Summary: Ms D complained the Council failed to provide assistance with her homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council causing Ms D avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to pay redress to Ms D and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council failed to provide assistance with her homelessness application in 2023. She refers to a lack of communications from Housing Solutions Officers, incorrect assessments of medical need and a failure to assess the affordability of accommodation.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated from March 2023, when Ms D approached the Council for assistance, through to 22 November 2024, when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. Any events occurring after that period would need to be complained about, by Ms D, to the Council before she can bring those matters to the Ombudsman.
5. I have not investigated issues about disrepair at Ms D’s previous accommodation which she occupied up to December 2024. That was a separate complaint to the Council and would need to form a separate complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 3 March 2023 Ms D told the Council she had received a Section 21 eviction notice and asked the Council for assistance. The same day an appointment was booked to discuss the issues with a Housing Solutions Officer (Officer A). On 31 March Ms D spoke to Officer A who completed a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP). They advised Ms D the Council could consider paying the deposit and rent in advance on a private rental property. Ms D would look for a new home using the links to property finder sites provided by the Council. The homelessness application process was explained and Officer A told Ms D how to apply for a Discretionary Housing Payment. They also gave information about the Section 21 Notice and eviction process. The Council needed to establish if Ms D was in Priority Need. Ms D had provided some medical evidence and Officer A would forward this to the Council’s Medical Assessor. Ms D said she faced becoming homeless in May.
9. On 24 April Ms D emailed Officer A about another meeting. Officer A replied that a meeting was not necessary because circumstances had not changed and asked Ms D for medical evidence. On 25 April the Council received additional medical evidence from Ms D. On 30 April Ms D asked Officer A when they would next meet. She asked for advice on dealing with her property agent and whether she need to tell them she was not moving out. On 2 May Officer A replied to Ms D. She had previously advised about the eviction process. She stated the Council was limited to securing accommodation for applicants who ‘satisfied the criteria’ and Ms D might ‘fall outside this category’ which would mean the Council could only help her financially to secure private accommodation that Ms D found. On 5 May Ms D emailed Officer A that she had emailed a few times asking whether to inform people she was not moving out. Ms D also emailed the emergency address at the Council asking for assistance because her landlord was harassing her.
10. The Council says Officer A went on extended leave in May and a new Housing Solutions Officer (Officer C) was allocated to Ms D on 1 June. I have no record of the Council notifying Ms D about this change of Officer. On 22 June a lettings agent emailed Officer C that Ms D was waiting to go to court rather than move out. On 3 August Ms D told Officer C she had received a claim form for possession of her property. Officer C was on leave and his Manager called Ms D and advised her about her tenancy rights and that she was in the prevention duty phase of homelessness assistance. On 21 August the Private Rental Licensing Team emailed Officer C. It was due to check the validity of the section 21 Notice and had received it on 3 April but had not been able to allocate to an Officer due to a backlog of work. On 21 September Officer C emailed the Medical Assessor for their advice. The Medical Assessor replied the next day. Ms D would be ‘significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person’ if she became homeless because of her medical conditions. She required self-contained accommodation. I cannot see evidence that Officer C updated Ms D about the medical advice he received.
11. On 2 October Ms D submitted a formal complaint to the Council which included a failure by Officers A and C to take action and the Council had not recognised her medical needs. On 24 November Ms D told Officer C she had received another section 21 Notice and was due to be evicted in December. She had not heard from Officer C and the Council was not assisting her. That day Officer C noted he had tried calling Ms D with no response and he emailed her that he had tried to get in touch that day.
12. On 11 December Officer C, his Manager and Ms D discussed the case in response to Ms D’s complaint. It was agreed that Ms D would submit a medical form and Officer C would send medical evidence for assessment. Officer C would also send private sector rental properties to Ms D and assist her with the defence form in the case with her landlord. The Council noted the Prevention Fund was potentially available to Ms D subject to normal checks. On 22 December Officer C told Ms D he would send her details of one bedroom rental properties.
13. On 1 February 2024 the Medical Assessor reported they had not found medical priority for Ms D. Shared facilities were suitable. Also on 1 February, the Council replied to Ms D’s October 2023 complaint. The medical advice on the case was Ms D could occupy a property with shared facilities and had no medical priority. She was in Band C. In respect of the complaint about Officer A the Council said she had failed to make adequate enquiries and did not maintain contact with Ms D. Officer C had retained some contact with Ms D and her sent her information about a possible rental property following the December meeting. The Council would ask Officer C to look for further properties, assist Ms D with her defence form and make the Prevention Fund available if she found a rental property. The next day Ms D requested the Council escalate her complaint and consider it further.
14. During February Ms D was in touch with the Council about a proposed rent increase at her property. The Housing Solutions Manager provided some advice. On 10 May Ms D’s Representative contacted the Council because Ms D had received a new Section 21 Notice which did not appear to be valid. The Housing Solutions Manager and Officer C responded they would speak to colleagues. I have no evidence of further contact with the Representative. On 16 May Ms D told the Council she had received another Section 21 Notice. She needed assistance and had no response when she contacted Officer C. Again, I have no evidence of further contact from Officer C to Ms D until November.
15. On 21 November it appears the Council carried out financial checks for what rental expenditure Ms D could afford. On the same day Officer C asked the Medical Assessor to look at Ms D’s case. A previous report had stated Ms D could have shared facilities but this contradicted what Ms D stated about her needs. On 22 November the Council replied to Ms D’s complaint. It apologised for the delay. In respect of medical need the Council had received contradictory advice from the Medical Assessor about whether Ms D needed self-contained accommodation or could manage with shared facilities. After the October 2023 complaints response, the Council had shared the medical advice from September with the Applications Team but the Officer handling the case had then left the Council and no further medical review was carried out. The Council apologised and it would request another medical assessment to clarify what type of temporary accommodation Ms D would need and her housing banding. At present the Council accepted Ms D needed self-contained accommodation. In respect of the complaint about not preventing homelessness, the Council said a Tenancy Relations Officer would usually help with the completion of defence forms, but they did not have an Officer “with that skillset” at present. This meant Ms D had to do it without help. The Council also said Officer C had submitted a booking request for self-contained accommodation and would liaise with the Temporary Accommodation Allocations Team until a suitable offer was found. In respect of Ms D’s complaints about Officers A and C the Council said Officer A had failed to take relevant actions. Officer C had inconsistent contact over a prolonged period. The Manager was now monitoring the case. Finally, the Council responded to the lack of assistance with affordable properties. It had recently done an affordability assessment and raised the case with the Local Welfare Team to process a Discretionary Housing Payment application.

What should have happened

Threatened with homelessness – definition

16. 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

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

Duty to provide Advisory Services

18. 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.

The prevention duty

19. 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)

Applications

20. 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)

Council processes

21. Where a person asks the Council for assistance with possible homelessness, they are allocated a Housing Solutions Officer (Officer). That Officer should discuss the case with the applicant and carry out an assessment of their housing needs and how to help them either secure their current accommodation or assist with finding alternative accommodation. They produce a PHP setting out what actions will be taken. The Officer should contact Regulatory Services at the Council to check if the applicant’s current accommodation is reasonable to occupy.
22. The Council says its Prevention Duty is engaged once it validates whether an applicant has received a valid Section 21 eviction notice. The Officer should ask the Private Sector Rental Licensing Team to validate the Section 21 Notice.
23. The Council can carry out affordability assessments for an applicant to determine which/ if private sector rentals are an option. It should also provide advice to the applicant about sources of financial assistance including the Council’s Prevention Fund which can be used to pay for the first month’s rent and deposit for a private sector rental property.
24. Where an applicant states they have medical needs related to housing the Officer should ask them to submit medical evidence. That is then referred to the Council’s independent Medical Assessor to consider and make recommendations. The Medical Assessor can advise on the type of accommodation an applicant requires.
25. The Officer should engage with the applicant in the Prevention Duty stage and assist in finding alternative accommodation such as suitable private sector rentals.

Complaints process

26. The Council has a two stage complaints process. Initial complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. The complainant can ask for the case to be escalated if they remain dissatisfied. The second stage response should be issued within 20 working days. The Council can extend that timeframe but should notify the complainant.

Was there fault by the Council

27. There are numerous faults in this case by the Council.
28. The Council delayed responding to both the initial complaint made by Ms D and the second, escalated, complaint. The first complaint was submitted on 2 October 2023 and was not replied to until 1 February 2024. That was a delay of three months. The Council says there was ‘confusion as to whether the complaint was separate from another complaint’ submitted by Ms D. If the Council needed clarification about whether the complaints were separate it should have contacted Ms D to discuss the complaint: that did not happen. The second, escalated, complaint was requested on 2 February 2024 and the Council delayed responding until November. The Council says the complaint was not uploaded to the ‘complaint portal’. It has not explained when this fault was identified but it appears there was further contact from Ms D prompting activity.
29. Officer A’s handling of the case was poor. As already accepted by the Council in the complaint responses, Officer A failed to take relevant actions and did not maintain contact with Ms D after the initial meeting at the end of March 2023. Ms D did not receive advice at a stressful time. Unfortunately, when she was allocated a new Housing Solutions Officer, Officer C, there was little improvement in service. I cannot find evidence from the case notes provided by the Council of Officer C having contact with Ms D from May to November 2024 despite Ms D asking for assistance. I also cannot see any evidence of Officer C taking actions on the case during that period including chasing up medical assessments, finding possible rental properties or checking if the Council had provided help with Ms D filling out a defence form. Both Officers failed to provide a reasonable level of service.
30. The Council delayed seeking medical advice on the case. Officer A noted on the PHP on 31 March 2023 that Ms D had provided medical evidence which would be referred to the Medical Assessor. I cannot see a referral was done at that time. Instead Officer A asked Ms D to submit further medical evidence in April which Ms D promptly provided. Again no referral was made to the Medical Assessor by Officer A. Officer C took over the case at the start of June but again failed to progress the medical referral. That was not done until 21 September. The Medical Assessor advised Ms D needed self-contained accommodation. The Council says that in October, after the complaint response, the medical advice was referred to the Applications Team to obtain a further medical review. It has not explained why that action was needed. In any event the Officer dealing with the case in the Applications Team left the Council and the matter was not progressed. Instead, Ms D had to submit a medical form in December, this was considered by the Medical Assessor in February 2024, who stated shared facilities were acceptable. No action was taken by the Council to look into why two contradictory medical assessments had been received until the Council started to deal with the second stage complaint in November. There is fault by the Council. It delayed taking action, failed to check if progress was being made on the medical assessments and failed to query why there was a discrepancy in the advice it received.
31. The Council also failed to provide Ms D with assistance completing her defence form. She asked the Council for assistance in 2023, but it was only as a result of the formal complaint the Council agreed, in December, that Officer C would assist Ms D in this matter. No assistance was received and in the November 2024 complaint response the Council accepted this assistance would usually be provided by a Tenancy Relations Officer. There was no-one at the Council, at that time, who had the ‘skillset’ to assist Ms D. This is fault by the Council meaning Ms D was left without assistance over several months. There was also delay carrying out an affordability assessment, it was only completed in November 2024 and could have been done much earlier.

Did the fault cause an injustice

32. The faults by the Council caused Ms D avoidable uncertainty and distress at an already difficult time. She also had to wait far longer than is reasonable for the Council to take actions and respond to her complaints.

Back to top

Action

33. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms D the Council has agreed to my recommendations and will pay Ms D £400 for avoidable distress.
34. The Council will also set out what actions have been taken to make service improvements, for logging and responding to complaints and ensuring Housing Solutions Officers maintain a reasonable level of contact with applicants.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice and have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to the proposed remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman