Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to correctly progress a homelessness application on multiple occasions. She also complained the Council failed to remove Mr X from a historical joint tenancy at a former address, offering conflicting advice on the procedure for doing so. We have found the Council at fault for how it considered Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness and for failing to have due regard to statutory guidance. We also find the Council delayed removing Mr X from his former tenancy. These failings caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable frustration and distress, loss of review rights, and led Mr and Mrs X to remain in unsuitable accommodation longer than they otherwise would have. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, and carry out training for staff. We have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council disclosing personal information to third parties. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider this matter.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained:
1. The Council failed to correctly take and progress a homelessness application on several occasions. This led to avoidable delay in the Council accepting a homelessness duty and delays in providing interim accommodation.
2. The Council failed to remove Mr X from a historical joint tenancy at his former address. It offered conflicting information and updates about the procedure to do this. This caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty, as well as leading the Council to suspend Mr and Mrs X’s housing registration application.
3. The Council disclosed Mr and Mrs X’s contact details to third parties.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

2. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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. The LGSCO considers whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner, or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
5. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If the LGSCO is 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)
8. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

What we have and have not investigated

9. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
10. We have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council disclosing personal information to third parties. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about data protection. The restriction set out in the above paragraph applies.
11. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42j of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which says that the Housing Ombudsman may not consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

12. Mrs X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the LGSCO and the HOS.
13. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fall within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
14. We spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
15. We made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
16. We referred to LGSCO’s guidance on remedies and HOS’s remedies guidance, copies of which can be found on our websites.
17. Mrs X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. We considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

Homelessness applications

18. 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)

Interim accommodation duty

19. 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)

Relief duty

20. 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)

Reasonable to continue to occupy

21. The law says a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, considering the circumstances of the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3))
22. There are several provisions relating to whether or not it is reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation, including:
• Whether continued occupation will lead to domestic abuse or other violence against the applicant or their household.
• The physical condition of the property, when compared to other accommodation in the district.
• The physical characteristics of the property being unsuitable for the applicant.
• Whether the applicant is at risk of harassment if they stay. The Code specifically cites applicants who may be at risk of witness intimidation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 6.24, 6.39, 6.40)

Provision for pets

23. Housing authorities should be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly elderly people and rough sleepers who may rely on pets for companionship. Although it will not always be possible to make provision for pets, housing authorities are encouraged to give careful consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.69)

Decisions and review rights

24. 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 11.3)
25. 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)

Applications to multiple authorities

26. Applicants can apply to more than one housing authority simultaneously. Where a housing authority has reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it may wish to contact the other housing authorities involved, to agree which housing authority will take responsibility for conducting inquiries. Where another housing authority has previously made decisions about an applicant’s circumstances, a housing authority considering a fresh application may wish to have regard to those decisions. However, housing authorities should not rely solely on decisions made by another housing authority and will need to make their own inquiries in order to reach an independent decision on whether any duty is owed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.9)

Allocations scheme

27. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Housing Management – Joint Tenancies and Relationship Breakdown Policy

28. The Council’s policy states that:
1. The Council is not legally entitled to simply remove one of the parties from the tenancy and therefore it is for either or both the parties to initiate steps to allow for the tenancy to be transferred or ended.
2. It is open to either party to end the tenancy via a notice to quit (NTQ). Once one tenant serves notice, it has the effect of ending the whole joint tenancy.
3. If either tenant wishes to end the tenancy by NTQ, then the Council will:

• Take all appropriate steps to assist and work with the tenant to provide advice and information regarding the process and document the steps taken.
• Advise the tenant in writing that the Council is unable to end the joint tenancy without a court order or NTQ. The letter will also explain the effects of servicing a NTQ and will signpost the tenant to seek their own independent legal advice.
4. Where a valid NTQ is served, a letter will be written to both parties confirming the date the tenancy will end.

Key events

29. Mrs X and Mr X submitted a joint application to join the Council’s housing register on 24 May 2023. In September 2023, the Council informed Mrs X that it would not progress the application any further because Mr X remained named as a joint tenant on another tenancy. Mrs X explained that Mr X had left the previous address approximately 9 years before, as his former marriage had broken down.
30. On 9 October 2023, the Council told Mrs X it had deferred the joint application for housing as it required further information. It said it needed an explanation for why Mr X could not return to his previous address. It advised Mrs X and Mr X to seek their own legal advice.
31. On 11 October 2023, Mr and Mrs X approached the Council as homeless, completing a self-assessment form setting out their circumstances. The Council’s records show details of Mr and Mrs X’s medical conditions and housing circumstances, harassment and threats of violence, and a crime reference number. The Council told Mrs X they should stay in the current accommodation and not to leave unless they could find accommodation that would also accept their pets. The Council said no landlord would accept tenants with pets, but if Mr and Mrs X arranged for their pets to live elsewhere, they could continue looking for private accommodation. The Council told Mrs X over the telephone that they were not homeless, or at risk of homelessness within 56 days. It said it would not proceed with their application.
32. Mrs X wrote to the Council to express concerns about its decision and conduct. She provided details about the accommodation, the attacks they had experienced, death threats received and the risk of further attacks, and the impact on their health and wellbeing. The Council said it had to deal with the facts of the case. It said pets were not permitted in temporary accommodation and advised Mrs X to look at private rented options. It also said it would pursue a medical assessment for Mrs X’s housing registration application.
33. In early November 2023, Mr and Mrs X approached two other local authorities (Authority B and Authority C) as homeless. The Council told Authority C it had not proceeded with Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness approach. The Council had no contact with Authority B. In mid-November 2023, Mr and Mrs X made a further homelessness approach to the Council.
34. The Council completed a medical assessment for Mr and Mrs X’s housing registration application. This showed:
1. Mr and Mrs X’s home had no running water, bathing facilities, heating, or cooking facilities. The property was not accessible, had inadequate space for physiotherapy, and was damp.
2. Despite feeling unsafe in the property, Mr and Mrs X were reluctant to engage with the homelessness application, because they did not want to part with their pets.
35. The Council wrote to Mrs X. It confirmed its medical assessment showed their home was unsuitable on medical grounds. However, it said it could not release the deferral on their registration application, or award medical priority, until the joint tenancy issues were resolved. The Council encouraged Mrs X to pursue a homelessness application.
36. On 27 November 2023, Mrs X enquired about the process for how Mr X could progress a joint to sole tenancy. The Council’s records note that general advice was given about serving an NTQ.
37. The Council said on 5 December 2023, Authority C decided it did not owe Mr and Mrs X a housing duty. On the same day, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X. The Council said because they had approached Authority B before approaching the Council again, it was Authority B’s responsibility to decide what duties it may owe Mr and Mrs X. The Council did not proceed with Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness application.
38. In December 2023, Mr and Mrs X obtained an offer of accommodation from a third-party housing provider. The property would not be ready for them to move into for some time, as repairs were needed.
39. In January 2024, Mrs X chased the outstanding joint tenancy matter and explained that Mr X had not been sent any paperwork to start the process.
40. Around 5 February 2024, Mr X and his ex-partner were both visited by the Council to discuss the request to end the tenancy. Both made it clear that they wanted the tenancy to be converted from a joint to a sole tenancy. Mr X’s ex-partner agreed to have the NTQ paperwork signed as soon as possible.
41. The Council received a NTQ from Mr X’s ex-partner on 18 February 2024. The expiry of the notice was recorded as 18 March 2024. The Council did not inform Mr X that the paperwork had been received.
42. On 29 February 2024, the Council held a homelessness advice interview with Mr and Mrs X. The Council said this was to assess their circumstances, including seeking relevant supporting evidence. The Council started to make inquiries to help it decide if it owed a housing duty.
43. On 1 March 2024, Mrs X complained to the Council about how it had handled their homelessness approaches. She reiterated the conditions in their home and the impact on their health. She said she had provided all the relevant evidence several times, but the Council had not acted, forcing her to approach other authorities and make several homelessness applications. She also complained about staff conduct.
44. On 14 March 2024, the Council responded:
1. It said it was satisfied it had handled Mrs X’s homelessness application in line with relevant legislation.
2. It said it had considered Mr and Mrs X’s housing registration application in line with its allocations scheme, but it had deferred this pending the outcome of Mr X’s joint tenancy issues.
45. On 18 March 2024, the Council removed Mr X from his former joint tenancy. On the same day, the Council completed its inquiries about Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness. The Council accepted the relief and interim accommodation duties for Mr and Mrs X. It offered Mr and Mrs X interim accommodation, which Mr and Mrs X declined due to risks posed by its location and because it would not accept their pets.
46. On 19 March 2024, Mr and Mrs X escalated their complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. Mrs X reiterated their experiences to date, emphasising how much time had been spent providing the same information and the impact of the circumstances on their wellbeing. She added the Council had seemingly disclosed their contact information to contractors working at Mr X’s previous property.
47. On 22 March 2024, the Council identified self-contained interim accommodation that allowed pets, which Mr and Mrs X accepted.
48. On 10 April 2024, the Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s stage two complaint. The Council said it believed it had actioned their homelessness approaches correctly, based on the facts at the time. It accepted it did not inform Mr X that the NTQ paperwork had been received. The Council apologised for not updating him of its records and for any inconvenience it had caused. It did not uphold the complaint.

Analysis

October 2023 homelessness application

49. The advice the Council gave to Mrs X on her first approach is summarised in paragraph 31.
50. The law requires authorities to carry out an assessment to determine if someone is homeless, where it has ‘reason to believe’ this may be the case. This is a low threshold. The self-assessment Mrs X completed at the time showed:
1. Their current accommodation had no heating, no hot water, no kitchen facilities, and limited cooking facilities.
2. Both Mr and Mrs X had medical conditions that their current accommodation made worse.
3. They had been subject to physical attacks and credible threats of further attacks by individuals who knew where they lived. These matters were being investigated by the police service.
51. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (‘the Code’) sets out that individuals may be considered homeless if the accommodation they currently occupy is not suitable for continued occupation, by virtue of the grounds set out in paragraph 22. Though this list is not exhaustive, the information Mrs X provided indicated these grounds in particular might apply, given the condition of the accommodation, the impact on their wellbeing, and the threats of violence and harassment. The Council told us its records did not show it considered this question.
52. We have found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider Mr and Mrs X’s application. This is because the Council did not consider whether it would be reasonable for Mr and Mrs X to continue to occupy their existing accommodation and, if not, whether they would already be homeless.
53. Paragraph 23 sets out what the Code says about homeless households with pets. It acknowledges it will not always be possible to make provision for pets, but authorities should carefully consider this when making provision for homeless applicants. The Council would not necessarily be at fault for not making provision for pets, provided it can show it considered the facts of the case, made an informed decision, and attempted to secure suitable accommodation, if it believed it was necessary to do so.
54. In this case, the Council adopted a narrow view on whether Mr and Mrs X could be accommodated with their pets. It told Mr and Mrs X that no landlord would accept them if their pets came too, and they should stay in their present accommodation if this was important. The Council offered this advice without demonstrating the regard for individual circumstances the Code says is good practice. It offered this advice without considering whether it should assist, or taking any steps to check if there was any accommodation available that could meet this need. Its assertion that no landlord would accept their pets was also incorrect, demonstrated by the fact the Council later secured self-contained accommodation that did accept pets in March 2024. The Council repeated this position to Mr and Mrs X multiple times over the next few months, leading Mr and Mrs X to make decisions based on this incorrect assumption. We have found the Council at fault for this.
55. Having reached its decision, the Council closed Mr and Mrs X’s application. In closing the case, the Council decided that Mr and Mrs X were not homeless, or at risk of homelessness. As set out in paragraphs 24 and 25, this is a decision that comes with the right of review. The Council did not provide a written decision to Mr and Mrs X, nor did it provide them with notice of their right to request a review. We have found the Council at fault for this.

November 2023 homelessness application

56. The Council sent Mr and Mrs X a letter stating that Authority B, which at that time had not yet decided whether it owed them a duty, would need to make its decision first. It said this was because Mr and Mrs X approached that authority first. It did not proceed with their application because of this.
57. The Council’s response shows a lack of regard for what the Code says authorities should do in this situation, as set out in paragraph 26. The Code says when councils become aware an applicant has approached other authorities, it may wish to contact those authorities to decide who will lead when making inquiries. This is good practice, however, and councils do not have to contact others in this way. If they do not contact the other authorities to agree who will lead, the council must decide the application it receives as it normally would, providing a formal decision and the appropriate right of review. It can have regard for another authority’s decision when making its own, but it must still come to its own decision independently. If appropriate, councils can make referrals to other authorities as part of this process.
58. In this case, we have seen no evidence the Council discussed the situation with Authority B. It should therefore have decided Mr and Mrs X’s application and issued a decision, as it otherwise would. It did not do so, making no decision and providing no right of review. We have found the Council at fault for this.

February 2024 homelessness application

59. Mr and Mrs X approached the Council as homeless a third time. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X to complete an assessment. Its case notes show it attempted to make inquiries to confirm their homelessness on that day. Notes show further unsuccessful attempts, before the Council was able to confirm the situation on 18 March 2024. It accepted the relief and interim accommodation duties that day.
60. The Council told the Ombudsmen it accepted the relief duty and provided Mr and Mrs X with interim accommodation at the point it confirmed and verified their homelessness. It said its inquiries confirmed Mr and Mrs X’s current accommodation would be sold; further, it was also not suitable for medical reasons, given the impact on their health. It said this information gave the Council reason to believe Mr and Mrs X were homeless and in priority need.
61. The Council applied too high a threshold when deciding whether it owed Mr and Mrs X the interim accommodation duty. The Council also erroneously conflated the relief and interim accommodation duties: though these duties often overlap in practice, they are separate. To engage its interim accommodation duty, the Council only needs to have ‘reason to believe’ an applicant ‘may’ be homeless, eligible and in priority need.
62. The information the Council needed to reach this decision was that set out in Mrs X’s self-assessment in October 2023, which remained consistently available to it to consider. The Council also had on file the medical assessment completed in November 2023, which concluded the property was unsuitable due to its impact on Mr and Mrs X. The Council instead waited until it was ‘satisfied’ Mr and Mrs X were homeless. This higher threshold applies to the relief duty, but not the interim accommodation duty.
63. We have found the Council at fault for conflating the relief and interim accommodation duties and applying the incorrect test in this case.

Homelessness applications - injustice

64. On the balance of probabilities, if the Council had properly considered Mr and Mrs X’s first homelessness approach in October 2023, it would not have closed Mr and Mrs X’s application. Instead, it would have assessed their circumstances and found it owed a duty to provide interim accommodation and the relief housing duty. We can say this is likely because this is the decision the Council later made in March 2024, when it assessed Mr and Mrs X in the same circumstances.
65. We also find, on the balance of probabilities, that if the Council had accepted the interim accommodation duty in October 2023, it would have been able to secure suitable interim accommodation that allowed Mr and Mrs X to bring their pets with them. We can say this is likely because this is what the Council later did in March 2024, a few days after accepting the interim accommodation duty.
66. This means Mr and Mrs X lived in unsuitable accommodation from the point of their initial approach, on 11 October 2023, to 22 March 2024. This is around five months longer than they otherwise would have, but for the Council’s faults. This avoidable time spent in unsuitable accommodation impacted their overall wellbeing. This is an injustice to Mr and Mrs X. If the Council does not properly consider the guidance in the Code in other cases, these faults could also cause injustice to others in the future.
67. The Council failed to provide written decisions it made about Mr and Mrs X’s homelessness in October and November 2023. In doing so, it also failed to highlight Mr and Mrs X’s right to seek a review of these decisions, possibly leading to a right of appeal to the county court. This meant Mr and Mrs X were denied opportunities to challenge the Council’s decisions and potentially reduce the time they spent in unsuitable accommodation. This loss of opportunity is an injustice to Mr and Mrs X.
68. Further, we note the Council’s housing registrations team recognised Mr and Mrs X’s home was unsuitable in November 2023, based on the medical assessment completed at the time. The Council actively encouraged Mr and Mrs X to make a homelessness application because of this, while their registration application was deferred. Given this, we again believe it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, that if the Council had assessed their application in November 2023, it would have accepted the interim and relief duties, as it later did. This would have reduced the time Mr and Mrs X spent in unsuitable accommodation.
69. The Council misapplied the interim accommodation duty in February 2024, for the reasons set out above. This meant the Council delayed offering interim accommodation to Mr and Mrs X by a further three weeks, between 29 February and 18 March 2024. If the Council similarly misapplies the interim accommodation duty in other cases, this could cause injustice to other homelessness applicants.
70. Mr and Mrs X also experienced injustice in the form of avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty because of the Council’s handling of their approaches.

Tenancy matters

71. It is understood that the relationship between Mr X and his ex-partner ended in around 2014 and they divorced shortly afterwards. At the time, records show that Mr X’s ex-partner informed the Council that Mr X had left the property. Neither party requested their name to be removed from the tenancy at the time of the separation, therefore the Council took no further action which was reasonable.
72. Mr X later remarried, and he and Mrs X made a joint housing application in May 2023. The Council has given its position that it first became aware of Mr X’s request to remove his name from the previous tenancy on 20 November 2023. However, the evidence demonstrates that concerns were first raised on 9 September 2023, two months earlier, during discussions about the joint housing application Mrs X and Mr X had made together.
73. In accordance with its housing management – joint tenancies and relationship breakdown policy, the Council should have provided advice and information about the next steps. The advice should have been followed up in writing to Mr X, however there is no evidence that it did this. The failure to do this in a timely manner caused Mr and Mrs X unnecessary time and trouble.
74. Mrs X chased the Council for an update throughout September 2023. On 9 October 2023, the Council informed Mrs X that it needed further information before it could progress the joint housing application any further. It asked for the reasons why Mr X could not return to the previous property to live with his ex-partner. This was not appropriate under the circumstances and did not demonstrate sensitivity to the situation. Although the Council advised Mrs X that Mr X should seek independent legal advice, there is no evidence that it explained that an NTQ to end the tenancy was an option available to him.
75. Mrs X raised the matter again on 28 November 2023 and explained that she felt she was being made to ‘jump through hoops’. It was not until 4 December 2023 that the Council provided further advice and explained that the tenancy could be ended via an NTQ. The delay in explaining this was unreasonable and caused both Mrs X and Mr X evident frustration.
76. There were gaps in the Council’s record keeping. For example, the Council noted that it had explained the NTQ as an option on 4 December 2023 but there is no record that it sent out any forms to either party to begin the process. Consequently, when Mrs X chased for an update on 30 January 2024, she was told that the Council was yet to receive the necessary paperwork from Mr X, despite no record that anything had been sent to him. The failure to accurately record the Council’s advice and subsequent actions caused unnecessary confusion.
77. After 8 February 2024, and once the Council had visited Mr X and his ex-partner, the Council provided the relevant paperwork. Records show that a signed NTQ was received by the Council shortly afterwards, and it began the process to amend the tenancy within a reasonable timeframe.
78. In correspondence with the Ombudsmen, the Council said that it had notified Mr X that the NTQ had been received and accepted on 13 February 2024, however there is no record of this contact within its records. As a result, Mrs X raised the matter as part of her request for an escalation to her formal complaint. In its stage two response, the Council acknowledged that it had actioned the NTQ but had not confirmed it in writing to Mr X, and apologised for its error.
79. It was appropriate for the Council to apologise for its failure to confirm its actions in writing. However, the Council did not go far enough to adequately consider the impact the extent of the delays had on Mr X as a result of its lack of communication. It failed to acknowledge that it had not made its process under its joint tenancies and relationship breakdown policy clear, which resulted in delays in concluding matters over a period of five months between September 2023 and February 2024.
80. It would have been appropriate for the Council to have offered financial redress for the inconvenience caused and considered what learning it had taken from Mr X’s experience. This would have been resolution focused and in line with the HOS Dispute Resolution Principles to put matters right and learn from outcomes. Therefore, there has been service failure in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request to remove his name from the previous tenancy.

Joint findings

81. The Ombudsmen have jointly considered whether the Council’s delay in concluding these tenancy matters prevented Mr and Mrs X from joining its housing register, leading to missed housing opportunities. We have found this delay prevented Mr and Mrs X from joining the Council’s housing register sooner than they otherwise could have. However, we cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether this prevented Mr and Mrs X from securing an offer of accommodation through the Council’s choice-based allocations scheme. This is because we cannot say whether there were properties Mr and Mrs X would have successfully bid on during this period. This causes uncertainty, which is in itself an injustice to Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

Action required

HOS orders

82. The HOS orders that within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should apologise to Mrs X and Mr X for the faults identified by both Ombudsmen in line with page 6 of HOS’s Remedies Guidance and LGSCO’s guidance on Making an effective apology.
83. The HOS orders that within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should pay Mr X £75 for the issues identified.
84. The HOS orders that within four weeks of our final decision, the Council should review the case and consider service improvements. This should include consideration of how it ensures that requests for joint to sole tenancies are processed, with appropriate record keeping and oversight.
85. The Council should provide the Housing Ombudsman Service with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

LGSCO recommended action

86. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mrs X £1,500 in recognition of the time she and Mr X spent in unsuitable accommodation. This is a figure of £300 per month for around five months, between 11 October 2023 and 22 March 2024. We have considered the LGSCO’s Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation.
2. Pay Mrs X a further £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress she and Mr X experienced because of the Council’s faults. We have again considered the LGSCO’s Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation, which defines distress as stress, uncertainty, frustration and loss of opportunity.
3. Share the findings of this investigation with senior officers, to identify wider points of learning.
87. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide training for relevant officers on the following:
1. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 6: Homeless or threatened with homelessness. This sets out how authorities should consider the question of whether it is reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy their existing accommodation.
2. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 15: Accommodation duties and powers. This sets out the thresholds that apply for the interim accommodation duty.
3. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 17: Suitability of accommodation. This addresses how authorities should consider supporting applicants with pets.
4. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 18: Applications, decisions and notifications. This sets out how authorities should approach applications to multiple authorities and the need to issue written decisions, including explaining the reasons for adverse decisions.
88. The Council should provide the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

89. We have completed our investigation. The LGSCO has found fault, causing injustice. The LGSCO has made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
90. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Housing Ombudsman has found service failure in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request to remove his name from the previous tenancy. HOS has made orders to remedy the injustice caused.

Final decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman