Summary: The Council was at fault in its handling of Mr X's homelessness when he first approached in 2023 and when he made a further application in 2024. To remedy the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X. The Council will also act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council's handling of his homelessness when he first approached in August 2023 and when he made a further application in April 2024.
2. Mr X says the Council did not accept duties, communicate with him or take steps to help relieve his homelessness.
3. As a result, Mr X says he was homeless from October 2023 until September 2024, staying in hotels until his money ran out and then sleeping in a van. Mr X says he experienced significant and avoidable distress.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
8. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
9. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
10. 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

Homelessness law and guidance

11. 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.
12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. 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)
14. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. This assessment must include:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)
15. 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)
16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called 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)
17. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
18. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

What happened

August 2023 to January 2024

19. Mr X first approached the Council for help in August 2023. He told the Council his landlord had given him notice to leave his private tenancy. The following day, Mr X told the Council, by email, that he is a veteran of the armed forces and has PTSD. He said he was advised by other services supporting him to share this with the Council. Mr X shared a copy of the court's order granting possession with the Council.
20. The records show the Council met with Mr X in a face-to-face appointment a week later. The housing officer recorded that the notice asking Mr X to leave had expired in mid-August and he was waiting for the landlord to get a warrant for bailiffs to take possession of the property.
21. Mr X's landlord got a warrant to enforce possession for a date in mid-October. A few days before this, a veteran's organisation contacted the Council on Mr X's behalf to ask for an update. The Council replied to say it had "done some referrals for him". It said it would not be providing emergency accommodation to Mr X.
22. On the day he was due to be evicted, the Council asked Mr X to send it three months of bank statements.
23. In December, the Council emailed Mr X to say it had not heard from him and ask if he still needed help with housing. Mr X replied to say he was living in a van some of the time. He said it was difficult to make contact until he was able to afford a hotel and had access to its internet. He confirmed he still needed help.
24. In early January 2024, the Council told Mr X its rough sleeper team could support him if he shared where he was parking. It said it needed new bank statements from him as the previous ones were now dated.
25. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it closed Mr X's case on 17 January because Mr X had not contacted it.

August 2023 to January 2024 – findings

26. If it has reason to believe an applicant might be homeless or threatened with homeless, the Council has a duty to make inquiries and decide what, if any, further duty it owes. There is no evidence the Council decided what, if any duty, it owed Mr X. This was fault. Mr X had a notice to leave his private tenancy. On balance, therefore, the Council would have decided he was threatened with homelessness. This means the Council should have accepted the prevention duty in August 2023. When Mr X was evicted in October, the Council should have accepted the relief duty.
27. If it is satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, the Council must complete an assessment of the applicant's circumstances and housing needs. There is no evidence the Council carried out a proper assessment of Mr X's circumstances. Failure to do so was fault.
28. Mr X told the Council he was a veteran and had PTSD. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it had reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need. Failure to do so was fault. The Code of Guidance sets out the relevant matters for the Council when considering priority need for veterans. The Council's failure to make a proper assessment or record its consideration of these matters was fault.
29. The Council should have sent Mr X a personalised housing plan setting out steps for both he and the Council to take. There is no evidence it did so and this was fault. There is no evidence the Council told Mr X he could apply to join the housing register. This was fault. Although it said it had made referrals, there is no evidence in the records to show it did so. This means I cannot say whether the Council made these referrals. This failure in record keeping was fault.
30. Mr X acknowledges that he was not engaging well with the Council at the time. Given he had just been evicted and was trying to hold down a full-time job without a permanent home, this is hardly surprising. Yet there is no evidence the Council made any efforts to contact Mr X between October and December. Failure to do so was fault. When it made contact, Mr X told the Council he still needed help. Despite this, it made limited further efforts to contact him. This was fault.
31. The Council says it closed Mr X's case on 17 January because it had lost contact with him. There is no evidence of this decision in the records at the time. Nor is there any evidence the Council communicated this decision to Mr X. This was fault. The Code of Guidance says 56 days is a reasonable period of no contact after which to close a case. The Council's most recent contact with Mr X was less than a month earlier. Closing the case in January 2024 was fault.
32. The Council's faults denied Mr X the formal support he was entitled to under the law. This is an injustice to Mr X. A PHP might have helped Mr X to better engage, as he could have referred to the steps he should take.
33. I cannot say that Mr X's homelessness would have been resolved had the Council dealt properly with his 2023 application. By his own admission, Mr X was not engaging consistently with support. Nor can I say, even on balance, if the Council had reason to believe he might be in priority need and so owed him interim accommodation. This arises from the Council's poor record keeping and failure to make relevant inquiries. Nevertheless, Mr X must live with the uncertainty. This is an injustice to Mr X.

April to August 2024

34. Mr X approached the Council again in late April 2024. He told the Council he was living in B&Bs and hotels until his money ran out each month. Then, he would sleep in a van or sleep rough.
35. The Council met with Mr X face to face. The records show the Council told Mr X it had no reason to believe he might be in priority need and so would not provide him with emergency housing. The Council said it would send Mr X a list of estate agents and charities to contact to look for housing.
36. The Council sent Mr X this email the same day. At the end of the email, the Council asked Mr X to provide various documents, including bank statements and evidence about the end of his previous tenancy.
37. In early May, the Council said it had not received the documents it needed from Mr X. It told him if he did not provide the information by 17 May, it would close his case. Mr X replied to say he would provide updated bank statements and pay slips. He said he had provided all the documents about his previous tenancy when he approached the previous year. He told the Council he no longer had these documents.
38. On 15 May, the Council replied to a text message from Mr X to confirm it had received the documents he had sent. Mr X asked a local councillor to contact the Council on his behalf about his homelessness. In response to the councillor, the Council said now it had received the documents, it would consider accepting the relief duty to Mr X.
39. Mr X asked the Council for another face-to-face meeting. He expressed frustration that nothing was happening, and he was still homeless. The records indicate Mr X was disputing a suggestion by the Council that he had not provided the documents about his eviction the previous year. The records do not include the communication giving rise to Mr X's objection. The records do show Mr X felt the Council was accusing him of lying.
40. Mr X attended the Council's offices in person twice in May asking for an update on his case. He also requested a different officer be allocated to his case.
41. In an email to a veteran's support service, the Council said that "half of what [Mr X] writes is lies again" and that Mr X had "lied to us about sleeping in a van since Nov 2023 when he has been renting Air B&B".
42. In mid-June, a homelessness charity contacted the Council on Mr X's behalf. The Council's note of the call says the charity asked the Council to issue a decision so Mr X could use his right of review. The note says the charity told the Council that if the Council "rectify the relief duty, [the charity] will not go to judicial review." During the call, the charity told the Council that it had also supported Mr X the previous year when he was evicted.
43. On 18 June, the Council sent Mr X a letter closing his case. It said there was no proof Mr X was homeless. It said he had been staying in B&Bs frequently and had the income to be able to find somewhere to rent. This letter did not set out Mr X's right to ask for a review of this decision. Mr X responded to ask for a review.
44. The Council re-sent the letter on 20 June, this time including the right to review.
45. In early July, the Council completed the review. It overturned its decision and accepted the relief duty to Mr X. It allocated a new officer to his case.
46. The records show the Council shared details of possible properties with Mr X throughout August. Mr X was successful in securing one of these properties and is no longer homeless.

2024 – findings

47. The Council repeated many of the same faults in 2024 as it did in 2023. It did not carry out a proper assessment of Mr X's needs and circumstances. This was fault. It did not decide what, if any, duty it owed Mr X in April or May, even after telling the councillor it would do so. This was fault.
48. The Council properly recorded at its first interview with Mr X that it had no reason to believe he might be in priority need. It therefore did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation. Where a council has made a decision properly, we cannot question the outcome. Therefore, there was no fault in the Council not providing Mr X with interim accommodation.
49. However, the Council should have made a formal decision that Mr X was not in priority need. This carries a right of review and then appeal to court. The Council's failure to issue such a reviewable decision was fault.
50. Instead, it made a bizarre decision that it had no reason to believe Mr X was homeless, later corrected to a formal decision that Mr X was not homeless. Usually, we do not investigate where there is a right of review. However, I am concerned about the basis of the Council's decision making. The evidence suggests the Council thought Mr X was lying about sleeping in a van when he was staying in B&Bs. However, the records clearly show Mr X telling the Council several times that he was staying in hotels and B&Bs most of the time and then sleeping in a van when he ran out of money. In contrast, there is no evidence Mr X told the Council he was sleeping in a van all the time. And in any event, even if Mr X were staying in B&Bs all the time, this would still make him homeless under the law.
51. There was, therefore, no basis for the Council's decision that Mr X was not homeless. This was fault. Most of the injustice caused by this fault was remedied by the review process working as it should and overturning the decision. However, it caused Mr X avoidable distress. This is an injustice to Mr X.
52. But for the faults in its handling of Mr X's 2024 homeless application, the Council should have accepted the relief duty by, at the latest, May. It did not do so until early July. This delay caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant the Council was not taking steps to help him relieve his homelessness. This is an injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

53. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
• Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the faults in 2023
• Pay Mr X a further £300 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the faults in 2024.
54. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
55. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Remind relevant staff that they should issue formal decisions accepting homeless duties at the earliest opportunity. Provide training or guidance as needed.
• Remind relevant staff of the matters to consider and record when deciding whether there is reason to believe an applicant, and particularly a veteran of the armed forces, might be in priority need such that an interim duty to accommodate arises.
• Remind relevant staff of the duty to complete an assessment and issue a personalised housing plan when it is satisfied someone is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Provide training or guidance as needed.
• Remind relevant staff that where it decides a homeless applicant is not in priority need, it should issue a formal decision setting out the right of review and appeal.
56. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman