Summary: the Council wrongly ended a relief duty and cancelled Mr X’s interim accommodation too early, failed to make sufficient attempts to engage with Mr X, delayed considering Mr X’s review request and failed to consider whether to provide him with further interim accommodation while it considered the review. An apology and payment to Mr X, alongside a case review to identify and address the problems that occurred in this case is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, complained the Council:
• gave him a deadline to engage with its homelessness team but ended the relief duty and excluded him from his accommodation before that deadline; and
• ignored his request for a review of that decision and failed to provide him with further accommodation.
2. Mr X says as a result of the Council’s failures he had to sleep rough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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 an injustice, 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 Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mr X and the organisation 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

What should have happened

8. 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 (the prevention duty). In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants' cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a Council decides this duty (the relief duty) has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. The homelessness code of guidance (code of guidance) says there are 7 circumstances under which both the prevention and relief duties can be brought to an end. In addition to these common circumstances the relief duty will end when 56 days has passed and the housing authority is satisfied the applicant has a priority need and is homeless unintentionally, or on refusal of a final accommodation offer or Part 6 offer.
11. The code of guidance says applicants have the right to request the housing authority review their decisions on homelessness cases in some circumstances. The housing authority then has 8 weeks to notify the applicant of the decision on review unless a longer time period is agreed.
12. The code of guidance says housing authorities have the powers to secure accommodation for certain applicants pending the decision on a review.

What happened

13. In October 2023 Mr X applied to the Council as homeless. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation. The Council recorded that if there were any issues reaching Mr X officers should contact his support caseworker or duty team.
14. Later in October the Council accepted the relief duty and provided Mr X with a personalised housing plan.
15. Between November 2023 and January 2024 the Council tried, and failed, to contact Mr X to process his homelessness application. The Council therefore sent Mr X a warning letter on 5 January 2024. That letter asked Mr X to contact the Council by 12 December 2024 or his application would be closed and the Council would end his accommodation. The Council accepts the letter should have referred to 12 January, rather than December.
16. On 8 January the Council completed an occupancy check at the interim accommodation it had provided Mr X with. The housing provider told the Council Mr X had not signed the register for five days.
17. On 11 January the Council ended the interim accommodation. The Council ended the relief duty the same day as the 56 day period had passed and wrote to Mr X to tell him that.
18. On 16 January Mr X put in a request for a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty. The Council acknowledged that on 18 January and said if he had not received a decision on his review within 56 days he could appeal to a county court.
19. The Council says it completed the review and decided to reopen the case and accept a fresh relief duty on 21 February. The Council accepts though it did not write to Mr X to tell him that and did not reopen his case.
20. After he complained to the Ombudsman the Council wrote to Mr X on 5 August to confirm it had accepted a relief duty following his review request and the Council issued a personalised housing plan.
21. The Council tried to contact Mr X in August and October to discuss the option of further accommodation. However, the Council could not get in contact with Mr X. The Council closed the case on 15 October as Mr X had not engaged.

Analysis

22. Mr X says the Council gave him a deadline to engage with its homelessness team before ending the relief duty. Mr X says despite that the Council ended the relief duty and his interim accommodation before the deadline expired.
23. The evidence I have seen satisfies me when the Council wrote to Mr X on 5 January 2024 it told him it would end the relief duty if he did not respond by 12 December 2024. The Council accepts the date it included in the letter was wrong because it should have said 12 January 2024. The Council accepts it should have reissued the letter with the right date on. Failure to do that is fault.
24. The Council also accepts it ended the relief duty and Mr X's interim accommodation on 11 January, before the expiry of the intended deadline. That again is fault. I am particularly concerned the Council ended the relief duty and accommodation on that date without contacting members of Mr X's support network. That is because the Council's documentary evidence shows it had recorded if there were issues contacting Mr X the Council should contact his support caseworker or duty team. Failure to do that is fault.
25. The Council also accepts when Mr X put in a review request in January 2024 it failed to consider whether to provide him with further interim accommodation. That again is fault.
26. Mr X is also concerned the Council ignored his request for a review of its decision to end the relief duty. In normal circumstances the Ombudsman would not have jurisdiction to consider any failure to complete the review within the required timescale. That is because a homeless applicant has a right of appeal if the Council fails to determine a review within eight weeks.
27. I have decided to exercise the Ombudsman's discretion to investigate Mr X’s concerns about the delay dealing with his review request. That is because I am satisfied Mr X was vulnerable and the Council has accepted it was at fault for failing to tell Mr X about the decision on his review application within eight weeks.
28. The Council says it completed the review on 21 February 2024. Although I do not have any evidence of that it is clear the Council did not write to Mr X to tell him the outcome of the review until 5 August 2024. Given the Council should have issued the review decision by 12 March 2024 that delay is fault.
29. I now have to consider what injustice Mr X has suffered because of the faults I have identified in this statement. It is clear the Council has experienced significant difficulty contacting Mr X and getting him to engage with officers. That is why the Council issued the end of relief duty letter in January 2024 in the first place. I also note that despite the Council overturning its decision and trying to contact Mr X about further interim accommodation in August 2024 Mr X has still not engaged. That means the Council has not been able to provide him with any accommodation.
30. I do not have sufficient information about Mr X’s living arrangements between January 2024 and August 2024 to consider whether it is appropriate to recommend a tariff-based remedy based on the Ombudsman’s guidance. That is because I have not been able to speak to Mr X to get further details. It is clear though that if the Council had acted as it should have done there is a possibility Mr X would have secured further accommodation from the Council.
31. However, I also have to take into account the fact Mr X has continued to not engage with the Council since the review decision was issued in August 2024. In those circumstances I consider it likely Mr X has contributed to his own injustice. I therefore consider Mr X's injustice is limited to some uncertainty and distress. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and pay him £300, although I recognise carrying out that remedy will require Mr X to engage with the Council. The Council has accepted my recommendation.
32. It is clear there have been significant errors in this case with Mr X's case being overlooked on many different occasions. The Council says it has amended its processes to address some of the issues that have arisen in the case. That includes:
• weekly meetings with review officers to monitor cases which ensures decision letters are issued and recommendations made to the relevant team managers to action; and
• instructions given to team managers which require them to reopen cases they overturn on review themselves and update the notes, rather than leaving other officers to do that. That then ensures when a case is reopened it appears on the casework report and can be monitored by the manager.
33. I welcome those changes and would hope that means review requests will be dealt with properly in future. However, there were several other oversights in Mr X's case. I therefore recommended the Council carry out a case review to establish what went wrong at the various stages and identify an action plan to deal with those issues. The Council has accepted my recommendation.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr X £300.
35. Within three months of my decision the Council should:
• carry out a case review to establish what went wrong in this case and then draw up an action plan to address those issues.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman