Summary: On behalf of Mr X, Mrs B complained the Council poorly handled Mr X’s homelessness application. Mrs B says this caused Mr X distress. We find the Council at fault for a delay in opening a new application for Mr X. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and remind its staff of when the Council should carry out homelessness assessments.

The complaint

1. On behalf of Mr X, Mrs B complained the Council poorly handled Mr X’s homelessness application. Mrs B says the Council did not properly record Mr X’s evidence, asked him to provide unnecessary evidence and did not take his disability into consideration when it gave an unreasonably short deadline for evidence to be provided. Mrs B also says the Council’s complaint responses were inadequate and failed to acknowledge the distress caused by mistakes. Mrs B says Mr X has been very distressed by the Council’s responses as they were brusque and dismissive, and the tone and lack of understanding displayed by the Council has made him very upset. Mr X would like the Council to provide a sincere apology and compensation.

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 Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Homelessness

6. If a Council has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make the necessary enquiries to satisfy itself whether the person is eligible for assistance and if so, what duty is owed. (Housing Act 1996, s.184(1))
7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 includes provisions that make certain people from abroad ineligible for housing assistance. Housing authorities will therefore need to satisfy themselves that applicants are eligible before providing housing assistance. The provisions on eligibility are complex and housing authorities will need to ensure that they have procedures in place to carry out appropriate checks on housing applicants.
8. 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)

9. A section 21 notice is not valid if the tenants deposit is not protected in a scheme or if it was protected late. If the deposit is not protected the landlord or agent must return the deposit before they can issue a section 21 notice.
10. 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)

Review rights

11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• 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;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;
• whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority;
• the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

What happened

12. In May 2024 Mrs B submitted a homelessness application on behalf of Mr X. The application form advised Mr X’s immigration status of indefinite leave to remain was granted in August 2022 and Mr X had been issued with a section 21 notice.
13. In the box ‘does the main applicant have any support needs’ the completed form notes Mr X has memory issues, physical ill health and a disability. The form does not detail how this may impact Mr X’s ability to engage with the application process or how the Council could support Mr X with the process.
14. Two days after Mrs B submitted the homelessness application the Council contacted Mrs B and Mr X to request the supporting documents it needed to determine Mr X’s housing needs and eligibility.
15. The following week, Mrs B provided the Council with documents to support Mr X’s application. This included a document to prove Mr X’s immigration status and the section 21 notice. The Council told us the document provided to prove Mr X’s immigration status did not include a picture of Mr X or his date of birth. The Council told us that without these details it had no way to verify Mr X’s immigration status. The following day, Mrs B provided the Council with Mr X’s photo identification which included his date of birth.
16. The Council wrote to Mr X again in June to ask for proof of his immigration status and a valid deposit protection certificate. The Council told Mr X if he did not provide the evidence within 24 hours his application would be closed.
17. The Council did not receive a response, so it closed Mr X’s application two days later. The Council issued a formal decision letter which explained it had considered Mr X’s circumstances, and it did not have reason to believe he was homeless or threatened with homelessness.
18. Mrs B provided the Council with evidence Mr X had indefinite leave to remain in the UK and a few weeks later she requested the Council process Mr X’s application. In response the Council requested a receipt to show Mr X’s tenancy deposit had been returned.
19. In July 2024 Mrs X provided the Council with four bank statements to evidence that, although Mr X’s deposit had not been refunded, he had missed one months rent payment which was the arrangement he agreed with his landlord. This differed to previous information provided by Mrs B which told the Council the deposit would be refunded.
20. Mrs B submitted a stage one complaint to the Council the following week. Mrs B complained about the way the Council had closed Mr X’s application, and it had not provided enough time for him to provide the requested evidence.
21. In August 2024 the Council issued a stage one complaint response which explained Mr X’s application was closed as the Council had not received all the documents it requested. The response was issued two weeks after the response deadline and did not address all of the issues raised in Mrs B’s complaint.
22. As part of the Council’s stage one complaint response, a new application was opened for Mr X. The following day the Council issued Mr X a letter which explained they had completed an assessment and decided Mr X was owed a prevention duty.
23. Mrs B escalated the complaint to stage two the following day as she did not feel Mr X had received a reasonable response at stage one.
24. The Council issued its stage two complaint response one month later and maintained Mr X’s case had been correctly closed due to the requested information not being provided. The stage two response provided more detail about why the evidence the Council received was not suitable.

My findings

25. The Council’s application form allowed space for Mr X’s support needs to be detailed. This meets the Council’s duty to anticipate the need for reasonable adjustments. The form was not completed in a way which told the Council what Mr X’s support needs were or that he may need extra time to provide information.
26. I do not find the Council at fault for the response timeframes it allowed Mrs B and Mr X. The Council requested supporting evidence in May 2024 and one month later in June 2024. When the Council requested the evidence in June 2024 it only allowed 24 hours for the documents to be provided due to the fact a month had already passed. The Council told us it would have extended the 24 hour timeframe if Mrs B or Mr X had contacted the call centre to request more time.
27. I do not find the Council at fault for closing Mr X’s case in May 2024 as it had not received sufficient evidence to show the section 21 notice was valid. The Council was not provided with this evidence until July 2024.
28. There was a one month delay between the Council receiving the evidence Mr X’s security deposit had been recovered and the Council opening a new application. This meant Mr X missed opportunity to have support under the Council’s prevention duty. This is fault which caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

29. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
• Pay Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in opening a new homelessness application.
• Remind its housing staff of the Council’s duty to carry out an assessment once it has reason to believe that a person may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman