the Council.
61. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Ms X for the frustration she experienced because of the fault in this complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Ask Organisation A to remind its staff they must issue decision letters when the Council no longer owes an applicant a housing duty.
3. Work with Organisation A to identify what steps it should take to reduce the delays in making housing decisions should it in future experience staff shortages.
62. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

63. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman