Summary: Ms Y complains the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application poorly. She says this caused Mr X to be homeless which impacted his health. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X and take service improvement action.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application. Specifically, she complains the Council:

1. Did not provide him with support following his eviction;
2. Did not properly communicate to him it may not offer support;
3. Delayed handling her complaint.

2. She says this means Mr X is homeless which has impacted his physical health and emotional wellbeing. She says the delay responding to her complaint has caused her distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms Y and the Council. I also considered the relevant government guidance. Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies and the Ombudsman’s guidance ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homelessness (part a of the complaint)

8. 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.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

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

10. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. 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. This is called the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. 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)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

Complaint handling (part c of the complaint)

16. The Council’s website says it will acknowledge complaints in two working days.
17. It says a complaint at stage one will be passed to a manager in the service that the complaint relates to for an answer. The council will aim to reply within 15 working days from the date the complaint has been acknowledged. It says if it the response will take longer it will let the complainant know the reason why.
18. It says a complaint at stage two will be passed to a director or senior manager to respond. It says the Council will aim to reply within 20 working days from the date the complaint has been acknowledged. It says if it the response will take longer it will let the complainant know the reason why.

What happened

19. In August 2023 Mr X told the Council had been issued with a court order by his landlord and so was being evicted. He had a court date in September.
20. In mid-September, Mr X attended a face-to-face full housing assessment. The Council referred Mr X for a medical assessment.
21. In late September, the medical assessment was sent to the Council. The medical assessor considered Mr X’s mental health diagnoses and physical health problems. The assessor considered Mr X’s specific medical issues were not particularly significant.
22. In October, Mr X told the Council he had been given a Possession Order by his landlord. The Council told Mr X he should stay in the property until the eviction was enforced. It also told him it had completed a medical priority assessment and decided he did not meet priority need. It told him it would not offer him interim accommodation after he was evicted.
23. Mr X requested a review of its decision. He sent more medical evidence for the Council to consider.
24. In late October, Mr X’s support worker told the Council Mr X was being evicted. They asked the Council to advise Mr X about support it could provide him. The Council told Mr X’s support worker it needed a copy of the eviction notice which confirmed the date he would be evicted.
25. In November the Council asked Mr X if he had been evicted. Mr X told the Council he was waiting to receive an eviction notice.
26. In mid-February 2024, Mr X provided the Council with the eviction notice which confirmed he would be evicted by bailiffs in two weeks’ time. He also provided more medical information.
27. The Council told Mr X it needed a medical letter which detailed his diagnosis and treatment plan. Mr X sent the Council some more medical information.
28. The day before the eviction, in late February, Mr X and his support worker contacted the Council for advice. The Council told them it had not yet completed a new medical priority assessment. It told them if it was not completed by the eviction date, it would rely on the previous medical priority assessment completed in September 2023. It said if it relied on this assessment, it would not offer Mr X interim accommodation.
29. On the day of the eviction, the Council told Mr X and his support worker it had received the new medical priority assessment. It accepted the relief duty. It decided Mr X did not meet medical priority. It told him it would not provide him with interim accommodation. It gave him his right to request a review. It told Mr X it did not know any local night shelters. Mr X attended a Council office and requested further support. Mr X was turned away without receiving support.
30. In early March, Mr X’s family reported he was a missing person. The Council contacted Mr X’s support worker who advised she had not heard from him. The Council asked several homeless services to report any contact with him, all homeless services reported no contact with him.
31. The next day, Ms Y made a formal complaint.
32. In mid-March, the Council responded to Ms Y’s complaint.
33. In late March, Mr X contacted the Council for support. He told the officer he was rough sleeping. The officer advised Mr X to contact friends and family for support as it was the weekend. Mr X told the Council he could not seek support from his family. The officer told him that he did not meet the criteria for its emergency housing service. They told him to attend Council offices on Monday. Mr X did not attend.
34. In early April, the Council’s rough sleeping team contacted Mr X. The team asked Mr X to attend an appointment the following day. Mr X did not attend.
35. Ms Y escalated her complaint to stage two. Three days later, the Council acknowledged Ms Y’s stage two complaint. It said it would respond within 20 working days.
36. In late April, the Council responded to Ms Y’s stage two complaint.
37. In early May 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X informing him it had ended its relief duty. It said this was because it had complied with the relief duty. In its email the officer told Mr X they had tried to call him about housing options and would call him back.
38. A week later, the Council made a referral to a supported accommodation provider for Mr X. It did so using its discretionary powers.
39. In July, the Council wrote to Mr X and notified him it decided it does not have the main housing duty to him.

Analysis

Homelessness (part a of the complaint)

40. We expect councils to follow the statutory actions set out in law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where the Council has not properly completed these actions. The law says councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. It says 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. It says it should provide this information in writing to the applicant in a personalised housing plan. The Council completed a personalised housing plan with Mr X. The Council says it completed this plan with Mr X in September 2023. The plan I have seen is undated and unsigned. It lists actions the Council agreed to take including an affordability assessment for Mr X and a referral to supported accommodation. However, the plan did not detail when it would achieve actions by, and states all actions were not achieved. I find the Council at fault. This fault caused Mr X unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty because he did know when the Council should have completed its actions by.
41. The personalised housing plan details the Council would refer Mr X to a supported accommodation provider. The Council did not make the referral in September because it contacted Mr X’s landlord and due to the length of time it expected eviction court proceedings to take, it was satisfied Mr X was not at risk of homelessness within 56 days. I find no fault that the Council did not make a referral at that time.
42. Between September and February, the Council was in regular contact with Mr X and his support worker requesting and responding to updates about his ongoing eviction process. I consider it demonstrated good administrative practice during this time. Once Mr X provided the Council with an eviction notice in February, the Council made a timely decision it did not owe him a duty to provide interim accommodation because it had decided he did not meet priority need. It gave Mr X the details to request a review of its decision. He did not request a review.
43. The Council sought two medical assessments to assist with its decision about whether Mr X had priority need. The first assessment was in September 2023 and the second was on the day of his eviction, in February 2024. Both assessors considered all relevant information submitted by Mr X about his mental and physical health. Both medical assessors considered Mr X’s specific medical issues were not particularly significant. The Council decided Mr X did not meet priority need. The Council considered the medical assessments, information provided by Mr X and his support worker and his case file. I am satisfied the Council considered all available information and therefore I find no fault in its decision making.
44. Once Mr X was homeless, the Council should have reviewed Mr X’s personalised housing plan. The Council did not do so, which is fault. On the day of eviction, Mr X attended a Council office and was told by Council staff that housing support was not in that office. He had previously attended a ‘Housing Hub’ which is a short walk from that Council office. I consider it was reasonable for Mr X to attend the ‘Housing Hub’ office to seek support available from specialist housing staff.
45. Once the Council was aware Mr X had been reported as a missing person, it made reasonable efforts to find him. This included contacting his support worker and asking staff at homeless services to report any contact with him. The support worker and staff reported no contact with Mr X. When Mr X contacted the Council at the end of March, it told him to attend the Council offices the next working day for assistance, which he did not do. The rough sleeping team located him a week later and made an appointment for him the following day, which he did not attend.
46. In July, the Council made its decision it did not owe Mr X the main housing duty. This was two months after it ended its relief duty to him. The Code says where a council has all the information it needs to make a decision in relation to the applicant's priority need, it should be possible to issue a notification on or around day 57, so the day following the end of the relief duty. The information the Council relied on in its decision about Mr X’s priority need was available on the day it ended its relief duty. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to make its decision at that time. This two-month delay is fault which caused Mr X unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty. It also delayed him accessing his statutory appeal rights, however as he did not use his appeal right, I consider this injustice to be limited.
47. On balance, although I find the Council at fault for not dating the actions in Mr X’s personalised housing plan in September 2023, not reviewing the plan when Mr X became homeless and delaying its main duty decision, I do not consider the Council’s actions caused Mr X to become homeless. The law says Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. The Council was not obliged to provide Mr X with interim accommodation following his eviction because he was not in priority need, and Mr X did not request a review of this decision. Further, Mr X did not attend two meetings as directed by the Council following his eviction and so could have done more to engage with support and explore other available support services. Lastly, the Council decided it did not owe Mr X the main housing duty and therefore was not obliged to house Mr X. It completed the supported accommodation referral in May using its discretionary powers. I consider the Council took reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for Mr X. For these reasons, I do not find the Council’s actions caused Mr X to become homeless.

Communication (part b of the complaint)

48. The Ombudsman’s guidance ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ states a council should inform service users what they can expect and what the organisation expects from them. I am satisfied in its correspondence with Mr X the Council was straightforward about the process it was following and told him it may not offer him interim accommodation following his eviction if it found he was not in priority need. I find no fault in the Council’s communication with Mr X prior to his eviction.
49. This said, Mr X may have still expected the Council to support him find alternative housing because of its action to refer him to supported accommodation in his personalised housing plan. I have addressed this matter in the section above.

Complaint handling (part c of the complaint)

50. The Council acknowledged Ms Y’s stage one complaint the day after receiving it. This is in line with its published timescale and so is not fault. It then responded to her complaint within the 10-working day timescale it gave her and so is not fault. It also responded to Ms Y’s stage two complaint within the 20-working day timescale it gave her and so is not fault.
51. The Council acknowledged Ms Y’s stage two complaint within three working days. This is one day later than its published timescale, however I do not consider this delay significant enough to make a finding of fault.

Back to top

Action

52. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide a written apology to Mr X for the uncertainty caused by the lack of detailed timescales in his personalised housing plan, and the two-month delay in the Council issuing its decision that it does not owe him the main housing duty.
2. Make a payment of £300 to Mr X to remedy the uncertainty caused by the lack of detailed timescales in his personalised housing plan, and the two-month delay in the Council issuing its decision that it does not owe him the main housing duty. In arriving at this figure, I considered our published guidance on remedies. I consider this amount to be appropriate and proportionate to the injustice caused to Mr X.
53. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. take action to ensure its staff fully complete personalised housing plan documents with all necessary information including timescale dates for actions, and ensure all plans are signed by the applicant and the officer.
2. take action to ensure its staff complete the actions in personalised housing plans at the earliest opportunity.
3. review its policy and/or training to relevant staff with consideration on issuing timely decisions in accordance with the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X and take service improvement action.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman