Summary: Ms B complained about how the Council dealt with her 2023 homelessness application, its staff conduct, its complaint handling and its poor communication with her. Ms B also complained the Council failed to comply with one of the recommended actions it agreed to complete following the Ombudsman’s investigation into her previous complaint about her housing situation. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained:
1. the Council did not properly deal with her May 2023 homelessness application
2. the Council delayed responding to her complaint and about its poor communication with her
3. about staff conduct and Ms B alleged the Council failed to take action to address the ongoing staff conduct
4. about the Council’s ongoing delays with processing her May 2022 homelessness application as recommended by the Ombudsman in December 2023 following an investigation into her previous complaint.
2. Ms B said the matter has caused her distress, affected her health and that she felt unsafe in her house.

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 an injustice, 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 the decision making, 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated matters in points ‘a’ to ‘d’ as set out above.
7. This investigation covers matters from May 2023 to June 2024. The period from when Ms B submitted her homelessness application in 2023 to when the Council assessed Ms B and reached a decision, she was not in priority need.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered the information Ms B and the Council provided about this complaint.
9. I sent Ms B and the Council a copy of my draft decision and considered all comments received before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:

• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))

11. 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.
12. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
13. The council will make enquiries to find out whether the person is:
• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need; and
• not intentionally homeless.
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing.
15. The prevention duty - 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195).
16. The relief duty – 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).
17. Personalised housing plan (PHP) – sets out the steps both the council and the applicant will take to try to resolve the applicant’s homelessness. During the prevention and relief duty stages, councils must carry out an assessment and work with the person to develop the PHP.
18. PHPs agreed during the prevention stage need to be reviewed if an applicant subsequently become homeless. This is to allow councils and applicants focus on steps required to help secure accommodation. 
19. PHPs must be kept under review throughout the prevention and relief stages, and councils must notify the applicant of any amendments.
20. 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 secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198).
21. Councils must put all its key decisions in writing and send to the applicant. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to ask for a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
22. Priority need – 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.

Discretionary housing payment

23. Discretionary housing payments (DHPs) provide financial support towards housing costs and can cover shortfalls between housing support and actual rental cost.
24. DHPs are paid by councils when they are satisfied a claimant needs further financial assistance with housing costs and receives either housing benefit or universal credit with housing costs towards rental liability.

Council’s complaint policy

25. The Council has a two-stage complaint procedure.
26. Stage one: the Council will investigate and respond within 20 working days.
27. Stage two: the Council will review any new information and consider if the original decision was fair. It will provide a response in 15 working days.

Background

28. In December 2023, we issued our final decision statement on Ms B’s previous complaint 23000298 about her housing complaint. We made recommendations which the Council agreed to complete within one month of our final decision. This was to remedy the injustice caused to Ms B by the Council’s identified failings in that complaint.
29. Ms B said the Council has not complied with one of our recommendations from December 2023. This was for the Council to ‘process Ms B’s May 2022 homelessness application and decide if it owed her any duties under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.’

Key events

30. Ms B lives in a private rented sector (PRS) accommodation.
31. On 26 May 2023, Ms B submitted a homelessness application because she was issued with a Section 21 notice by her landlord. Ms B stated in her application form she was unaware of the reason for the eviction notice and that she was expected to leave her property on 27 June 2023.
32. In early June 2023, the Council allocated Ms B’s case to officer 1. Ms B wrote to the Council and asked what additional details it required from her about her financial and housing situation.
33. The Council said it attempted to contact Ms B on several occasions after she submitted her application, but she did not respond. The Council said it left Ms B a voice message and informed her of her rights to remain in her property while the Council sought alternative housing for her.
34. On 26 June 2023, Ms B wrote to the Council when she had not heard from it since she submitted her homelessness application. She asked when the Council would contact her. Ms B copied her MP and the Mayor into her correspondence to the Council. The same day, officer 1 contacted Ms B to discuss and obtain additional information about her application. This included her landlord’s contact details.
35. The Council said it contacted Ms B’s landlord who confirmed the Section 21 notice issued to Ms B was due to her owing a substantial amount of rent arrears accrued over the years. The Council said it attempted to negotiate with Ms B’s landlord, but no agreement was reached.
36. Ms B made a formal complaint about the Council’s delays and poor communication with her since she submitted her homelessness application in May 2023. She also raised concerns about officer 1’s conduct. Ms B alleged officer 1 scolded and intimidated her during their telephone conversation for involving her MP and Mayor in the matter.
37. The Council said due to Ms B’s allegation and her refusal to engage with officer 1, it re‑allocated her case to another officer.
38. On 29 June 2023, the Council assessed Ms B’s homelessness application.
39. On 6 July 2023, the Council issued its decision letter to Ms B about her May 2023 homeless application. The Council accepted Ms B was threatened with homelessness and it found her eligible for its assistance. The Council accepted it owed Ms B a prevention duty to help her retain her existing accommodation or to secure an alternative one. It also attached Ms B’s personal housing plan (PHP).
40. The PHP included steps such as for Ms B to apply for DHP and to look for suitable alternative accommodation with the support of the Council. Also, for the Council to make a referral to assist Ms B with her rent arrears, referrals to social housing and to its PRS team.
41. Ms B told the Council she was satisfied with the overall PHP except she no longer wanted a PRS accommodation, and she reported her medical conditions. The Council advised Ms B to consider the PRS option as it could take many years to secure social housing. The Council provided Ms B with a medical form and asked her to complete and return the form to it.
42. The Council issued its stage 1 response to Ms B’s complaint on 30 June 2023. The same day, Ms B informed the Council she was unhappy with the Council’s service, and it issued its final response on 24 October 2023. In its responses, the Council:

• accepted officer 1’s interaction with Ms B was unprofessional and apologised for any upset and anxiety caused to her. The Council confirmed it had dealt with officer 1’s conduct in line with its policies
• said it had since re-allocated Ms B’s case to another officer who assessed her homelessness application, accepted a prevention duty, drew up a PHP and communicated with Ms B’s landlord to delay or prevent her eviction
• upheld Ms B’s complaint and offered to make her a £100 payment to recognise the inconvenience and the time and trouble caused to her.

43. In October 2023, the Council made social housing and PRS accommodation referrals for Ms B.
44. In January 2024, the Council provided Ms B with a list of properties for potential viewings. Ms B told the Council she was unable to view the properties due to her ill health. The Council contacted Ms B’s medical professional and requested medical evidence to assess her health conditions.
45. Ms B’s landlord contacted the Council. The landlord requested payment of Ms B’s rent arrears and expressed an intention to increase the rent. The landlord also informed the Council that court proceedings had started which was to repossess Ms B’s property. The Council referred Ms B’s case for rent support.
46. Between March and April 2024, the Council attempted to contact Ms B to ask if she had received further notices from her landlord and to send it copies of such notices. The Council said Ms B replied that she needed to check with her solicitor whether she could provide the document to it. The Council said Ms B informed the Council she only wished to be contacted via email.
47. The Council said the social housing provider it referred Ms B to, closed her case due to her failure to engage. The Council asked the provider to re-open Ms B’s case, but it refused due to the demand on social housing service. The Council said it then made another social housing referral and confirmed Ms B was waiting to be assessed.
48. The Council said Ms B did not provide it with the court proceeding documents, so it had to contact, and request the documents from Ms B’s landlord. The Council said the landlord did not also provide it with the evidence of the court proceedings.
49. Ms B contacted the Ombudsman. She complained about officer 1’s conduct and how the Council had dealt with her May 2023 homelessness application. Ms B said the Council insisted she remained in her property despite informing it she could not cope with the stress of court hearings and other procedures due to her physical and mental health. Ms B also said the Council had failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s recommendation for it to process her May 2022 homelessness application.
50. Between May and June 2024, the Council said it continued to make attempts to contact Ms B. It said it made further contact with Ms B’s landlord for an update on Ms B’s rent arrears and it requested Ms B’s medical reports from her doctor.
51. The Council referred Ms B’s case to its medical team when it received her medical records. This was to assess Ms B’s medical condition. The Council’s medical team’s report stated, “it did not think the specific issues in Ms B’s case were of particular significance compared to an ordinary person”.
52. The Council made a decision based on its medical team’s report that Ms B would not be considered in ‘priority need’.

Analysis

2023 homelessness application and Council’s poor communication

53. When Ms B informed the Council, she was issued with Section 21 notice by her landlord, it assessed her application and found it owed her a prevention duty. This was the Council’s duty to prevent Ms B from becoming homeless and it notified her of its decision in writing. These were not faults.
54. But I find the Council took too long to accept the prevention duty decision. It took the Council approximately 6 weeks and this was fault. This caused Ms B distress, uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble chasing the Council to complete her homelessness application assessment.
55. PHPs must contain realistic steps to be taken by the applicant and councils to prevent the applicant’s homelessness. I note Ms B’s PHP included steps such as advice for her to apply for DHP and for the Council to refer her for rent support and make referrals for alternative accommodation. I consider given Ms B’s rent arrears was significant and not sustainable, the Council should have considered if it owed Ms B the relief duty. However, Ms B had the right to seek a review if she disagreed with the Council’s decision of owing her the prevention duty at this point. And I find it was reasonable to expect Ms B to have exercised her review right. However, as the Council had accepted the prevention duty, I find Ms B’s PHP should have contained steps to prevent her homelessness such as negotiating with her landlord regarding her rent arrears while she applied for DHP. This was fault and it caused worry and uncertainty to Ms B.
56. There was further fault by the Council because it did not refer Ms B for support with her rent arrears until January 2024. This was after Ms B’s landlord contacted the Council to inform it of the court proceedings to repossess her property and to request her rent arrears to be paid. This meant it took the Council approximately 6 months to refer Ms B for rent support which was agreed in her PHP in July 2023. This was fault. It caused further worry and uncertainty to Ms B.
57. In its response to our draft decision statement, the Council said it is in the process of implementing a new information and communication technology system which will be used to create and monitor applicants’ PHPs.
58. I find the Council did not consider what duty it owed Ms B when the Section 21 notice expired. And whether it was reasonable for Ms B to continue to occupy her property after the expiry of the notice. There was no evidence to show the Council considered whether it owed Ms B the relief duty when the Section 21 notice expired. There was also no evidence the Council reviewed Ms B’s PHP during the prevention duty and no evidence to show if, and when the Council ended its prevention duty to Ms B. These were faults and not in line with the code of guidance. These caused Ms B uncertainty in not knowing if the Council properly considered her homeless situation.
59. I note the Council said Ms B did not engage with it and that neither Ms B nor her landlord provided it with any court documents. But I find the Council should have reviewed the duty it owed to Ms B when her landlord contacted/informed it about the court proceedings to repossess Ms B’s property. This was a change of circumstances which could have caused Ms B to be homeless and the Council should have considered if it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy the property. The Council should have then issued Ms B with its decision letter (whether it decided it owed her the relief duty or not) and should have advised her of her review rights. The Council should have also reviewed Ms B’s PHP. Its failure to do so was fault but with no significant injustice caused to Ms B. This is because the Council had made some referrals to alternative housing providers.
60. The Council assessed Ms B’s medical conditions in June 2024 and the outcome was that Ms B was not in priority need. I am unclear about the Council’s action. I find the Council was not transparent as to whether it was considering if it should offer Ms B an interim accommodation under the relief duty or whether it was reviewing if it owed Ms B the main duty. There was also no evidence to show the Council notified Ms B in writing of its outcome of any review of its duty, how it intended to proceed with her homelessness/housing situation and about her review rights. These were faults and caused further uncertainty to Ms B.
61. In conclusion, while the Council’s identified failings caused injustice to Ms B, I find her non‑engagement with the Council and the social housing providers mitigated the injustice caused to Ms B. This will be addressed under the ‘agreed action’ section below.

Council’s complaints handling and its staff conduct

62. Ms B complained to the Council on 26 June 2023 and the Council issued its stage 1 response on 30 June 2023. This was within the Council’s complaints procedure timeframe. This was not fault.
63. However, the Council took approximately 4 months to issue its final response (June to October 2023). This was a significant delay, and not in line with its complaints procedure. This was fault and the delay caused Ms B distress.
64. As regards the Council’s staff conduct, the Council already accepted officer 1’s interaction and conduct towards Ms B was fault. The Council apologised to Ms B, dealt with officer 1’s conduct under its policies and re‑allocated Ms B’s case to another officer. The Council also offered Ms B a payment of £100 to acknowledge any injustice caused to her.
65. These are welcome but I have made a service improvement about the Council’s complaint handling under the ‘agreed action’ section below.

Compliance of recommendation for 2022 homelessness application

66. I note the Council agreed to action the Ombudsman’s recommendation to ‘process Ms B’s May 2022 homelessness application and decide if it owed her any duties under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.’ The Council agreed to comply with this action by January 2024. Ms B’s circumstances had changed by that time. This was because Ms B had submitted a new homelessness application in May 2023 which superseded Ms B’s May 2022 application.
67. As this was the case, my findings of fault about how the Council dealt with Ms B’s May 2023 homeless application takes precedence over our recommendation in Ms B’s previous complaint about her homelessness and housing situation. Also, we cannot say the outcome would have been any different if the Council had reviewed it earlier.

Back to top

Agreed action

68. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Ms B and make her a symbolic payment of £300 for the injustice caused to her by the Council’s failings as identified above. This payment is separate from the £100 payment the Council had offered Ms B. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• issue Ms B with the Council’s decision on what duty it currently owes her, fully explain the Council’s reasons for its decision and advise Ms B of her review rights to the Council’s decision
• ensure the Council assesses and make its decisions in a timely manner about what duty it owes to applicants who are either threatened to be homeless or are homeless
• remind relevant staff of the importance of reviewing the duty it owes applicants when there has been a change to their homeless/housing situations in line with the code of guidance. The Council should also ensure it issues applicants with its decision letters to notify them of the duty accepted or ended and the applicants review rights
• train relevant staff on the use of the Council’s new information and communication technology system for creating and monitoring personal housing plans. The Council should also remind relevant staff of the importance of creating a robust, specific and realistic personal housing plans for applicants. It should ensure the plans are reviewed regularly especially when there has been a change in the applicant’s housing situation. This will allow the Council and the applicants focus on steps required to help secure their accommodation
• remind relevant staff of the importance of adhering to the Council’s complaints procedure.

69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

70. I find evidence of fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman