Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly process her homelessness application. We found fault by the Council that resulted in Miss X and her family being homeless for four months longer than necessary. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make her a payment in recognition of the injustice caused to her and her family.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly process her homelessness application, resulting in her and her children being homeless for longer than necessary. Miss X stated this caused her and her children distress, financial hardship, inconvenience and negatively impacted their mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of my investigation I have:
• considered Miss X’s complaint and invited Miss X to discuss it with me:
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• considered the relevant legislation, guidance and policies;
• had regard to our guidance on remedies; and
• set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and invited Miss X and the Council to comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. 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.
6. 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. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
7. If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2) and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Housing Allocations

8. 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))
9. Most Councils’ allocations schemes use either a points or banding system to prioritise between applicants. Section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1993 sets out that councils must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

10. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. The Council places housing applicants into one of six bands according to their housing need. Band A is the highest priority, then band B homeless, band B and so on until band E which has the lowest priority.

What happened

11. Miss X and her children lived in privately rented accommodation with her children. She applied to the Council’s housing register. The Council awarded her housing application priority band B.
12. In August 2022 Miss X told the Council her and her children were threatened with homelessness as her landlord was looking to sell her privately rented home.
13. In September the Council accepted the prevention duty to Miss X.
14. In January 2023 Miss X told the Council she had moved in with her parents because her landlord had a Possession Order. She told the Council her and her children would be sleeping on the sofa and floor.
15. The Council told Miss X that it owed her the relief duty, as she was now homeless.
16. Miss X told the Council she was paying for storage for her belongings. She states the Council told her Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) would help her pay for her storage costs.
17. In March the Council told Miss X it owed her the main housing duty. It awarded her housing application band B homeless priority.
18. On 27 October the Council closed Miss X’s homelessness application in error. It reduced the priority banding awarded to Miss X’s housing application to band B.
19. In January 2024 Miss X contacted the Council for an update on her case. The Council wrongly opened a new homelessness case for Miss X and later closed it.
20. In March Miss X contacted the Council again. The Council wrongly said it owed Miss X the prevention duty, and so her housing application remained in Band B.
21. In April Miss X bid for Property Y. Her bid was unsuccessful.
22. Miss X complained to the Council. She said her bid for Property Y should have been successful. She also complained she was paying for storage when the Council told her DHPs would cover the cost. She said she only received one DHP, for the first month’s storage costs.
23. The Council’s replied. It said:
• it accepted it had mismanaged Miss X’s homelessness application. It said it had reinstated the correct priority banding for her housing application. It said it would pay her £350 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused to her.
• it is arranging training for officers to make sure homelessness applications are processed correctly and not closed in error.
• because of budgetary constraints, it can no longer provide DHP for storage costs. It is reviewing the policy and may be able to offer Miss X help with moving costs when she is allocated a permanent home. It agreed to pay £500 towards her storage costs.
• it apologised as the complaint response did not meet the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
24. Unhappy with the Council’s response Miss X complained to us. In response to our enquiries the Council said:
• it awarded Miss X’s housing application priority band B before she made a homelessness application. Therefore, she was still able to bid for accommodation even when her application was not given the correct priority banding.
• it said Miss X might have successfully bid on Property Y if her housing application had been awarded the correct priority. It said she did not miss out on any other properties while her housing application was incorrectly banded.
• officers did not tell Miss X she would be made a direct offer or accommodation as it does not make such offers. It is likely she was told she had a good chance of being offered a property now her housing application was awarded band B Homeless priority.
• Miss X secured permanent accommodation in August and the Council has ended the main duty to her. It paid the deposit and first months’ rent for Miss X’s new home.

Finding

25. The Council closed Miss X’s homelessness application in October 2023. It should not have done so as Miss X remained homeless. This is fault.
26. Miss X’s homelessness application was not correctly reinstated until May 2024. This means the Council did not award Miss X’s housing application the correct priority banding for six months. This is fault.
27. The Council has taken actions to prevent a recurrence of the fault we have found and so, I do not consider it is necessary to make service improvement recommendations.
28. The Council says that Miss X may have successfully bid for Property Y if it had awarded her housing application the correct priority banding. There is no evidence suggesting she may have successfully bid for other properties during the period her application was incorrectly banded.
29. If the Council had awarded Miss X’s housing application the correct priority banding, she would have been the highest place bidder for Property Y. I am not aware of any reasons why Miss X’s bid would not have been accepted. Therefore, I consider Miss X’s bid would likely have been successful, save for the fault I have found.
30. Because of the identified fault Miss X and her family were homeless for four months longer than necessary. This is injustice.
31. Miss X says the Council said it would make DHP to her to cover her storage costs when she was made homeless. However, the Council’s DHP policy altered and so it is no longer making DHP towards storage costs. The Council has correctly applied its policy to Miss X and so I do not consider its decision is at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss X, the Council will within in one month of my final decision:

• pay Miss X a further £900 in recognition she and her family remained homeless longer than was necessary. The payment recognises the impact on Miss X and her family of being homeless for four months longer than necessary and the storage costs she incurred during this period. The payment also recognises the previous payment made by the Council to Miss X recognition of the injustice caused to her.

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

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council which caused injustice, which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman