Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider or make reasonable adjustments when she asked it for homelessness support. Ms X also said the Council communicated poorly and failed to offer any advice or help with her housing circumstances. We have found the Council at fault for failing to have regard for its duty to consider and make reasonable adjustments in Ms X’s case. We have also found the Council at fault for its communication and for how it managed Ms X’s homelessness approach. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay a financial remedy in recognition of her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has also agreed to provide guidance to officers and review ways it can improve its procedures.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained:
1. The Council failed to make reasonable adjustments to its homelessness procedures. This significantly affected Ms X’s wellbeing, exacerbating the impact of her health conditions and causing avoidable distress.
2. The Council communicated poorly throughout, compounding the avoidable distress Ms X experienced and causing avoidable uncertainty.
3. The Council failed to offer Ms X any support or advice to help her resolve her housing situation, despite accepting the prevention duty towards her.

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. 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.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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

6. Ms X told the Ombudsman the Council refused her application for a Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) in September 2024. In October 2024, the Council reviewed its decision and reversed it, awarding Ms X a payment to help with rent and removal costs. Ms X believed the Council could have made this decision sooner.
7. This matter occurred after Ms X’s approach to the Ombudsman and did not form part of Ms X’s complaint to the Council. The Council has not therefore considered this as a complaint and the restriction set out in paragraph 4 applies. It would be open to Ms X to make a separate complaint to the Council about this and approach the Ombudsman, if she remains dissatisfied with the outcome.
8. While I have not investigated this matter, I have included reference to it in this statement for context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered information she provided.
10. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
11. Both Ms X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Threatened with homelessness

12. 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

13. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

15. 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 provide advisory services

16. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
• preventing homelessness;
• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

Review rights

17. 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 18.30)
18. Relevant to this complaint, homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• 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.

Reasonable adjustments

19. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
20. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
21. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
22. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
23. We have published guidance for local authorities called “Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities”. This looked at complaints we received about this topic and offers good practice advice to councils.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

24. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
25. In February 2024, Ms X received a section 21 (s21) eviction notice from her landlord, with an expiry date of 4 May 2024.
26. Ms X telephoned the Council for help. She said the Council directed her to complete a self-referral through its online portal service. Ms X said that due to her health conditions, she found the portal difficult to use. Ms X said she needed help from an independent advisory service to confirm her application had been successfully completed.
27. The Council said it received Ms X’s application on 15 March 2024. The Council asked Ms X to provide information to support her application. This included identification and an extensive address history. The Council said Ms X had 10 working days to provide this information. It said Ms X’s application could be closed if she did not provide the information sought. Ms X went on to provide this information.
28. On 28 March 2024, Ms X complained to the Council:
1. The Council’s records state Ms X wanted to complain about disability discrimination. Ms X said she had several health conditions and was chronically physically ill. She said receiving the s21 notice had been traumatising and caused a significant deterioration in her health, as stress was a trigger for her conditions.
2. Ms X said the pressure to provide a significant volume of evidence within 10 days had negatively impacted her health. Ms X said the Council had offered no adjustments for her disabilities and no support. She said she had tried to call the Council for help, but could not get through. She said she had sent emails, but received no response. She said the Council’s lack of guidance and support had made her health worse.
29. In April 2024, Ms X and the Council exchanged emails about delays in the application procedure and the impact on Ms X’s wellbeing:
1. Ms X told the Council she was primarily housebound. She had asked if any appointments could take place over the phone or in person, but had not received a response. Ms X said giving disabled people 10 days to supply large amounts of information, while offering no flexibility and not responding to messages, was not acceptable.
2. The Council apologised for the delay. It said it had switched to a new system, which had caused delays. The Council said some information needed from Ms X was missing. Once Ms X provided this, a caseworker would complete Ms X’s assessment.
30. In mid-April 2024, the Council told Ms X she could book an assessment online. A caseworker contacted Ms X and said they would complete an assessment by telephone. Ms X said the Council missed this appointment. Ms X said she needed to rest, but did not know if the Council would call again and was concerned she would miss it if the Council did.
31. On 17 April 2024, the Council responded to Ms X’s stage one complaint:
1. The Council said it asked applicants for information needed within two weeks. It said if applicants asked for added time due to disability, it would make allowances. The Council apologised if it had not made this clear to Ms X.
2. The Council accepted there had been a delay. It apologised for this.
32. The Council completed a housing assessment with Ms X by telephone. On 19 April 2024, the Council sent Ms X a decision letter confirming it accepted the prevention duty towards her. The Council said it also sent Ms X a link to access her PHP.
33. Ms X escalated her complaint to the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. On 3 May 2024, the Council responded:
1. The Council apologised it had not returned Ms X’s calls. It said it had reminded staff of expectations.
2. The Council said all staff were trained to help vulnerable people and account for medical need. The Council said it had placed a note on Ms X’s case, advising it should not be closed if Ms X was late submitting documents. However, the Council said Ms X should try to plan to make sure she sent documents on time.
34. In August 2024, Ms X approached the Ombudsman. Shortly after this, Ms X exchanged further emails with the Council:
1. Ms X said she had received no contact from her caseworker. She said there had been no response to her emails. She said she had now learned her caseworker had left the Council.
2. Ms X said the Council had provided no support while she searched for new accommodation, or negotiated with landlords. She said all essential queries had been ignored.
3. Ms X had identified a possible new property and wanted advice. Ms X said she had made applications for DHPs. She asked if these could be expedited in view of the Council’s delays.
4. The Council apologised for its lack of communication.
35. Ms X contacted the Council on several further occasions asking for an update. In September 2024, the Council told Ms X it could not offer any financial assistance. Ms X moved into her new property.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Reasonable adjustments

36. Paragraphs 20 and 21 set out the Council’s anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments. The Ombudsman’s published focus report also sets out our expected good practice for local authorities. Examples of expected good practice include:
• Anticipating the need for reasonable adjustments when developing policies and procedures.
• Proactively asking individuals whether they would benefit from reasonable adjustments to help them access council services.
• Clearly recording individual requests for reasonable adjustments.
• Clearly recording how councils assess requests and decide whether to make the adjustment requested.
37. The Council told me it may grant added time if an applicant asked for reasons related to a disability. It also said where applicants faced difficulty using its portal service, it could accept documents by email, or in some cases accept documents at one of its housing receptions. If an applicant still faced difficulty, the Council would signpost them to other agencies that could assist.
38. I have identified the following points of concern in how the Council approached its duty in Ms X’s case:
1. I have seen no evidence the Council asked Ms X if she needed it to make reasonable adjustments when she first contacted the Council, in February 2024.
2. In its stage one complaint response, the Council said it would always provide extra time for applicants if they asked for this on grounds of a disability, or another reasonable reason. However, the Council’s initial email to applicants, which it sent to Ms X in March 2024, does not make this clear. This email stated the Council may close an applicant’s approach if they did not provide the requested information in 10 days.
3. In April 2024, Ms X asked for reasonable adjustments, asking if appointments could be conducted either over the phone or in person. The Council’s response did not address this request. Instead, it said it normally completed its assessments virtually. It later completed an assessment by phone.
4. In its stage two complaint response, the Council said it had placed a note on Ms X’s account, advising it should not be closed if Ms X sent documents late. However, it said Ms X should still plan to send documents on time. The Council’s response did not explain how much extra time it would provide to Ms X, nor confirm whether it had actually agreed to her request for a reasonable adjustment. It still implied Ms X should meet its 10-day deadline.
39. In sum, the Council cannot show it considered its duty when Ms X first contacted the Council for help. Nor can it show it properly considered Ms X’s requests for adjustments, or concerns about the impact of the procedure on her wellbeing, over the following months. It repeatedly referred Ms X to its existing procedures in its responses, encouraging Ms X to adhere to these. It did not make a clear decision as to whether it agreed to, and would formally implement, Ms X’s requests. The Council’s response also suggests it is not proactively making individuals aware of adjustments it could offer, where needed. The onus is very much on the applicant to raise their difficulties with the Council, presumably after already having experienced a barrier in accessing a key service.
40. For these reasons, I have found the Council at fault for failing to have proper regard for its duty to make reasonable adjustments in Ms X’s case.
41. This fault, if replicated in other cases, could cause injustice to others in the future. I address this in my recommendations.

Communication

42. The available evidence shows Ms X experienced frequent difficulty communicating with the Council:
1. Ms X was unable to contact the Council by phone when completing her initial referral, despite making several attempts.
2. Ms X frequently received no response to emails seeking assistance. Often the Council also did not return Ms X’s calls.
3. A homelessness assessment scheduled for 12 April 2024 did not take place, as the Council did not call Ms X as it said it would.
4. Ms X had to provide repeat information to the Council on multiple occasions.
5. Ms X’s caseworker left the Council without Ms X being aware.
43. In its complaint responses, the Council accepted it had communicated poorly with Ms X. I agree with the Council’s assessment. I have found the Council at fault for its poor communication with Ms X.

Homelessness support and advice

44. Ms X completed her application in March 2024, providing the information the Council sought. The Council completed Ms X’s assessment in April 2024. In its correspondence and complaints responses, the Council accepted delays in completing Ms X’s homelessness assessment. It said this delay was due to it updating its systems.
45. I recognise the Council accepted its delay in completing Ms X’s assessment, which is fault. I agree with the Council’s conclusion and propose to make the same finding.
46. The Council accepted a prevention duty towards Ms X. It sent Ms X a decision letter on 19 April 2024 confirming this. It provided a right to request a review of its decision. The Council’s notification of its decision was compliant with the requirements of the Code. I have not found the Council at fault for this.
47. I have seen evidence the Council sent Ms X a link to access her PHP on the same day it sent its decision letter. This appears to have been sent through its portal service. Ms X said she never saw a copy of her PHP and the Council could not provide me with a copy. However, the Council’s decision letter sets out the actions the Council expected Ms X to take and the actions the Council said it would take. Summarised:
1. The Council said Ms X should register with estate agents, review property websites at the local library, and begin saving for costs associated with moving. It said Ms X should check her benefit entitlement and consider properties outside of the district. The Council also said Ms X should confirm which estate agents she registered with and attend any viewings arranged for her.
2. The Council said it would check what actions Ms X had taken and provide advice. It said it would refer Ms X to external organisations or estate agents where needed. The Council also said it would make Ms X aware if it found a suitable private rented property. It said it could assist with an application for a discretionary housing payment for a deposit or rent advance.
48. The Council did not make clear Ms X had the right to ask for a review of the actions the Council expected her to take. I have found the Council at fault for failing to make clear Ms X had this review right.
49. This fault, if replicated in other cases, could cause injustice for others in the future. I address this in my recommendations.
50. I asked the Council for evidence of how it had acted to support Ms X by completing the steps defined in her PHP. I also asked for evidence of how the Council kept Ms X’s PHP under review, ensuring it remained accurate and relevant for her circumstances. The Council told me it had no evidence on file, as Ms X’s caseworker had since left the Council. I have found the Council at fault for not keeping an evidentiary record of its actions in respect of Ms X’s PHP.
51. The Code sets out the approach councils should take in circumstances where applicants have received a s21 notice. It sets out how the council should assess the applicant’s ongoing occupation at a property and the Council’s prevention duty.
52. Summarised, the Code says where a tenant has been given notice, councils should note that just because the tenant has a legal right to remain in occupation does not necessarily mean they are not homeless.
53. The Code also says:
• Where a tenant has been served a s21 notice; and
• The Council is satisfied the landlord intends to seek possession and the Council would be unlikely to persuade the landlord to allow the resident to remain in the property; and
• There would be no defence to an application for a possession order, then it is unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to stay in the property past the expiration of the s21 notice.
54. The Code says in such circumstances, councils should contact landlords at an early stage to understand the circumstances and decide on the correct course of action.
55. I asked the Council for any evidence of how it had regard for this section of the Code and evidence of any action it had taken in respect of it. The Council again said it had no such evidence, due to Ms X’s caseworker leaving. I have found the Council at fault for this.
56. This fault could cause injustice to others in the future, if replicated. I address this in my recommendations.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

57. Had Ms X been aware she could ask for added time to submit the evidence, I am satisfied she would have done so. Given the Council’s subsequent responses, on the balance of probabilities we can say the Council would have agreed Ms X’s request and implemented this as a reasonable adjustment. Having this extra time would likely have mitigated, or avoided, the distress Ms X incurred when trying to meet the Council’s deadline, while also managing the impact of her health conditions. This avoidable distress is an injustice. There is also uncertainty as to whether the Council could have considered other adjustments in how it communicated with or assisted Ms X, had it properly turned its mind to the question at different points. This uncertainty is a further injustice to Ms X.
58. The Council failing to clearly provide Ms X with the right to seek a review of the steps outlined in her PHP caused Ms X an injustice. Ms X told the Ombudsman the Council’s recommended actions were inappropriate for her. For example, Ms X said she was primarily housebound, so the Council recommending she use computers at the library took no account of her health conditions. Had Ms X been clearly afforded a right of review, she could have asked the Council to reconsider its recommended actions. That she was not given this opportunity is an injustice.
59. Ms X told the Ombudsman she received no assistance or support from the Council after it accepted the prevention duty. She said this left her facing significant difficulty when negotiating with private landlords, where she often felt discriminated against. Ms X was also unclear whether the Council was acting to help her find properties. The Council has no record of its actions to complete the steps in Ms X’s PHP. Given this lack of evidence and Ms X’s account, on the balance of probabilities I believe the Council did not act to complete the steps in the PHP. This means Ms X experienced avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty, which could have been mitigated had the Council provided support or advice. This is an injustice to Ms X.
60. The Council has no evidence it considered the relevant parts of the Code summarised in paragraph 53. The Council said while Ms X had been served with a s21 notice, expiring in early May 2024, there was no possession order or bailiff’s warrant. The Council therefore did not accept the relief duty towards Ms X.
61. However, the Code makes clear it is not always reasonable for a tenant to remain in the property past the expiration of a valid s21, even if there is a legal right to. It depends on the individual facts of each case. The Council cannot show it considered these individual facts. Had it done so, it is possible it could have reached a different decision about the duty it owed Ms X. This in turn could have led to different support and a different outcome. It could also have decided the prevention duty remained appropriate.
62. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the Council would have decided. This causes uncertainty. This uncertainty is an injustice in itself.
63. The Council’s poor communication compounded Ms X’s avoidable frustration and uncertainty further.

Back to top

Action

64. I have carefully considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when making the following recommendations.
65. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Ms X £400 in recognition of the avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty she experienced because of the Council’s faults.
3. Share the findings of this investigation and a copy of the Ombudsman’s focus report “Equal access: Getting it right for people with disabilities” with relevant officers, to provide officers with wider examples of faults and good practice concerning reasonable adjustments in service delivery.
66. Within three months of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Review its current homelessness application procedure to identify ways the Council could actively consider an applicant’s need for reasonable adjustments as part of its procedure. The Council should write to the Ombudsman with its conclusions and any changes it proposes to make.
67. As a result of recent investigations, the Ombudsman has made several recommendations to the Council for service improvements, which the Council accepted. These include:
• The Council reviewing its procedures around how it deals with homelessness applicants who have been issued with a section 21 notice, to ensure its approach is in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance and it considers the correct homelessness duty.
• Reminding officers of the requirements when sending decision letters and ensuring decisions include relevant appeal rights.
68. Our previous recommendations would address the faults identified in this case. I have not therefore duplicated these again. The Ombudsman will monitor the Council’s improvements through our casework.
69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

70. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman