Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he approached it as homeless in February 2024. We find fault in the Council’s poor communication, failure to complete a personalised housing plan, failure to decide if it owed him the main housing duty, and delay handling his complaint. This caused Mr X distress and uncertainty. The Council has already offered an apology and payment which is appropriate for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council unlawfully requested court-restricted documents and failed to carry out an adequate vulnerability assessment when he presented as homeless due to domestic abuse. He also complained about the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him financial hardship and negatively affected his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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.
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. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

8. 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.
9. 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

10. 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

11. 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)

The main housing duty

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

13. 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 relief duty stage; and
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

Priority need

14. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

What happened

15. In February 2024, Mr X approached the Council for support, stating he was homeless. He explained that he had been living in a flat share for the previous six months but was now without accommodation. He had intended to return temporarily to the family home, but this was not possible due to a history of domestic abuse. Mr X said he was not receiving benefits at the time and had no income. He also explained that although he had health conditions, they were currently in remission and not being treated. The Council booked Mr X into a hotel for the night.
16. A housing officer was assigned to Mr X’s case. They requested a standard list of documents and information to support his application. Based on the initial information provided, the Council decided not to place Mr X in interim accommodation. Mr X said he would provide the documents in due course and gave additional background information on his circumstances.
17. In March, the Council issued a homeless decision letter. It was satisfied that Mr X was homeless and eligible for help, and confirmed it owed him the relief duty. The letter also outlined his right to request a review of the decision.
18. In September, by which time Mr X had secured private rented accommodation, he submitted a complaint to the Council. He raised concerns that:
• he lost his housing benefit after presenting as homeless;
• the housing officer inappropriately requested full disclosure of his medical records and court documents;
• his history of domestic abuse was not properly considered;
• there had been poor communication from the Council; and
• he had to borrow money to support himself whilst homeless and believed the Council should reimburse him.
19. In October, the Council responded at stage 1. It explained the documents requested were standard for homelessness applications. It apologised for any communication issues and informed Mr X the housing officer previously supporting him no longer worked for the Council. Contact details for a new officer were provided.
20. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X escalated his complaint, requesting an interim payment and an investigation into how his case was handled.
21. In November, the Council issued its final response. It said:
• responsibility for housing benefit lies with the DWP, not the housing department;
• the information requested was standard for assessing and assisting homeless applicants;
• it understood that Mr X had left his family home some years ago following domestic abuse and had lived in multiple accommodations since. His most recent home had been a long-term private let. Based on this, and the information he gave, the Council owed him the relief duty but had no reason to believe he was in priority need;
• it acknowledged that Mr X had not been adequately supported due to the housing officer leaving the organisation, and that record-keeping had not met expected standards; and
• it did not consider Mr X entitled to an interim payment but offered £500 to acknowledge its service failures.

My findings

Requested documents

22. I have reviewed the list of documents requested by the Council. These are part of the standard documentation required to assess a person’s situation. I find no fault in the Council’s request. While Mr X says the housing officer insisted on receiving certain documents, there is no evidence he raised an objection at the time or that the requests were inappropriate or insisted upon.

Vulnerability assessment

23. Mr X disclosed a history of domestic abuse, but this was not the cause of his homelessness in February 2024. The Council considered the information available and concluded that he did not meet the threshold for priority need. It issued a formal decision letter on his homelessness and provided details of his review rights, which Mr X did not exercise. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making.

Complaint handling

24. There was a minor delay in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s stage 1 complaint. It responded after 25 working days instead of the 20 working days set out in its procedure. This delay is fault. However, it did not cause an injustice significant enough to warrant a remedy. There was no delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.

Support and case management

25. The Council accepted that it did not provide the level of support Mr X was entitled to. It also failed to produce a personalised housing plan and failed to determine whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. These are both significant faults. However, Mr X was able to secure private rented accommodation independently. Based on the information available, I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the Council’s failings caused him specific detriment, however it did cause him avoidable distress and uncertainty. I consider the Council’s offer of £500 to be an appropriate remedy in line with our Guidance on Remedies, to recognise the injustice caused. I therefore do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already offered actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman