Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled his case when he approached it for homelessness assistance. He says the Council delayed assessing his case and issuing decisions, it failed to communicate with him properly and there was a lack of action to resolve his homelessness. We find the Council was at fault for its significant delays in dealing with Mr D’s homeless application. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained how the Council handled his case when he approached it for homelessness assistance. He says the Council delayed assessing his case and issuing decisions, it failed to communicate with him properly and there was a lack of action to resolve his homelessness.
2. Mr D says the matter has affected his mental health and caused distress and uncertainty. He also says he had to reschedule an operation because of the instability of his housing situation.
3. Mr D is supported by his representative (Miss E) in bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.

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. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Mr D, Miss E 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

9. 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. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. This usually lasts for 56 days. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

What happened

14. Mr D contacted the Council in July 2023 and complete an online housing assistance form. He said he was street homeless.
15. A member of staff from Mr D’s GP surgery contacted the Council in early August. He asked the Council to respond to the form. He sent a chaser email the following week. He said he had visited the town hall with Mr D that day. He said Mr D was street homeless, but the Council had failed to take any action.
16. The Council assessed Mr D’s case and provided him with interim accommodation in mid-August. It said the accommodation would be for two weeks.
17. Miss E emailed the Council in late September. She said the Council had failed to tell Mr D who his housing officer was. She also said it had not sent him a PHP or issued a relief duty letter. She said Mr D has severe health issues, and he had to postpone a serious health operation to mid-November. She said Mr D was worried about being in unstable accommodation for his operation.
18. Miss E sent the Council chasers for a response the following week. A manager responded and copied in Mr D’s housing officer.
19. The Council noted on its internal system there had been a duplication on Mr D’s case. It originally assigned his case to one officer. Mr D visited the town hall when the officer was absent and therefore another officer picked up the case. Therefore, it had two files for Mr D.
20. Miss E complained to the Council on Mr D’s behalf in late October. She said Mr D went to the town hall for several days before it would help. She also said the Council told Mr D he would be living in interim accommodation for two weeks. She said the Council failed to communicate with Mr D effectively, and it had delayed progressing his case.
21. The Council tried to call Mr D several times but was unsuccessful. It sent him his PHP in early November. It also said it owed him the relief duty from October.
22. Miss E asked the Council to review the reasonable steps it had to take in Mr D’s PHP. The Council issued Mr D with an updated PHP in December.
23. The Council responded to Mr D’s complaint in early December. It said there were internal issues which caused a delay in dealing with Mr D’s case. It said it failed to communicate with him effectively. It apologised for this. It said it would work with him under the relief duty to resolve his homelessness.
24. Miss E asked the Council to issue a stage two response. She said it had not addressed the complaint that Mr D attended the town hall for four days before it would help. She also said the Council had exceeded the 56-day relief duty and it should have decided whether to award Mr D the main housing duty by mid-October 2023.
25. The Council issued its stage two response to the complaint in January 2024. It said there were limited notes about its contact with Mr D at the town hall, and therefore it could comment on how Mr D was spoken to. It said councils can exceed the 56 timescales for the relief duty if they need to make further enquiries. It said it was continuing to make enquiries on Mr D’s case.
26. The Council issued an updated PHP for Mr D in January.
27. The Council discussed Mr D’s case at a case conference in April. Miss E attended and said Mr D was struggling with his mental health.
28. The Council emailed Mr D and Miss E in mid-May. It asked for Mr D’s bank statements, proof of benefits and further information about Mr D’s address history. Miss E referred Mr D’s complaint to the Ombudsman shortly after.

Back to top

Analysis

29. Mr D approached the Council for housing assistance in July 2023. He presented as street homeless. The Council did not take any action to contact Mr D or seek further information from him. He was forced to contact his GP surgery for support and attend the town hall in mid-August before it would take any action and offer him interim accommodation. This delay is fault. If the Council had acted without fault and assessed Mr D’s circumstances sooner, it is more likely than not it would have offered him interim accommodation in July. Therefore, its delay has caused Mr D a significant injustice as he was rough sleeping longer than he should have been.
30. The Council did not take any action on Mr D’s case from mid-August 2023 until late October when it called him to discuss his case and then issued his PHP in early November. It also failed to communicate with him effectively during this time and it wrongly told him his interim accommodation would last for two weeks. The Council’s fault caused Mr D upset and distress and uncertainty about what would have happened sooner.
31. The Council accepted the relief duty for Mr D in October 2023. When the Council responded to my enquiries in early November 2024, it confirmed it had not yet decided whether it owed Mr D the main housing duty. This is a significant delay and is fault. The Council can extend the relief duty beyond 56 days, but this is when it is making enquiries into an applicant’s case. However, there is no evidence the Council has taken any real action to resolve Mr D’s homelessness or progress his case in line with his PHP apart from an email seeking further information in May 2024. This has caused Mr D upset, distress and uncertainty about what may have happened sooner. Miss E has explained the hospital has now cancelled Mr D’s operation because of the continual delays and his unstable living conditions. Mr D has the further uncertainty this may have been avoided if the Council had acted sooner.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. By 2 January 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this statement.
• Pay Mr D £350 to reflect the time he was deprived of interim accommodation.
• Pay Mr D £500 in recognition of the distress, upset and uncertainty caused by its communication failures and its delays in dealing with his homeless application.
• Review Mr D’s case in line with his PHP and decide what duty, if any, it owes him.

33. By 30 January 2025 the Council will review its processes to identify how it can reduce delays in dealing with homeless applications.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman