Summary: Ms X complained that the Council did not act in good time when she was homeless. There was no fault by the Council. It considered its duties properly, and it helped her find accommodation during the relief duty period. There was no significant or avoidable delay by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council did not act in good time to house her when she was homeless, and it did not communicate with her clearly during that time.
2. Ms X says that the Council’s shortcomings caused her distress and frustration, and also meant she had to spend her savings on renting short-term rooms.

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 evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms 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

The law

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;
• whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority;
• the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty;
• 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.

What happened

13. Ms X was homeless. She says she contacted the Council several times but she was not told how to make a homelessness application until 2 September. By this time, Ms X had nowhere to go and she had to rent short-term rooms.
14. The Council assessed Ms X’s application and asked her to send further documents. Ms X had difficulty submitting the documents and she emailed the Council to ask for help with this. Ms X says she asked for a face-to-face appointment to submit her documents and discuss her case. The Council officer was away from the office and so did not reply to Ms X straight away. Ms X says she called the Council to clarify what she needed to do but she could not get through.
15. The Council responded to her on 20 September, with details of what information it needed, and how to submit documents. The Council asked Ms X to submit her address details for the previous five years so that it could make sure it did not need to refer her to another council for housing. During September, the Council got more information from Ms X and the mental health services regarding her health. This was so it could see if Ms X had priority need and to make sure that any accommodation it offered her was suitable. If the Council decided Ms X had priority need, it would have a duty to offer her interim accommodation.
16. On 16 October, the Council notified Ms X that it had accepted the relief duty.
17. The Council considered all the information it had about Ms X’s health. It completed a vulnerability assessment and at the beginning of November, it wrote to Ms X to explain that it had decided she did not have a priority need. The Council’s letter also set out Ms X’s right to request a review of this decision.
18. The Council worked with a local letting agent and found Ms X a room which she accepted and her tenancy began on 18 November. Its records show that it considered whether this was suitable for Ms X. It decided the room was the right size and Ms X did not have any medical needs for a different type of property. The Council then wrote to Ms X to notify her it had ended its relief duty. Again, it included that she had the right to ask for a review of this decision.
19. Ms X had asked the Council to reimburse her the money that she paid on short term lets during this time. The Council refused as it had housed her within a reasonable timeframe.
20. Ms X asked the Council to reconsider this. She said that her local connection was clear from when she first approached the Council. She had queries about how to submit her bank statements and the officer did not respond. She also said the Council did not explain to her properly what it needed. She had asked for a face-to-face meeting but this was refused. Now it had housed her in a room sharing a house with men which made her feel vulnerable.
21. The Council responded. It said that it had asked for evidence that Ms X had a local connection and this was required by homelessness legislation. It apologised that the officer had not responded to her initially. She was on annual leave but it has reminded staff to set their email so that it will tell customers who to contact in their absence. It again refused to reimburse the money she had spent on short term accommodation.

Findings

22. Ms X had pre-existing mental illness and so it is likely that homelessness would have been very stressful for her to deal with. Ms X has sent me some telephone logs that show she tried to contact the Council before and after it took her application at the beginning of September. I cannot tell from the logs what happened during these calls, however, I understand from Ms X that she had tried to telephone the Council several times but could not get through.
23. The Council has apologised that it did not give more details about who to contact while the officer was on leave. I have not investigated this further because there was no significant delay in processing Ms X’s application.
24. Ms X asked for a face-to-face meeting with the Council. Although the Council could have done this, it had not obligation to do so as Ms X was able to communicate via telephone and email.
25. I do not have enough information to decide whether the Council failed to help Ms X make a homelessness application prior to 2 September. I have decided not to investigate this further because I am not persuaded that any delay in starting the process had a significant impact on Ms X.
26. I appreciate that Ms X had to pay for short-term rooms while she waited for the Council to help her find somewhere to live. However, as Ms X had no priority need, the Council was not under any duty to provide interim accommodation. It was not fault when it would not reimburse Ms X the cost of the short-term rooms.
27. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
28. If Ms X believed she had a priority need due to her ill health, she could have used her right to ask for a review. If her review was unsuccessful, she could have gone to court to challenge this. We would usually expect a person to use their statutory review right. This means I have not investigated whether the Council was right to say that Ms X had no priority need.
29. The Council helped Ms X to find somewhere to live within the relief period and so it ended its relief duty. There was no significant or avoidable delay by the Council.
30. Again, if Ms X decided that the accommodation was not suitable and the Council should not have ended its relief duty, she could have asked the Council to review this.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman