Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness. We found the Council to be at fault because it too long to process her application and did not assist with her homelessness. This caused distress and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Councils handling of her homelessness application.
2. She complained the Council delayed making its assessment and decisions about it. Miss X also complained about the Councils failure to provide her and her child with interim accommodation.
3. Miss X said the impact of fault by the Council has been significant for both her and her child. Her child has complex health needs, and these were adversely affected by the situation and lack of support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. Part of Miss X’s complaint is late because it includes the Council’s failure to address her homelessness from August 2023. I have decided to exercise my discretion to investigate these earlier events because Miss X explained she was unable to bring her complaint to us sooner because her main focus was being rehoused and ensuring her son’s complex needs were being met.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

11. 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.

The prevention duty and personal housing plans (PHP)

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live.
13. After carrying out an assessment the council must prepare a PHP for the applicant. The PHP sets out the steps both the authority and the applicant will take to try to prevent or relieve the applicant’s homelessness. The council must keep the PHP under review. As a minimum it should be reviewed with every change in duty. (I.e. when prevention ends and relief starts, when relief ends and main duty is owed).

The relief duty

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. The relief duty can last for up to 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

Interim accommodation and priority need

16. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
17. A council may decide an applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.
18. The threshold for triggering the interim accommodation duty is low as the council only has to have a reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.5)

The main housing duty

19. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to make accommodation available. The accommodation councils provide after they accept a main housing duty is called temporary accommodation, rather than interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Evictions

20. Where a tenant has an assured shorthold tenancy, the landlord can issue a section 21 notice asking the tenant to leave.
21. If the tenant does not leave, the landlord can move forward with the eviction process. In some cases, the landlord can evict without a court hearing – this is called “accelerated possession”.
22. The Code says it is unlikely to be reasonable for a tenant to stay beyond the expiry of a notice if the landlord intends to recover possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order (6.35).
23. It says it might be reasonable for a tenant to remain after the notice expires if a council is taking steps to persuade the landlord to let the tenant stay for a “reasonable period” to give the council and tenant time to find alternative accommodation (6.35).
24. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy a property beyond the date on which the court (through a possession order) has directed them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.
25. If the tenant does not leave the property after receiving the possession order, the landlord can ask the court to issue a warrant to enforce possession. The Code says it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation of a property until a court issues a warrant. It says applicants should not be evicted by bailiffs because of a failure by a council to provide accommodation (6.37, 6.38).
26. Our March 2023 focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act”, expressed our concern at the number of councils that still take a “wait for bailiffs” approach in homelessness cases. We highlighted that this approach is, “contrary to the law and guidance and causes significant and avoidable distress for people at an already difficult time in their lives”.

What happened

27. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
28. In 2023, Miss X lived in private rented accommodation with her child who has several, serious medical conditions. In July 2023, Miss X was served with a section 21 eviction notice by her landlord. The following month, she contacted the Council about her pending homelessness and provided requested documents. She also made an application to join the housing register that was accepted in December 2023 with 1000 priority points.
29. The Council acknowledged her homelessness application in mid-December 2023, but she heard nothing further. Assisted by an advocate, Miss X complained to the Council about lack of progress in March 2024.
30. Miss X was assigned a new case officer in late April 2024. They carried out an initial assessment and queried her residency because Miss X has lived in a different London borough for the last five years and had also received a homelessness application from Miss X.
31. On 27 June 2024, the Council accepted Miss X was entitled to the relief duty and issued a PHP.
32. Miss X was notified she was entitled to the main homelessness duty on 30 September 2024. She was made a direct offer of accommodation and moved into a property on 27 October 2024.
33. Miss X complained to the Council in April and May 2024 about the delay in processing her application, as well as poor communication throughout. She explained the distress and frustration that had caused, and the impact this had on her child with complex care needs.

The Council’s position

34. In response the Ombudsman’s enquiries and Miss X’s complaint, the Council’s position is summarised below.

• It accepted communication was poor when Miss X made her homelessness application. Her assigned case officer had left, and her case was not transferred to another worker. This was caused by excessive demand and lack of resources.
• It accepted that Miss X was owed the prevention duty from December 2023. No meaningful work took place with Miss X to address her pending homelessness at any time.
• In recognition of the distress caused by this delay and poor service, the Council offered Miss X £500.
• Miss X was not offered interim accommodation because it was considered reasonable for Miss X to remain where she was.
• Between February 2024 and October 2024, of the 79 applicants that were rehoused by the Council, 71 had a lower priority than Miss X.
• Action had been taken to address staffing shortages in the homelessness team that contributed to the delay and poor communication experience by Miss X.

Analysis

35. Paragraphs 20 to 26 (above) explain the steps the Council should take in response to a homeless applicant being served a section 21 eviction notice.
36. It is clear from the chronology set out above that the Council should have completed an assessment and a PHP much sooner than it did. The Council has accepted a prevention duty should have been awarded to Miss X in December 2023. The PHP should have been kept under regular review during the period the landlord pursued possession action. The Council has accepted it took no meaningful action to mitigate Miss X’s homelessness, including contacting her landlord.
37. It should also have considered whether the expiry of the section 21 notice left Miss X and her child homeless. It should have considered whether it would have been reasonable for Miss X to continue living in the property after the notice expired. The Council should have consulted both the landlord, and Miss X. It should have asked Miss X what her preferences were about being re-housed.
38. Nor did the Council consider whether it was necessary or appropriate to provide temporary accommodation. However, I find it unlikely temporary accommodation would have been an appropriate solution in this case due to Miss X’s specific requirements. Her injustice arising from this fault is limited because the chronology shows that Miss X was allowed to remain at her previous home until she made a suitable direct offer in October 2024. I am satisfied she had somewhere suitable to live until she was rehoused.
39. The Council has acknowledged it acted with fault. It said failure to act (to prevent Miss X’s homelessness) was down to being short staffed and had to prioritise more urgent cases. The Council has also already accepted its communication and customer service was poor, caused by similar issues.
40. The Council offered Miss X £500 in acknowledgement of her distress and frustration. This was not accepted by Miss X. This payment if in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies for this type of injustice and the Ombudsman cannot add anything further to this.
41. Since bringing her complaint the Ombudsman, Miss X has been rehoused. The offer of permanent housing was made relatively quickly after she was awarded the main homeless duty. This is because Miss X had been awarded 1000 priority points when she was accepted onto the Council’s housing register.
42. What I must consider is whether Miss X would have been rehoused sooner, had this delay not occurred, and what, if any, injustice arose. Data provided by the Council shows most of those who were rehoused before Miss X had fewer priority points. I there for find, on balance, likely she would have.
43. However, I cannot say with any degree of certainty how much sooner Miss X would have been matched with alternative housing if not for this fault, as this depended on various factors (numbers of bedrooms, ground floor accommodation etc). But I am satisfied the Council’s actions created uncertainty about whether she would have been. Its lack of contact with Miss X’s landlord also meant she was uncertain as to how long she would be allowed to stay where she was. This is an injustice that requires a remedy.
44. It is not necessary for me to make service improvement recommendations because the Council has already explained the action it has taken to ensure similar faults do not reoccur. I am satisfied the Ombudsman could not add anything further to this.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision.
1. Apologise in writing to Miss X.
2. Pay Miss X £750 as a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty about her housing situation. For the avoidance of doubt, this sum includes £500 already offered to, but not accepted by, Miss X
46. It is not necessary for me to make service improvement recommendations because the Council has already explained the action it has taken to ensure similar faults do not reoccur. I am satisfied the Ombudsman could not add anything further to this.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Miss X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman