Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed dealing with her homelessness application. I have found evidence of fault by the Council. The Council has already made service improvements and has agreed to our recommendations to pay Ms D redress for the delay.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council delayed providing homelessness assistance when she approached it in June 2024.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have considered events from June 2024 through to February 2025 when the Council issued its main housing duty decision to Ms D. I have advised Ms D that if she has additional issues, she can make a new complaint to the Council and then come to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms D, her Representative and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 10 June 2024 Ms D filled out an online form applying to the Council for homelessness assistance. She stated she would be homeless by 20 June, and she had a mental health condition and required support. I understand this was assessed by a Council Officer as not being an urgent case.
8. On 15 July Ms D, via her Representative, submitted a complaint to the Council. She said she applied as homeless in June and had not received any contact. On 7 August a Caseworker contacted Ms D and noted she could not stay at her current non-permanent housing. She had a mental health disorder and could not share accommodation. The Council asked for a telephone number of a friend to confirm Ms D was facing homelessness. Ms D said she would check it was okay to supply that information and get back to the Council. On 14 August the Council responded to the complaint. It upheld the complaint but provided no explanation for the fault and did not offer any remedy. On 28 August Ms D, via her Representative, asked the Council to escalate the complaint. She had not been given a timeframe for assisting Ms D despite being aware she was sleeping in her car. Ms D had called the Out of Hours Service at the Council on 22 August, she was told someone would call back and they did not. Ms D had then attempted suicide. The Council says ‘further attempts to contact applicant were unsuccessful’ in August. The Council closed the homelessness application on 29 August.
9. On 2 September the Council received another homelessness application for Ms D. On 3 September a Caseworker assessed the application and noted that Ms D had been sleeping in a car. She had mental health issues meaning she could not live in shared accommodation. An NHS letter was supplied confirming that Ms D was vulnerable and at serious risk of self-harm due to her homelessness. On the same day the Council placed Ms D in hotel accommodation (interim accommodation). On 6 September the Council advised Ms D that it was looking for suitable and local interim accommodation for her. On 11 September Ms D moved to an alternative hotel. On the same day the Council accepted it had a relief duty towards Ms D and said it would issue a personalised housing plan (PHP) within ten days. Ms D gave the Council documentation for her case on 17 September, and the Council issued the PHP the following day. The PHP noted Ms D required a one bedroom property and she would give additional medical information to the Council. It provided information on financial assistance and how to source private rental accommodation.
10. On 9 October the Council placed Ms D in alternative interim accommodation. On 20 November the Council replied to the escalated complaint. It reiterated there had been fault but did not elaborate on the initial response. On 2 December the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Ms D. This was not ‘signed off’ and issued to Ms D until 24 February 2025.

What should have happened

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)

Homelessness application

13. When the Council receives a homelessness application a duty Housing Officer will assess if the application is urgent. Where an applicant is already homeless or due to be so within a few days the case is classed as urgent. It will be allocated to a Caseworker who will contact the applicant and look at the provision of interim accommodation where applicable. If the applicant will not be homeless for a few weeks or longer the Council will class as not urgent, and the case is allocated to a Caseworker ‘at a later date’.

Interim and temporary accommodation

14. When a Caseworker contacts the applicant, they should discuss the person’s housing needs. The Council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. If the Council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation the Council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Was there fault by the Council

16. The Council should have allocated Ms D’s homelessness application to a Caseworker before 20 June 2024, which was the date she stated she would become homeless. The Council has already accepted it was at fault in this matter because it failed to allocate the case until 7 August and only because of Ms D making a formal complaint. There was a delay of seven weeks allocating the case and making contact with Ms D, that level of delay is unacceptable.
17. There was a further period of delay by the Council because it decided on 2 December that it owed a main housing duty towards Ms D. It failed to formalise that decision and notify Ms D for 12 weeks. The Council cannot explain the reason for this period of inaction on the case but does accept it is at fault.
18. The two complaint responses to Ms D in 2024 were poor. Whilst they acknowledged there had been fault, they failed to explain why it had occurred or explore whether the failing had resulted in an injustice to Ms D.
19. There is no fault in the Council closing the initial June 2024 homelessness application. It required additional information from Ms D to verify her situation but did not receive it. In such instances the Council has the right to close an application.

Did the fault cause an injustice

20. The delays by the Council meant Ms D was caused avoidable additional distress at an already difficult time.

Back to top

Action

21. As a result of this case the Council has made some service improvements to avoid the same errors happening again. It has changed the way it allocates cases to prevent delays; it has set targets for Officers and is using templates for complaint handling to ensure a full response is provided. I welcome those measures and the Council accepted my recommendation to pay Ms D £300 for the distress caused by delays in her case.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action within four weeks of the investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman