Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not consider all relevant information in her homelessness application, delayed providing her with suitable accommodation and communicated with her poorly. She says this caused her to be homeless. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision making in assessing Miss X’s homelessness application and suitability of accommodation it provided. The Ombudsman does find fault with the Council’s communication, which caused Miss X limited injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. Specifically, she complains the Council:

1. Did not consider all relevant information in its assessment;
2. Delayed providing suitable accommodation; and
3. Communicated with her poorly.

2. Miss X says this left her and her child homeless, which impacted their mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Miss X complains about matters from February 2024 until January 2025. The Council issued its final complaints response to Miss X in late November and offered Miss X a secure tenancy in early December. I have investigated up until this point. Any matter from the point of the offer of the secure tenancy, including the suitability of the secure tenancy is a fresh complaint as the Council has not had the opportunity to investigate and respond.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.
9. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, and Council’s policy, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Assessment (part a of the complaint)

10. 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)

Delay providing suitable accommodation (part b of the complaint)

11. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, says that it is not appropriate for Councils to take children into care in the absence of additional safeguarding issues. It says councils should ‘promote the upbringing of...children by their families’. This can include providing both accommodation and financial assistance. Councils making decisions under its Section 17 duty are discretionary, and act as children’s services authorities and should not be seen as having to provide other functions such as for homelessness or housing.

The prevention duty

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

13. 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)

Communication (part c of the complaint)

14. The Ombudsman’s guidance ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’ states that councils should inform service users what they can expect and what the organisation expects from them.
15. Chapter six of the Homelessness Code of Guidance says that housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.

What happened

16. Miss X lived in private rented accommodation.
17. In mid-February 2024, Miss X contacted the Council. She told the Council she had fears for the welfare of her and her child because their current accommodation was not safe for them. The officer took Miss X’s details and contacted the duty manager to assess whether to provide Miss X with an emergency appointment.
18. The duty manager considered the information Miss X had provided, including the reasons she felt unsafe, her medical information and her carers responsibility. The duty manager decided not to provide Miss X with an emergency appointment. The Council sent Miss X an appointment for a housing assessment for mid-March with Officer A. The letter explained all the information and documentation Miss X needed to bring to the appointment.
19. The next day, Miss X contacted B’s social work team about her concerns about her safety and told them she had not been prioritised by the housing department. A social worker contacted the housing department. The same day, Officer A called Miss X and completed a homelessness assessment. Officer A emailed Miss X an affordability assessment and a medical form to complete. They also requested information about where she was currently living and evidence of her safety fears. They asked her to provide the information within seven days.
20. Miss X did not provide the information requested. A week later, the Council closed Miss X’s homelessness application.
21. In early March, the Council held a strategy meeting to discuss Miss X’s case. Officer A spoke to the police about Miss X’s reported safety fears. The police told the Council Miss X had reported fears six months previously and were not aware of any current issues. The Council decided Miss X’s current accommodation was still available to her and therefore she was not threatened with homelessness. It decided Miss X’s case would remain closed.
22. In mid-March, Miss X attended the Council offices to provide some documentation Officer A had previously requested. She later contacted the Council and asked for an update on her application. The Council did not contact her.
23. In June, Miss X contacted the Council’s emergency duty line in the early hours of the morning and said she was street homeless. The Council told Miss X it could not arrange accommodation or foster care for B at this time in the morning. Miss X and B stayed in police station reception area overnight.
24. The next day, the Council contacted Miss X. It decided to arrange hotel accommodation for Miss X and B to prevent B going into foster care. It arranged hotel accommodation for that night.
25. In July, Miss X contacted the Council and asked it to reopen her homelessness application. She told the Council her circumstances had changed. Officer B called Miss X and spoke to her and the call cut off. Officer B called Miss X again and she did not answer. The next day, her social worker contacted the housing department to discuss reopening her homeless application.
26. Officer A called Miss X. There was no answer. Officer A emailed Miss X and asked her to provide information about her change in circumstances. They told Miss X she needed to provide evidence from the police about her safety concerns. They told her the Council needed this information to consider reopening her homeless application.
27. In late July, Miss X made a formal complaint.
28. In early September, the Council issued its first stage complaint response. It did not uphold Miss X’s complaints. It told Miss X it was satisfied the communication and advice from Officer A was sufficient, and that she had been told which documents to provide to reopen her application.
29. Shortly afterwards, Miss X sent the Council an eviction notice she received from her landlord. Officer A told Miss X her eviction notice was not valid because it was missing accompanying documentation. Officer A asked her to provide these documents to the Council. Officer A also sent Miss X an affordability assessment to complete. Miss X told Officer A she was having difficulty providing the accompanying documentation.
30. In mid-September, Officer A contacted Miss X’s landlord and left a voicemail. Officer A decided that the eviction notice was invalid because the information detailed on the notice was incorrect, and the landlord had not supplied Miss X with the required documentation. Officer A closed Miss X’s case.
31. In early October, Miss X provided a second eviction notice with accompanying documentation to the Council. Officer A decided this eviction notice was valid. They informed Miss X the Council had accepted the prevention duty. They told her she was entitled to the two-bedroom local housing allowance rate. They sent her an affordability assessment form and directions for pursuing private sector accommodation. They completed a personalised housing plan with Miss X.
32. In late November, the Council issued its second stage complaint response. It told Miss X she still needed to complete her affordability assessment. It told her it continued to owe the prevention duty, and that she could legally stay in her property until a bailiff warrant was issued.
33. In early December, the Council told Miss X it accepted the relief duty. Miss X completed the affordability assessment and completed the medical information form. The Council offered her a secure tenancy.

Analysis

Assessment (part a of the complaint)

34. The Council prioritised completing Miss X’s homelessness assessment in February 2024 once Miss X provided more information to B’s social worker. Miss X felt the assessment was rushed and incomplete. Officer A asked Miss X to provide further information which Miss X declined. After their in-person assessment, Officer A asked Miss X to provide further documents within seven days. She did not provide the requested information within the timeframe. Miss X says this is because she did not receive the letter. The Council held a strategy meeting to discuss Miss X’s case. Officer A also sought additional information from the police about Miss X’s reported safety concerns, which was the reason for her homelessness application. I am satisfied that, on balance, the Council emailed Miss X a copy of the letter which listed further information she needed to provide. I am satisfied the Council gave Miss X a reasonable timescale to provide the information before closing her case. I am also satisfied the Council considered all information available at the time, both from Miss X and other professionals, in their decision making to keep Miss X’s case closed. I find no fault in the Council’s decision making and therefore I cannot criticise the decision it came to.
35. The Council did not accept the prevention duty until October 2024. This was when it first received evidence of a valid eviction notice and was satisfied that Miss X and B were threatened with homelessness. It accepted the prevention duty and then the relief duty. I am satisfied the Council gave Miss X several opportunities to provide further information about her change in circumstances prior to October. I consider it was not reasonable for the Council to complete another assessment until Miss X provided the requested information about her change in circumstances. I find no fault with the Council.

Delay providing suitable accommodation (part b of the complaint)

36. The Council provided Miss X and B with bed and breakfast accommodation from June 2024 to after December 2024 through its duty under Section 17 of the Children’s Act. Prior to June, the Council assessed Miss X was not threatened with homelessness. When Miss X contacted its emergency duty line in the early hours of the morning to report she was street homeless in June, the Council told her it was not possible to find emergency accommodation at that time. It provided accommodation for the next night and thereafter. I consider the Council met its duty to meet B’s assessed need under Section 17 in a reasonable timeframe.
37. There is no maximum time a family with children can stay in bed and breakfast accommodation under Section 17 of the Children’s Act. However, the Ombudsman may find fault if it is not satisfied the Council reviewed its decision in a timely manner. In this case, both the Council’s social work team and Miss X contacted the Council’s housing team within one month of moving into bed and breakfast accommodation and told them about her change of circumstances. The Council requested information from Miss X which she did not provide. I am satisfied the social work team kept the placement under review. I am also satisfied Miss X had the opportunity to seek support from the housing team to reopen her homelessness application with the view of seeking appropriate housing. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council.
38. Miss X complains living in bed and breakfast accommodation for a prolonged period caused her financial strain. She says the Council supported her financially with transport costs. She complains the Council should have offered her more financial support. Payments made to families under a council’s Section 17 duty are discretionary, and therefore I cannot find fault with the Council’s decision not to provide more financial support.
39. Once the Council accepted its prevention duty in October, it completed a personalised housing plan with Miss X. This is in line with statutory guidance. It provided support for her to find suitable private rented accommodation and completed referrals for available accommodation. The case records show Miss X delayed providing some information requested by the Council. Therefore, at the time of the Council making referrals, the Council did not have all information needed to assess suitability. I consider the Council made active referrals and provided support using all information it had available at the time. I do not find the Council at fault for any delay in making suitable referrals.

Communication (part c of the complaint)

40. In its letter to Miss X following her assessment in February, the Council told her to provide the further requested information within seven days. It did not tell Miss X if she did not provide the requested information within the time frame it may decide to close her case. This is fault. I consider this caused Miss X avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty.
41. The Council’s records show it did not tell Miss X the reason it decided not to reopen her application at that time. Miss X contacted the Council for an update and the Council did not respond. The Council’s poor communication caused Miss X further avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty.
42. We expect councils to follow the statutory actions set out in law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where the Council has not properly completed these actions. The Code says that the Council should explain to the households being evicted by private landlords that they have the right to remain in their properties until they receive the possession order, but they may incur costs. It is reasonable for the Council to give applicants the choice of remaining in their home and incurring court fees or moving to interim accommodation. The Council’s stage two complaint response told Miss X she was legally entitled to remain in her current property until a bailiff warrant was issued. This is not fault. However, it did not inform Miss X she may incur costs. This is fault. I assess in Miss X’s case the injustice is limited because the landlord did not pursue the eviction.

Back to top

Action

43. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide a written apology to Miss X for avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty caused to her by its poor communication.
2. tell us what steps it will take to ensure its written communications provide adequate information for homeless applicants to make informed decisions throughout the homelessness application process. This includes telling applicants the Council may close their case if they do not provide information within the given deadline, and if applicants use their legal right to remain in their home until the court issues a warrant for bailiffs they may incur costs.
44. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and take service improvement action.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman