Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to follow the correct legislation to close homelessness applications for nine applicants. The Council has agreed to provide financial remedies to those caused injustice and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. The Council has failed to follow the proper legislation for closing homelessness cases because of “deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
4. We have the power to make recommendations to remedy the injustice experienced by complainants and members of the public affected by fault we identify. (Local Government Act 1974 s 31(2B)). I have set out below the actions the Council should take to remedy the injustice to those people who are also caused an injustice by the Council’s fault.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. We asked the Council to provide information about all homeless applicants between January 2023 and August 2024 where it used the reason of “deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate” to end its relief duty.
7. The Council told us this applied to 16 applicants and provided records for 15 of these.
8. I have considered all the records provided by the Council. I have also considered the Council’s actions on a similar complaint.
9. I invited the Council to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

Homelessness law and guidance

10. 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.

Homelessness applications

11. 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)
12. 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. 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)

The relief duty and interim accommodation

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
16. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or, failing this, if 56 days have passed.

Circumstances in which both prevention and relief duties may end

17. Councils can end the prevention and relief duties because of an applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate.
18. Where a Council ends the relief duty for this reason the main housing duty will not apply. However, the Council will be required to secure that accommodation is available for an applicant who has priority need and is unintentionally homeless, until it makes a final accommodation offer or, or the duty comes to an end for another reason.

Deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate (sections 195(10) and 189B(9)(b)

19. Before bringing either duty to an end by issuing a section 193B(2) notice, the Council must first issue a warning letting the applicant. This should tell the applicant that if they deliberately and unreasonably refuse to take any of the steps in their personalised housing plan after receiving the warning, the Council intends to issue a notice bringing the prevention or relief duty to an end.
20. The warning must explain the consequences of a notice being given and the Council must allow a reasonable period after the warning is given before issuing a notice. There is no set reasonable period, but councils should ensure sufficient time is given to allow the applicant to rectify the non-co-operation and prevent a notice being issued to end the prevention or relief duty.
21. Notices issued must explain why the housing authority are giving notice and its effect, and inform the applicant of their right to request a review of the decision to issue the notice.

What happened

22. The Ombudsman carried out a separate investigation into the Council’s handling of a homeless applicant, where the Council had wrongly closed their case without a decision or properly following legislation on their homelessness application.
23. During that investigation, the Ombudsman had reason to believe there were other applicants whose cases the Council had wrongly closed without following the legislation.
24. The Ombudsman asked the Council to provide chronologies of all applicants it had applied this legislation to between January 2023 and August 2024.
25. The Council identified 16 applicants who fell into this category and provided chronologies and decision letters for 15 applicants.

Analysis

26. A full review of the documents from the Council shows there were several applicants where the Council failed to show it followed the correct legislative process and some other applicants where the documents appeared unreliable.
27. A previous draft decision from the Ombudsman raised concerns about the authenticity of some of the documents provided by the Council. In response to our previous draft decision, the Council carried out a full audit of the cases where the Ombudsman had concerns to investigate the validity of all documents submitted.
28. I have considered the results of the Council’s audit. I have set out each of the relevant cases below, and my reasoning for concern. All applicants were under assessment by the Council for homelessness.

Applicant A

29. The Council issued two letters on 31st January 2024. One letter was a warning letter, the other ended the relief duty to applicant A.
30. Legislation says that councils should ensure sufficient time is given to allow the applicant to rectify the non-co-operation and prevent a notice being issued to end the prevention or relief duty.
31. In this case, the Council failed to allow the applicant time to engage with the process and failed to follow the legislative procedure. This was fault by the Council causing injustice to Applicant A.

Applicant E

32. The Council has provided no evidence it sent a warning letter to Applicant E. It has provided evidence it sent a decision letter to end its relief duty on 18th November 2023.
33. The Council has failed to follow the legislative procedure in issuing a warning before closing the case. This prevented Applicant E the opportunity to re-engage with the process. This was fault by the Council causing Applicant E injustice.

Applicant G

34. The Council says it sent a warning letter on 29th August 2023.
35. The Council’s internal audit has shown that there is no record of the original document being created prior to the Council responding to the Ombudsman, and that the letter appears not to have been sent to Applicant G. The letter created was neither and warning or a decision and did not follow legislative process. The officer responsible also admitted it was likely they did not send it.
36. I am not satisfied the Council has been able to evidence it followed the legislative process in respect of handling Applicant G’s homelessness application.
37. This was fault by the Council causing Applicant G injustice and failing to give them their appeal rights

Unknown applicant

38. There is also one applicant which the Council has failed to provide the records for. I have not been able to find out whether the Council has followed the correct legislation for this applicant.
39. However, because of the above findings, I am recommending the Council review the case records for this applicant to find out whether it issued the correct warning and decision letters.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within 12 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to each of the applicants identified and apologise for mishandling their case.
• Pay each applicant identified £150 in recognition of the distress caused by the handling of their case.
• Review the case of applicant whose details were not provided. If the Council is at fault, it should provide a remedy to them.
• Provide refresher training for all housing case officers on how to correctly handling cases where they are relying on the legislation for deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. Before the training, the Council should send out a reminder to all housing staff on the importance of sending and recording decisions at the time of case closure.

41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to follow the legislative process when closing homelessness applications.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman