Summary: The Council was at fault for poor communication and delays in Mr X’s homeless application. Mr X experienced avoidable distress and financial loss as a result. The Council has agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to help him when he was homeless. He says the Council:
1. failed to provide interim or temporary accommodation;
2. communicated poorly;
3. delayed issuing decisions; and
4. failed to provide the financial help he sought to secure a property.
2. As a result, Mr X says he experienced avoidable distress, had nowhere to live, and had to borrow money to secure a new tenancy.

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. 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 the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
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. This assessment must include:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)
11. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household 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)
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
15. Councils must give the applicant decisions about duties owed in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

My findings

16. The court granted Mr X’s landlord possession of the property Mr X rented. The court said Mr X had to move out in May 2024.
17. In early June, Mr X filled in an online form asking the Council for help. He says he got a message to say the Council would contact him within five days.
18. Over two weeks later, the Council emailed Mr X allocating his case to an officer and arranging an appointment for a week later. Mr X was homeless and his situation was urgent. The Council should have contacted him much sooner. Failure to do so was fault.
19. Mr X attended the appointment, and the Council completed an assessment. It recorded that Mr X should have left his tenancy in May but was still there because he had nowhere to go. It also noted that Mr X had care of his child at weekends and during holidays. Large sections of the assessment are blank, including the section which asks the officer to detail the discussion about relieving homelessness and the options available. Failure to conduct and record a full assessment of Mr X’s needs and circumstances was fault.
20. The Council recorded the result of the assessment was that it owed Mr X the relief duty. There is no evidence it wrote to Mr X with the details of the assessment, told him what duty it owed or produced a personalised housing plan (PHP). Failure to do so was fault.
21. The Council referred Mr X to its private rented team. This team could help Mr X by paying towards a deposit and first month’s rent on a property. Mr X says the Council only told him about properties a long way from the borough. He said this was unsuitable for him because of his work and contact with his child. Given the lack of affordable accommodation in the Council’s area, it was not fault for the Council to tell Mr X about options further away.
22. Mr X contacted the Council again in early August. He saw a different officer because his assigned officer was on holiday. This officer took the same information Mr X provided in June.
23. Mr X says the Council told him it would arrange accommodation for him if he stayed with a friend for a week. There is no evidence in the Council’s records of its discussion with Mr X. Failure to keep proper records was fault.
24. However, the Council had no reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need. It therefore had no duty to provide him with interim accommodation. It was not fault for it not to do so.
25. After a week, Mr X contacted the Council to say he had expected it to contact him. There is no evidence the Council responded to these requests for contact. Failure to do so was fault.
26. In mid-August, Mr X told the Council he had found a flat. He provided details and asked the Council for help with deposit and rent in advance, which it had earlier offered him. The Council failed to respond to Mr X. This was fault.
27. Mr X complained to the Council. In its stage one response, the Council said:
• It had referred Mr X to its private rented team but Mr X was not interested because of the location of available properties
• The Council was overdue to decide whether it owed the main housing duty
• It partially upheld the complaint. It said it had not communicated with him in a timely way and delayed making a decision about the main housing duty.
• It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to accommodate him. It had offered Mr X help to secure private rented accommodation and he refused this because it would be in a different borough.
• An officer would contact Mr X the next day about engaging with the private rented team and tell him when to expect a decision on the main housing duty.
28. Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two. He said:
• The Council did not contact him within five days after he made contact
• After referring him to the private rented team, the Council did nothing for two months and he had been homeless since the end of July
• He received a PHP a few days ago for the first time, which should have happened in June
• He had borrowed money to secure a property, which would not have happened if the Council had responded to his email in August.
29. The Council responded at stage two of its complaint process in early November. It said:
• The stage one response did not fully address the complaint. It should have upheld the complaint
• The Council should have contacted him the same day or the next day when he completed the online form in June
• It did not issue a PHP or tell him about his review rights which was fault. It accepted this added to Mr X’s frustration and concerns.
• It was sorry that “we did not progress your application in a timely manner”
• Its failures “added to the uncertainty and lack of clarity” about his housing options
• It should have responded to Mr X’s contact about the flat in August
• It offered Mr X £150 as a remedy

Conclusion

30. The Council has accepted fault for its poor communication, delay contacting Mr X and delay making decisions giving Mr X his review rights.
31. The offered remedy of £150 is not an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
32. Because of fault by the Council Mr X experienced significant and avoidable distress and uncertainty. He missed out on statutory review rights and did not have the advice and support of a PHP. He also experienced avoidable financial loss. He had to borrow money to secure a property because the Council failed to respond to him. These are injustices to Mr X.

Back to top

Action

33. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
2. On receipt of evidence of the costs incurred from Mr X, refund him for the deposit and rent in advance he paid to secure his tenancy
3. Pay Mr X £250 to recognise his avoidable distress and frustration
34. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
35. In the last two years, the Council has agreed to various service improvements to improve its record keeping and timeliness in communication and decision making. I have not repeated those recommendations here.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman