Summary: Mr Y complained about the Council’s actions and lack of support when he approached it for homelessness advice. This led to him to being housed out of the area and he is now ineligible for its housing register. This caused him significant distress impacting on his mental health and wellbeing. We found the Council at fault. It agreed to make an apology, pay a further symbolic payment, and make a decision about a housing register application.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about a lack of support or assistance by the Council when he approached it for homelessness assistance after a relationship breakdown. He says, as a result of Council failings, he is in accommodation that is out of area, and he is now ineligible for its housing register as he no longer meets resident requirements. This has caused him significant frustration and distress which has had a negative impact on his mental health and vulnerabilities.  

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. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Mr Y raised financial concerns with a Letting Company. I have not investigated this as the Police are the appropriate body for this type of concern. We cannot add to this. I have referred to this for relevant context, but without specific details.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Ms X (who is dealing with the complaint on Mr Y’s behalf) and considered her views.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
8. Ms X, Mr Y, 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 administrative background

9. 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.
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (Housing Act 1996, section 188). Relevant to this complaint, applicants with mental health conditions, or who are vulnerable due to special reasons, or are at risk of abuse, may be in priority need.
11. Someone can be legally homeless is they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

What happened – summary of key relevant events

12. Mr Y has a complex history resulting in vulnerabilities and mental health conditions. He received professional help and support.
13. In December 2023, Mr Y submitted an online contact form for homelessness assistance. This outlined the nature of the relationship breakdown with his spouse; he described an incident and said he did not feel safe from their behaviour. He said it was badly affecting his mental health.
14. The next day, the Housing Service rang Mr Y. The records of this call noted Mr Y said his relationship had ended amicably with no reported incidents. The officer told him he had a right to stay in his property and his homeless application would be allocated to an officer.
15. A few weeks later, the Council sent an email to Mr Y as he was not happy with the call. It sent the notes to him and also said “in order to assess your application we will need to request information from you and make enquiries…a housing officer will contact you to further discuss your application and see how we can help you resolve your homelessness”.
16. In February 2024, Mr Y said he rang the Council several times as he had not heard back. His housing situation with his spouse had escalated further.
17. A Housing Officer contacted Mr Y and a few days later, a Letting Company arranged for him to view a private rented sector property. Mr Y emailed the Housing Officer saying he would sign the tenancy and asked some questions, including if it was temporary accommodation. Mr Y then signed the tenancy. He forwarded the details to the Housing Officer. Two weeks later, Mr Y chased a response asking what it meant for his housing situation. The Housing Officer said it meant he was not homeless as he had resolved his housing issue.
18. In March 2024, Mr Y formally complained to the Council. He said the property was out of borough, so he was now away from his support network, at detriment to his mental health. The Council did not explain to him the implications of accepting the tenancy and he would not have signed if he knew he would not get further help from the Council or would be excluded from applying from the housing register as he was no longer in Kingston. He said the Council had not properly assessed his application and it did not ask for any medical or health information. He also raised financial concerns with the Letting Company for his tenancy. He noted the Letting Company did not meet government requirements.
19. The Council responded to his complaint. It was satisfied with why it closed his case and would make contact with the Letting Company about his concerns. It then referred him to Stage One of its complaints process. Mr Y was dissatisfied as the Council did not treat his request as a formal complaint. He escalated it.
20. In April 2024, the Council responded at Stage Two and upheld his complaint. It found:
• When he approached its services in December 2023, it did not provide him with advice or a Personalised Housing Plan (“PHP”);
• It recognised without advice, he entered into a tenancy outside of Kingston without reasonable understanding or knowledge that doing so would prevent him from making an application to Kingston’s housing register as it required continuous residence in the borough;
• Its referral to the Letting Company was inappropriate as it did not meet government requirements; and
• It did not handle his complaint properly at Stage One.
21. The Council said it had spoken to the Letting Company. The Letting Company advised it made a financial action because of the tenancy Mr Y signed. The Council offered Mr Y an apology, a payment of £350 and internal recommendations to improve its service.
22. In July 2024, Mr Y complained to us. He added the property was unsuitable for him as the anti-social behaviour of other tenants impacted on his mental health. He had accepted the £350.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the officer who spoke to Mr Y in December 2023 did not consider his initial disclosure of not feeling safe due to his spouse’s behaviour as part of their assessment, with no evidence they specifically asked him about it.
24. I asked the Council about delays with Mr Y’s homeless application after that call, and about its consideration of its interim accommodation duty given his circumstances. The Council said the officer did not believe he was homeless at the time and did not take an application. It appreciated this conflicted with both the records of what the officer said to Mr Y and its final complaint response.
25. The Council said had it accepted him as homeless at the time with the likely banding it would place him in, it was very unlikely Mr Y would have received an offer of social housing in that time. There is high demand of applicants, along with higher priority and earlier registration dates, with average waiting times of years.

Analysis

26. The Council’s response to my enquiries has caused some unnecessary confusion. Since my investigation, it has said it did not think Mr Y was homeless in December 2023. This is despite it finding itself at fault for how it considered his approach to its Housing Service by not providing a PHP to Mr Y. We make evidence based decisions. The Council’s records and emails seen does not support the Council’s latest position. The evidence shows the Council told Mr Y at least twice it took a homeless application at the time, and it would make enquiries to help resolve his homelessness. This would show, while it initially told him he had a right to stay in the property, on balance, it still had reason to believe he was homeless and eligible for assistance.
27. Therefore, I maintain the Council’s original view that it was at fault with how it handled Mr Y’s homelessness situation.

Injustice and remedies

28. The Council accepted a number of faults in its Stage Two complaint response. Where we find there is fault causing injustice, our approach is to try and put the complainant back in the position they would have been, if possible, had it not been for the fault. I will consider the Council’s remedy and if there is remaining injustice.
29. The Council did not carry out a proper homeless assessment and referred Mr Y to accommodation out of the borough in the private rented sector without adequate advice. We make decisions on the balance of probabilities. Had it not been for the faults:
• With Mr Y’s initial contact in December 2023, it took a homeless application, so it had reason to believe he was homeless and eligible. He was also likely in priority need with his vulnerabilities. This is a low threshold. As per Paragraph 10, it did not consider its Section 188 duty. Had it considered this as it should, on balance, there was sufficient information that he met each criteria, so it should have provided interim accommodation while it made enquiries.
• The Council should have made further enquiries into Mr Y’s homelessness after the call. It allowed his case to drift. This is fault. It is likely the Council would have accepted the relief duty at that point. It should have issued a PHP with steps for Mr Y and the Council to take to relieve his homelessness, including support to apply to its housing register.
• After this, it is likely the Council would have accepted the main housing duty after 56 days. Any interim accommodation Mr Y was in would have become temporary accommodation, and with a right of review on suitability.
• Additionally, if it had done a proper assessment with further details of Mr Y’s medical needs, this likely would have been a guide to potential suitable accommodation it could offer him.
• Potentially, Mr Y may have eventually secured accommodation within the borough. (But it is unlikely he missed out on a potential social housing offer during the events of his complaint). However, it is also possible the Council could have decided to discharge any duty it should have owed him with a private rented sector offer out of the area (as he is now). But he would have had a right of review on suitability, which he currently does not have.
30. The Council also accepted fault with the Letting Company it used and has since confirmed to Mr Y it had stopped recommending it to applicants. This is appropriate action. I am not investigating the specific actions of the Letting Company (as set out in Paragraph 5). But the Council’s referral to it led to a situation which caused more distress to Mr Y, adding to his overall frustration.
31. We expect councils to ensure applicants are aware of the consequences of accepting accommodation, and of their rights that flow from these decisions. There is no evidence the Council informed Mr Y what accepting the tenancy meant for his housing situation at the time in February 2024. He was unable to make a fully informed decision. This is fault. He is vulnerable and lost his local connection.
32. The faults identified caused Mr Y considerable frustration and distress, along with lost opportunity and review rights. He also has a high level of uncertainty about what might have happened had it not been for the fault. This is significant injustice. He is likely to have been more severely affected due to his vulnerabilities. The Council’s offer of £350 acknowledges this, but in my view, given the above, it does not go far enough to address this injustice.
33. Mr Y says his current accommodation is unsuitable for his mental health needs, however on this type of basis, this would be a decision a council has to make. Mr Y wants the Council to carry out a full homeless application and suitability assessment. But events have since moved on; Mr Y is not homeless, so the Council has no housing duty to him, so we are unable to achieve this. I have made other recommendations that can go towards remedying any remaining injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

34. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
35. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr Y in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified; and
• Pay Mr Y a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise his frustration, distress and uncertainty. He has already accepted £350, and this would bring the total to £550.
36. Within two months of the final decision:
• The Council should consider whether it should accept Mr Y to its housing register as an exceptional case under its discretionary powers, taking into account of how its fault contributed to his current position. It should record in writing the reasons for its decision and what it has considered with his individual case, and send this to Mr Y. If it does decide to allow an application, the Council should backdate his application and appropriate priority banding accordingly.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman