Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s treatment of him when he visited its offices and its handling of his homelessness application. The Council was at fault for giving Mr X inaccurate information when he visited its offices. It was not at fault for the way it asked Mr X to leave its offices. The Council accepts it delayed assessing Mr X’s housing needs, causing Mr X a period of uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s treatment of him when he visited its offices and the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He says the Council’s actions have impacted his mental health and left him without a home. He wants the Council to apologise, compensate him and support him to find a home.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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)
11. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it may owe them a main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. This is a duty to secure accommodation for them. Until it is able to discharge this duty, it is required to provide temporary accommodation. This accommodation should be suitable for the applicant and those who live with them.

The Council’s allocations policy

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
13. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

14. The Council’s scheme has four bands, A to D. New applicants are placed in Bands C or D, depending on whether they have a local connection. When the Council accepts a homelessness duty to someone, it places them in Band A.

What happened

15. Mr X joined the Council’s housing register in 2023. The Council placed Mr X in Band C. Mr X did not ask the Council for any added priority. In January 2024 Mr X contacted the Council asking for a review of his priority. In his email he told the Council he was homeless.
16. The Council told Mr X he had never asked for an additional priority so there was no decision to review. It said Mr X should ask its Housing Options team to assess his housing needs. Mr X immediately emailed the Housing Options team. The team asked Mr X to provide some extra information which he did. In his reply Mr X repeated that he was homeless.
17. Mr X contacted the Council again in April 2024, asking about the outcome of his assessment. The Council added a reminder to its system to allocate Mr X’s case for assessment but took no further action.
18. In May 2024 Mr X visited the Council’s offices to discuss a separate matter. At the same time he asked about his housing application. The Council told Mr X its last recorded address for him was in a different Council area and it needed more information to find out if he had a local connection. The Council’s records show it asked Mr X to leave, and he refused to do so. The Council’s security guards then escorted Mr X from the building.
19. Mr X complained about the way the Council asked him to leave the building. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It said its security had used reasonable force to escort Mr X from its building when he refused to leave. The Council’s complaint investigation triggered an assessment of Mr X’s housing needs.
20. On 26 July 2024 the Council accepted its relief duty to help Mr X resolve his homelessness situation. It carried out an assessment of Mr X and developed a personalised housing plan (PHP). On the same day the Council’s emergency housing team tried to speak to Mr X on the phone. Mr X said he was sleeping in his car but sometimes stayed with friends. The Council’s records show it tried to find out more information, but Mr X ended the phone call.
21. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure. He disputed the Council’s account of his visit to its offices and said it had failed to find him accommodation. In its stage two response the Council said its security footage of Mr X’s visit supported its version of events. It said it had reviewed Mr X’s application and accepted it had failed to properly assess his homelessness when he first approached the Council. It said it had now accepted its duty to Mr X. It offered Mr X interim accommodation, but he refused. To recognise the delay in assessing Mr X it offered him £300.
22. In September 2024 the Council accepted its main housing duty to Mr X. However, due to an error it discharged this duty on the same day. Mr X emailed the Council asking for support with housing in November 2024. He complained to the Ombudsman at the same time.
23. In December 2024 the Council accepted its main housing duty again. Mr X moved into private accommodation later that month. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council accepted a further delay in handling Mr X’s homelessness application between September 2024 and December 2024. It offered to pay Mr X an extra £150 to recognise the impact of the delay.

My findings

Mr X’s visit to the Council’s offices

24. Mr X complained about the Council’s treatment of him when he visited its offices. When Mr X visited the offices, the Council told Mr X his last known address was in another council area, and it needed more information to establish his local connection. It is not clear what information the Council based this on. Mr X had been on the Council’s housing register since 2023 and had asked for a housing assessment in February 2024. The Council based its response to Mr X’s query on inaccurate information. This was fault. Mr X was homeless at the time and understandably anxious about his housing situation. The fault by the Council caused Mr X increased distress and frustration at an already difficult time.
25. Mr X remains unhappy with how the Council asked him to leave its offices. The Council reviewed its security footage in response to Mr X’s complaint and confirmed it asked Mr X to leave the building several times before its security acted. The footage is no longer available to review as the Council deleted it in line with its retention policy. Having reviewed the Council’s records and accounts of Mr X’s visit and considered Mr X’s account of what happened, I am satisfied, on balance, it acted proportionately. The Council was not at fault for the way it asked Mr X to leave its offices.

Mr X’s housing application

26. If the Council had reason to believe Mr X may be homeless it had a duty to make enquiries. Mr X told the Council he was homeless in February 2024, but the Council did not assess his housing needs until July 2024. The Council accepts this was fault. Following its assessment of Mr X the Council accepted a main housing duty in September 2024, but did not implement this until December 2024 due to an error. The Council also accepts this was fault.
27. When the Council began assessing Mr X it offered him interim accommodation which he refused. Mr X also did not engage with the Council’s emergency accommodation team as it tried to find him a home between July 2024 and December 2024. When Mr X did move into a property, this was not through the Council’s allocations scheme, but in the private rented sector. The Council’s delay assessing Mr X’s housing needs caused Mr X uncertainty, but I am satisfied on balance, this did not result in Mr X missing out on a property. The Council has apologised and proposed offering Mr X £450 to recognise the uncertainty caused. I am satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy.

Back to top

Action

28. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the impact of the fault identifed. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the inaccurate information provided when Mr X visited the Council offices.
3. Pay Mr X £450 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the delay in assessing his housing needs and accepting its housing duty to Mr X.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman