Summary: We have found fault with the Council for how it handled Miss X’s homelessness application. This delayed the process and left Miss X and her son without suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Miss X and her son and for the avoidable distress the fault caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness application. She said the Council delayed processing her application and failed to communicate with her when her caseworkers left the Council. She said the Council offered her unsuitable accommodation which led to her and her son rough-sleeping.

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. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss 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

Law and guidance

Threatened with homelessness – definition

6. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

7. 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)

Landlord eviction

8. The Homeless Code of Guidance (the ‘Code’) says in determining whether it would be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation following expiry of a valid section 21 notice the authority will need to consider all the factors relevant to the case and decide the weight that each should attract. Authorities should not adopt a blanket policy or practice on the point at which it will no longer be reasonable for an applicant to occupy following the expiry of a section 21 notice.
9. Where an applicant is:
1. an assured shorthold tenant who has received a valid notice in accordance with section 21 of the Housing Act 1988;
2. the housing authority is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession and further efforts from the housing authority to resolve the situation and persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain in the property are unlikely to be successful; and,
3. there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;
10. then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice, unless the housing authority is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.
11. The Code goes on to say it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy after the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord. Housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in the property until a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.

The prevention duty

12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

13. 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 (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

14. 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)
15. 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)

What happened

16. Miss X has physical disabilities, and her son has severe mental health problems. Miss X approached the Council in October 2023. She had been served a section 21 (S21) notice by her landlord. The Council allocated a caseworker to Miss X. The Council’s notes show the caseworker contacted Miss X once in November to obtain a copy of the S21.
17. In March 2024, Miss X contacted the Council for an update on her case as she had received no further contact from her caseworker. The Council informed Miss X that her caseworker had left the Council. It apologised to Miss X for failing to notify her or allocate a new caseworker.
18. The Council allocated Miss X a new caseworker. The caseworker assessed Miss X.
19. In May, Miss X chased the Council. It emailed Miss X about the eviction process. It stated that Miss X would not need to leave her property until the bailiff warrant eviction date. Miss X reminded the Council that she had two dogs, that she regarded as service dogs for her son.
20. The Council notified Miss X that it has accepted the prevention duty (backdated to April) and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). It also asked for more details of the dogs. The Council referred Miss X’s case to the medical advisor to consider whether Miss X’s son needs the dogs on medical grounds.
21. The medical advisor and GP confirmed that Miss X’s son needed the dogs for medical reasons. They, and an occupational therapist recommended that Miss X needed dog-friendly accommodation, preferably with no stairs, stairlift if split level, with space outside for wheelchair/scooter storage.
22. Miss X’s second caseworker left the Council at the end of June 2024. The Council allocated a new caseworker.
23. In October, Miss X was issued with a bailiff warrant with an eviction date in three weeks’ time. The Council ended the prevention duty, and accepted relief duty.
24. On the day of the eviction, the Council offered interim accommodation to Miss X. Miss X refused the offer as it was on the second floor. The Council offered alternative interim accommodation which then refused Miss X as it did not allow pets.
25. The Council said that without the dogs, it deemed the accommodation suitable, and therefore it considered Miss X to have refused the offer. It gave Miss one week to accept the offer, it then discharged it S188 interim accommodation) duty.
26. Miss X said that she and her son slept in a friend’s car and spent some nights sleeping in a park after the bailiffs evicted her. The Council said that there is no evidence that Miss X was rough sleeping. It said the case notes suggest that Miss X had advised the Council that she had found her own property and she did not advise the Council at the time that she was rough sleeping.
27. Miss X said that a month after she was evicted, she found a private rented property that allowed dogs. The Council said it assisted her to sign the tenancy and collect the keys.

My findings

Absence of a caseworker

28. In its response to Miss X, the Council acknowledged that it should have notified her that her caseworker had left and allocated a new one. The absence of a caseworker for four months meant that nothing had been done to prevent Miss X’s homelessness. This was fault which caused Miss X uncertainty and delayed progress on her homelessness application.
29. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress caused.

Delay in securing interim accommodation

30. As instructed by the Council, Miss X and her son remained in their private rented accommodation until bailiffs evicted them. The Code says that councils should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in a property until a court issues a warrant to enforce an order for possession. The enforced departure from your home is an extremely stressful and distressing process. This was fault which caused avoidable distress for Miss X and her son.
31. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment in recognition of the distress caused.

Unsuitable accommodation

32. The Council offered interim accommodation on the final eviction date. I do not agree with the Council’s view that the offer was suitable accommodation. The evidence shows that medical advice confirmed that Miss X’s son needed the dogs for therapy purposes and dog-friendly accommodation would be suitable. Therefore, the Council’s offer of a property with a no pet policy, was not suitable. When the Council discharged its duty, this was fault. This left Miss X and her son without accommodation when they needed it.
33. The Council has agreed to make a payment in recognition of the failure to deliver suitable accommodation. Based on our guidance on remedies, this is an amount at the higher end of the range. Miss X’s son is a vulnerable child with severe mental health problems which meant the injustice would have been greater.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for failing to inform her that her caseworker had left and allocating her a new one, and for failing to provide suitable accommodation.
2. Pay Miss X £350 in recognition of the month she spent with nowhere suitable to stay.
3. Pay Miss X’s son £350 in recognition of the month he spent with nowhere suitable to stay.
4. Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s failings.

Within 8 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:

5. Remind line managers of departing caseworkers to notify customers of their departure and re-allocate their cases accordingly.
6. Demonstrate how it will ensure that officers always carry out a suitability assessment to identify the household’s needs before making a placement in interim or temporary accommodation.
5. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have found the Council at fault for how it handled Miss X’s homelessness application. This caused Miss X and her son avoidable injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy this injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman