Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in dealing with his homelessness application and review request. We found the significant delays in dealing with dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application and review request are fault. As is the delay in providing temporary accommodation having determined Mr X was in priority need. These faults have caused Mr X difficulties and distress and meant he lived in his car for longer than he otherwise would have. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X and take action to address its delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed in dealing with his homelessness application and review request. As a result Mr X says he had to live in his car and was attacked.

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. 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

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

6. 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.
7. 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)
8. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end (usually after 56 days), it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
9. A council must secure accommodation for applicants if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified certain decisions, including:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• 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.
11. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. Councils must complete reviews of not in priority need decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

What happened here

12. This is a summary of events outlining the key facts and does not cover everything that happened in this case.
13. Mr X presented to the Council as homeless on 21 June 2023. He told the Council he had been evicted and was staying with a friend but could not stay there long term. The Council sent Mr X a homelessness application form to complete and told him which documents he would need to provide.
14. A few days later Mr X was assaulted at his friend’s home and suffered an injury to his hand. On 12 July 2023 he told the Council he was now sleeping in his car and was struggling to complete the application form because of the injury to his hand. Mr X attended the Council offices and an officer helped him complete the application form. They also gave him a medical assessment form and questionnaire to complete and asked him to provide evidence of his eviction.
15. The Council’s records show Mr X contacted the Council for an update in late July and again in August 2023. The Council allocated his case to an officer on 11 August 2023 and then reallocated it to another officer on 22 August 2023. The officer spoke with Mr X and then sent his medical evidence to the Council’s medical advisors for their advice on Mr X’s vulnerability on medical grounds.
16. The medical advisors responded on 4 September 2023 and advised they did not consider Mr X’s medical issues were of particular significance compared to an ordinary person.
17. On 6 September 2023 the Council wrote to Mr X confirming it owed him a relief duty. The Council’s records show it then told Mr X in a telephone call on 17 September 2024 that it did not consider he was in priority need. He would therefore need to make his own arrangements for accommodation.
18. Mr X disputed that he was not in priority need and asked for his application to be allocated to another case officer. He then provided further medical evidence.
19. Mr X chased the Council for an update in December 2023 and was told his case would be allocated to a new case officer. The new officer contacted Mr X on 5 January 2024 to arrange an interview. They called Mr X again on 22 January 2024 and asked him to provide any further medical evidence as the current information suggested he was not in priority need. Mr X provided additional information which the Council says it passed to its medical advisors for their view.
20. The Council’s records show Mr X contacted the council in March 2024 to complain he had not had any contact from the case officer since January 2024.
21. The case officer completed a vulnerability assessment on 29 April 2024. The following day the case officer asked Mr X to provide details of his medical history and diagnosis within three days or they would make a decision based on the information available.
22. On 13 May 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X notifying him the relief duty had come to an end and that it did not consider he was in priority need. As such the Council had no statutory duty to secure accommodation for Mr X.
23. Mr X requested a review of this decision on 15 May 2024 and provided a summary of his medical records. The reviewing officer spoke with Mr X on 1 August 2024. The records show Mr X told the officer he had been attacked twice in the last three weeks while rough sleeping. He did not report these incidents to the police but his doctor had seen his bruising and black eye.
24. The Council then wrote to Mr X on 20 September 2024 and confirmed it had overturned the decision that he was not in priority need. Based on the new medical submissions the reviewing officer considered Mr X was in priority need because he was vulnerable as a result of his mental health conditions. They confirmed the Council would now offer Mr X alternative accommodation as soon as possible.
25. The Council offered Mr X temporary accommodation on 1 November 2024. Mr X accepted the property but requested a review of its suitability.
26. The Council accepted a main housing duty on 18 November 2024. It then completed the suitability review on 5 December 2024 and upheld its decision that the property was suitable.

Complaints

27. On 8 October 2024 Mr X made a formal complaint about the delays in dealing with his application and review request, and the number of changes in case officers. He said he had been attacked a number of times since June 2023 while living in his car. Mr X asserted this could have been avoided if the Council had accepted he was vulnerable and in priority need; and provided accommodation.
28. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint on 6 November 2024 and apologised for the delay in responding. It also acknowledged it took longer than expected to complete his homelessness application. This was due to staffing difficulties in the housing team and the time taken for Mr X to provide medical evidence. The Council upheld this part of Mr X’s complaint.
29. The Council also upheld Mr X’s complaint about delay in the review process. It noted Mr X requested a review on 15 May 2024 and his case was allocated to an officer at the end of July 2024. The reviewing officer received additional information from Mr X’s psychiatrist on 13 September 2024 and then overturned the non-priority decision on 20 September 2024.
30. It said that following the review decision the case officer concluded the homelessness assessment and sent Mr X a letter accepting the Main Duty. The Council said the case officer also requested an accommodation placement on 7 October 2024, but due to an oversight this was not approved. It apologised for not offering accommodation following the review officer’s decision on 10 September 2024.
31. However the Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that he was attacked whilst living in his car, or that he had to repeatedly provide information about his case to different officers which caused him distress. It was also unable to locate a call where Mr X said an officer was rude to him.
32. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the process. The Council discussed Mr X’s concerns with him on 29 November and then responded on 6 December 2024. It again acknowledged that processing Mr X’s application took longer than expected and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
33. The Council also upheld Mr X’s complaint that he had sustained injuries due to the delay in assessing his homelessness application. The Council offered Mr X a compensation payment of £150.
34. It acknowledged Mr X wanted long term accommodation rather than temporary housing. But advised that if the Council accepted a main housing duty to secure accommodation it may not necessarily be social housing but would be suitable accommodation.
35. The Council confirmed the Housing Solution team would contact Mr X when it had completed it enquiries and reached a decision.
36. As Mr X remains dissatisfied he has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaints. He says the Council’s delays and failure to properly consider his application meant he was living in his car for over a year, between June 2023 and November 2024. During that time he was attacked and badly beaten.

Analysis

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 June 2023, but the Council did not assess his housing needs until August 2023. The Council accepted a relief duty in early September 2023, 77 days after Mr X presented as homeless. The Council then ended the relief duty 247 days later and notified Mr X he was not in priority need.

37. These delays in dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application are fault.
38. There were then further delays in dealing with Mr X’s review request. The Council should have completed this review within eight weeks, that is by 10 July 2024. However the Council did not complete the review until 20 September 2024, over 10 weeks later. The delay in dealing with the review request is fault.
39. Having completed the review and determined Mr X was in priority need the Council should have immediately offered Mr X temporary accommodation. The Council took a further six weeks to offer Mr X any accommodation. This further delay is also fault.
40. Mr X asserts the Council should have considered him to be in priority need and provided accommodation from the outset. And that the failure to do so meant he had to sleep in his car and has been assaulted.
41. However, save for the delays, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s application. The initial decision that he was not in priority need was based on the medical evidence available at that time. The Council considered this evidence and took advice on Mr X’s vulnerability. Mr X provided subsequently provided additional information for the review which led to the original decision being overturned.
42. I am not therefore persuaded the Council was at fault for not providing accommodation from the outset. It is however likely that but for the delays the Council may have determined Mr X was in priority need sooner.
43. The delays have caused Mr X unnecessary distress and anxiety at what was already a difficult time. The delay in completing the review and in providing accommodation following the decision he was in priority need also meant Mr X was living in unsuitable accommodation in his car for longer than he could have been.
44. Our Guidance on Remedies says that when a person has been deprived of suitable accommodation as a result of fault by the Council, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment. These payments would be between £150 to £350 per month. If we are satisfied the complainant had no option but to sleep rough due to fault by the Council, we are likely to recommend a payment at the top end of the range.
45. In this instance, I consider Mr X was in unsuitable accommodation due to fault by the Council for four months. This is on the basis the Council should have made a decision on Mr X’s review request in July 2024, and did not offer accommodation until 1 November 2024.
46. I consider a payment of £350 per month would be appropriate. The Council should also make a symbolic payment to Mr X to recognise the distress, difficulties and uncertainty he experienced due to the delays in considering his application.

Back to top

Action

47. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for the delays in dealing with his homelessness application and review request, and for the distress and difficulties this caused him. 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.
• pay Mr X £1400 to recognise that he remained in unsuitable accommodation, living in his car for longer than he would have but for the delay in dealing with his review request.
• pay Mr X £500 to recognise the difficulties, distress and uncertainty the Council’s delays have caused him.
48. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
49. In addition, within two months of the final decision the Council should produce an action plan to address the delays in dealing with applications and review requests caused by staff shortages, and any backlogs this has created.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman