Summary: Mr X complained about failings and errors in the way the Council considered his homelessness application. We found the Council’s failings and delays in assessing Mr X’s homelessness application and in providing appropriate support and accommodation are fault. As were the delay and errors in the Council’s stage two response to Mr X’s complaint. These faults caused Mr X unnecessary uncertainty, distress and anxiety. They also delayed his right to request a review. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained about failings and errors in the way the Council considered his homelessness application. Mr X complained the Council did not explain the homelessness process or his housing options properly. He also complains council officers congratulated one another when a negative review decision was issued.
2. In addition Mr X complained the Council has provided unsuitable emergency accommodation.
3. Mr X says the Council’s failings caused him stress and anxiety and led to suicidal thoughts and actions which resulted in him being hospitalised.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X; and
• Mr 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

Homelessness

7. 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.
8. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
9. 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 18.32 and 18.33)
10. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a council will owe a main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. 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.
14. 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.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
15. There is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

What happened here

16. Mr X approached the Council as homeless in late March 2023. He told the Council he had been sofa surfing with friends and relatives since 2021. Mr X also told the Council he had been diagnosed with severe depression, anxiety, PTSD, gout, carpal tunnel syndrome, and dyslexia. In addition Mr X reported suicidal attempts and that he attended psychotherapy every week.
17. The Council sought advice from its medical advisors in mid-June 2023 and again later that month after Mr X provided further medical evidence following a hospital admission. Mr X presented at the Emergency Department of a local hospital in June 2023 and was admitted to a mental health hospital. The Council says that on both occasions the medical advisors made recommendations that Mr X was not vulnerable.
18. The Council accepted a relief duty on 5 July 2023. Then on 7 July 2023 it wrote to Mr X advising it had decided he was eligible and homeless, but not in priority need. It explained it had considered the medical information and reports Mr X had provided and taken independent medical advice and had decided Mr X was not vulnerable. On this basis it found Mr X was not in priority need.
19. When Mr X was discharged from hospital in mid-July 2023 he was provided with temporary accommodation by the Home Treatment Team. The Home Treatment team provides acute home treatment for adults whose mental health crisis is so severe that they would otherwise be admitted to hospital. They provided Mr X with short term, shared accommodation with a support worker on site.
20. Mr X asked for a review of this decision on 24 July 2023. He said his circumstances had changed and some of the information in the decision letter was wrong. Mr X said the housing officer had behaved unprofessionally and caused him extreme stress to the point he had made two suicide attempts during the application process. Mr X asserted the decision he was not vulnerable was clearly wrong.
21. Mr X provided additional medical evidence and an officer contacted Mr X to discuss his review request in August 2023. The Council then made a further referral to its medical advisors for a recommendation regarding Mr X’s vulnerability.
22. On 13 September 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X advising it was minded to uphold its decision of 7 July 2023 that he did not have a priority need. Having considered Mr X’s response the Council then wrote to Mr X on 5 October 2023 confirming its decision that he was not in priority need.
23. The Council sent this letter to Mr X by email. The email chain included an internal email saying “Well done” to the housing officer and reviewing officer.
24. On 9 October 2023 the Council provided Mr X with discretionary accommodation at a hotel, and then from 23 October 2023 at Property 1. In response to our enquiries the Council says this was for a short period to support work being done by partner organisations to identify suitable settled accommodation for Mr X.
25. The Council then wrote to Mr X on 31 October 2023 advising the relief duty had come to an end. It explained the 56 days from the date it notified Mr X of this duty had expired and the Council had complied with its duty. The Council told Mr X the duty to provide him with interim accommodation had now ended and he had to vacate the accommodation by 13 November 2023.
26. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council about how his application had been dealt with. He complained offers did not fully explain the homelessness process to him so he was unclear about the Council’s duties and his options. Mr X was also upset that he had been included in an email between the officers congratulating each other on refusing his application. Mr X asked for an independent review of his case by an unconnected officer. He complained the housing officer and reviewing officer had both ignored his email and requests to discuss his case.
27. The Council responded on 16 November 2023 and explained the action it had taken in relation to the relief duty owed to Mr X and how this was discharged. It noted from Mr X’s emails to the housing officer and review officer that there was some confusion about this process. And acknowledged it had missed opportunities to clarify its duties and the review process.
28. In relation to the email where an officer appeared to congratulate a colleague on the outcome of Mr X’s review, the Council advised the officer was profoundly apologetic. The officer had stressed their words were not a celebration of the negative decision but understood the email could have been interpreted in this way.
29. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and to remedy the errors offered to:
• Set up a fresh homeless application with the assessment carried out by a senior officer who had had no previous involvement in the case;
• Continue to provide emergency accommodation at Property 1 while the fresh application was assessed.
• Share learning from this complaint with the relevant teams.
30. In addition the Council noted Mr X had complained about the use of the communal laundry facilities at Property 1. It confirmed it had liaised with the provider and in future the facilities would only be in use between 9am and 9pm.
31. As Mr X did not consider this resolved his complaint, in early December 2023 he asked the Council to escalate his concerns to stage two of the complaints process. He did not consider the resolution offered was sufficient to compensate the difficulties he has faced while he was street homeless. Mr X said the housing officer had said they would provide emergency accommodation within 48 hours but had not assisted him.
32. Mr X was unhappy it was almost a year since he approached the Council as homeless and now had to start the process again. He asserted that but for the Council’s errors he would have had higher priority on the housing register.
33. An officer interviewed Mr X in relation to the fresh homeless application on 23 November 2023 and sent him a letter confirming the Council owed him a relief duty. The officer also sent Mr X a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) and asked him to complete a disability health questionnaire and provide evidence of his medical conditions.
34. Having received a copy of Mr X’s GP summary document and the completed Disability Health Questionnaire the Council sought further advice from its medical advisors.
35. The medical advisor noted a past history of mania and that Mr X was prescribed mood stabilisers and had had treatment under the crisis team. He also had a history of suicide attempt. The medical advisor considered Mr X would be significantly more vulnerable than the ordinary person if he was to become homeless.
36. The Council decided Mr X was eligible for assistance, homeless, had a priority need and had not become homeless intentionally. It wrote to Mr X on 18 January 2024 confirming it owed Mr X a main housing duty. The Council had a duty to provide Mr X with accommodation and confirmed this would continue to be at Property 1.
37. Mr X advised the case officer he was suffering a gout attack due to his living conditions which were very unclean and meant the healing process took longer. The officer advised Mr X to raise any repair issues with temporary accommodation contracts team.
38. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 10 May 2024 and apologised for the delay. It said it was dealing with a high caseload which had impacted its ability to meet its timescales.
39. It noted the Council’s stage one response to Mr X’s complaint addressed the issues he had raised and had upheld is complaint. In addition the Council confirmed it was clear from the stage two investigation that the Council owed Mr X a relief duty. The Council said it would continue to provide emergency accommodation while it considered Mr X’s new homeless application.
40. The Council also noted Mr X’s concerns about his priority on the housing register and advised priority did not accrue based on time spent in temporary accommodation. Mr X currently had Band 4 priority which is the level of priority awarded to persons who are homeless but do not have priority need. His priority date was 11 July 2023 which was the date the relief duty was originally accepted.
41. As part of the new homelessness application the Council would consider whether it owed a main housing duty. If it decided it owed a main housing duty Mr X’s priority would increase to Band 3 with priority from the date of this duty. However as the Council had accepted there were errors in its assessment of his original homeless application, if it accepted a main housing duty the Council advised it would consider backdating the Band 3 priority date.
42. The Council also advised Mr X that the average wait time for social housing in Waltham Forest was over eight years. It did not therefore consider Mr X had been disadvantaged by the Council’s error.
43. The Council offered to pay Mr X £250 in recognition of its failure to provide him with a PHP in relation to the initial application and the distress he had experienced.
44. Mr X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He is unhappy the stage two response to his complaint is out of date and indicates the author made no effort to properly consider his circumstances. Mr X says he was living on the street and officers reassured him they would help, but these were false promises and he was then ignored.
45. Mr X says the Council’s action led to suicide attempts and his admission to a psychiatric hospital. He asserts that had the Council dealt with his case properly he would be living in a suitable property by now. Mr X says Property 1 is a small basement room next to the laundry room which is used by other tenants throughout the night. He says his room is covered in black mould and is not suitable for his needs as it causes him anxiety and claustrophobia.
46. In response to my enquiries the Council says that when Mr X initially presented as homeless in March 2023 there was no reason to believe he was in priority need so it did not provide interim accommodation. It then completed its enquiries and issued a decision that Mr X was not in priority need in July 2023. The Council notes there was a delay in issuing this decision as Mr X was hospitalised in June 2023.
47. The Council says the initial assessment which determined Mr X did not have a priority need considered the following key matters:
• Mr X received support from home treatment team;
• Mr X’s personality disorder (antisocial);
• Mr X’s use of psychoactive substances;
• Mr X’s stable mood; and
• No current evidence of suicidality.
48. It says the second assessment which determined Mr X was in priority need was based on further information which:
• Suggested a history of mania;
• Confirmed Mr X was prescribed mood stabilisers;
• Confirmed a history of suicide attempts; and
• Mr X’s recent involvement with the Crisis Team.
49. Although the Council’s review of its initial decision upheld that Mr X did not have a priority need, the Council says it provided discretionary accommodation at Property 1 in October 2023. This accommodation continued under the fresh assessment and is now provided under the main housing duty.
50. In terms of the suitability of Property 1 the Council says its assessment did not identify the location any medial or specialist service which needed to be considered. It was recommended Mr X be placed within the borough and no areas were identified as unsuitable. The Council also noted its medical advisors advised Mr X had no specific housing needs.
51. As the Council had no suitable accommodation within the borough boundary it offered Mr X temporary accommodation approximately 0.5 miles away in a neighbouring borough.
52. The Council says its records show Mr X has contacted its Temporary Accommodation Contracts Team to report issues with Property 1. These include:
• blocked toilets in November and December 2023, which were unblocked by a plumber;
• an electrical fault. When the landlords electrician attended no fault was found. The Council says Mr X was smoking in the room and had removed the battery from the alarm resulting in a beeping noise. Mr X disputes this and says he does not smoke.
• Report of a cockroach siting in May 2024. When pest control attended no cockroaches were found
53. The Council says it also says it carries out a rigorous regime of inspections of its temporary accommodation. Its records in July 2024 say Mr X’s accommodation was inspected on 6 March, 5 April, 14 May and 28 June 2024 and no issues were identified.
54. Should Mr X request a review of the suitability of Property 1, the Council says it would action this.
55. The Council has also confirmed Mr X has Band 3 priority on the housing register. However, it has not confirmed whether Mr X’s priority has been backdated to take account of the delay. If it has not already done so, I would expect the Council to consider backdating Mr X’s priority, as it offered this in its stage two response to his complaint.

Analysis

56. The Council accepts there were failings in the way it considered Mr X’s homelessness application in March 2023. It has not provided any records of its initial assessment of Mr X’s homeless application or of the advice and information it provided to Mr X. But its complaint response acknowledges there was confusion and that opportunities to clarify its duties and the process were missed.
57. The lack of records means it is unclear how the Council considered its duty to arrange interim accommodation pending its enquiries. The threshold for is low and the duty is triggered as soon as the Council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need.
58. In response to our enquiries the Council say there was no reason to believe Mr X was in priority need but it has not provided any evidence to support this view. Mr X says the officer told him the Council would provide interim accommodation within 48 hours and it is unclear why this did not happen.
59. There are no statutory time limits for making decisions in homelessness cases. However, we would expect authorities to conduct assessments, take necessary actions and make decisions, in a reasonable timeframe.
60. The Council says the decision that Mr X was not in priority need was delayed due to Mr X’s hospital admission in June 2023. However in the absence of any records, it is unclear what enquiries had been made or action had been taken in the period between late March and June 2023. The Council did not provide a PHP and did not accept a relief duty for over three months.
61. The Council’s failings and delays in assessing Mr X’s homelessness application and in providing appropriate support are fault.
62. Mr X disputed the Council’s decision he was not in priority need and exercised his right of review. This was then assessed again in November 2023.
63. It is unclear what had changed between the Council initial decision and the review which found Mr X was not in priority need, and the decision in January 2024 that he was in priority need. The Council has suggested that new information was available for the fresh assessment, but I am not persuaded this was the case. The review decision refers to Mr X’s history of suicide attempts and notes that he was on mood stabilising medication. It also notes he receives support from the Home Treatment Team. This was not therefore new information for the fresh assessment.
64. It is also unclear what documentation the Council shared with its medical advisors when seeking advice. The Council has not provided copies of its medical advisors’ advice in June or August 2023. It has provided a copy of the advice in December 2023. This lists the documentation considered, which, save for a short computer printout from Mr X’s GP and a discharge prescription dated 6 October 2023, were all available prior to the review decision.
65. I consider the inconsistencies between the decisions regarding priority need call into question the validity of the Council’s earlier assessments of Mr X’s vulnerability. Concerns about the earlier decision are compounded by the Council’s decision to provide Mr X with accommodation in October 2023 despite deciding he did not have priority need.
66. The Council has not provided any records or correspondence regarding the decision to provide Mr X with accommodation initially in a hotel and then at Property 1. In response to our enquiries it says this was a discretionary decision. However in its letter to Mr X on 31 October 2023 it refers to its duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation ending and asks him to leave the property by 13 November 2023. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint also refers to Property 1 as emergency accommodation which again suggests it was provided under a homeless duty as Mr X had priority need.
67. The inconsistencies in the Council’s decisions regarding Mr X’s vulnerability and priority need, and the lack of clarity regarding the basis on which the Council provided Mr X with accommodation in October 2023 are fault.
68. Mr X does not consider Property 1 is suitable accommodation. He did not have a statutory right to review the suitability of this accommodation while it was provided on a discretionary basis or as emergency accommodation. This right did not arise until the Council accepted the main housing duty and offered Property 1 as interim accommodation.
69. Mr X has not exercised this right of review, but the Council has confirmed that should he do so it would review the suitability of Property 1. This would be the appropriate way to address any concerns Mr X’s has about the suitability of Property 1.
70. There was also fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s stage two complaint. Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the process on 5 December 2023. The Council’s policy says it will investigate complaints at stage two in 25 working days and so should have responded by mid-January 2024. However, the Council took a further four months to respond.
71. It is disappointing that having taken so long to respond to Mr X’s complaint the response was then out of date and did not accurately reflect the current position of Mr X’s homelessness application or the duty owed by the Council. The failure to properly address Mr X’s concerns and to respond in line with its policy is fault.
72. Having identified fault I must now consider whether this has caused Mr X a significant injustice.
73. The delays in dealing with Mr X’s application and in issuing a decision, and the failure to provide clear advice and assistance caused Mr X unnecessary uncertainty, distress and anxiety. It also delayed his right to request a review. Mr X was also distressed to read the internal email commenting on the decision to reject his appeal.
74. Based on the information available and, given the low threshold to be applied, I consider the Council should have provided Mr X with interim accommodation when he presented as homeless in March 2023. The Council’s failure to do so meant Mr X was street homeless for longer than he otherwise would have been. Mr X says, this led to a suicide attempt and his admission to a mental health hospital. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.
75. The delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and the failure to ensure the stage two response was accurate and reflected the situation at that time will have exacerbated Mr X's distress and frustration.
76. The Council has offered to pay Mr X £250 but I do not consider this to be an adequate remedy for the uncertainty, distress and difficulties Mr X has experienced as a result of the Council’s failings. I consider a payment of £500 would be appropriate.
77. In addition our guidance on remedies recommends a payment of £150 to £350 for each month an applicant has been deprived of suitable accommodation. Mr X was street homeless for two and half months before being admitted to hospital and I consider a payment at the top end of the range would be appropriate.
78. We have previously made recommendations for service improvements relating to the assessment of homelessness applications and the stage two complaint process which the Council has acted upon. I do not consider it necessary to repeat these service recommendations here.

Back to top

Agreed action

79. The Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the distress, uncertainty and difficulties he experienced as a result of the fault identified above. 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.
• Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the distress, uncertainty and difficulties he experienced as a result of the fault identified above. If the Council has already paid the £250 it offered in the stage two complaint response, it should pay the balance of £250.
• Pay Mr X £875 to recognise the two and a half months he was deprived of suitable accommodation between March and June 2023.
80. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

81. The Council’s failings and delays in assessing Mr X’s homelessness application and in providing appropriate support and accommodation are fault. As were the delay and errors in the Council’s stage two response to Mr X’s complaint. These faults have caused Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman