Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the lack of support provided by the Council in relation to her homeless application and about the priority band her housing register was awarded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the lack of support provided by the Council in relation to her homeless application. She also complains about the priority banding that has been awarded to her housing register application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X received a section 21 notice from her landlord. In July 2024, she applied to join the Council’s housing register. Mrs X’s case was passed to the homeless team.
6. The Council completed a face-to-face homeless assessment. The officer’s notes recorded that the section 21 notice received appeared valid. The officer also noted the advice given to Mrs X that she could legally remain in the property until a date was given by the court for her to leave.
7. Mrs X told the Council she was receiving emails from her landlord which she said was causing her distress. The Council emailed Mrs X’s landlord to advise of Mrs X’s legal rights and for communication to be kept at a minimum as otherwise it could constitute harassment.
8. In August 2024, the Council received information from Mrs X’s landlord as to the reasons why the section 21 notice was issued. The landlord noted Mrs X was making changes to the property without permission and was not allowing inspections or workmen to access the property to complete repairs. Details of the concerns regarding changes made to the property was shared with the Council.
9. At the end of August 2024, Mrs X’s housing officer emailed her to advise at the end of the 56-day relief duty period, a decision would need to be made as to whether the main housing duty was owed to her. The officer noted she was minded to find Mrs X was intentionally homeless because she had made changes to the property without permission which was in breach of her tenancy agreement.
10. In November 2024, Mrs X told the Council she had found a private property and would be moving. The case records showed the Council provided appropriate advice in relation to a discretionary housing payment (DHP) and chasing her DHP application.
11. It is not clear from the case records when the Council had accepted the relief duty. However, it seems likely it would have been around July 2024, following the face-to-face homeless assessment. The relief duty normally applies for 56 days, before a decision would then be made on whether the main housing duty is owed to the applicant.
12. In this case, the Council did not make any decision on whether it owed Mrs X the main housing duty after 56 days had lapsed. However, we are not likely to find fault with this delay because the case records show the case officer was minded to make a decision that Mrs X was intentionally homeless. The code of guidance notes that where an applicant is found not in priority need, and likely to be found intentionally homeless, councils may wish to consider continuing the relief duty for longer. Therefore, the Council’s actions in continuing with the relief duty was appropriate.
13. I am also satisfied the Council provided Mrs X with appropriate support as required under the relief duty. The relief duty does not require the Council to provide Mrs X with accommodation. Instead, the duty requires the Council to take reasonable steps to help Mrs X secure accommodation that will be available for at least six moths.
14. The evidence shows the Council did liaise with Mrs X’s landlord to gather relevant information, provided Mrs X with appropriate advice regarding looking for alternative accommodation within the private sector, and liaised with property agents to ensure Mrs X was provided with information of available private properties. I am satisfied these were all reasonable steps to help Mrs X secure accommodation. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault.
15. Finally, I am also satisfied there is no evidence of fault in the priority band that was give to Mrs X’s housing register application. She was placed in Band 3 in line with its allocation policy as she was owed the relief duty.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman