Summary: Miss B complained about the way the Council dealt with her case when she approached as homeless in 2024. We found the Council did not deal with her application properly which caused Miss B distress and uncertainty regarding her housing options. The Council has agreed to increase its symbolic payment to Miss B.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained that the London Borough of Brent (the Council) failed to deal properly with her homeless application when she approached the Council in September 2024. Specifically the Council failed to:
• make clear what duty it owed to her and whether safeguarding or housing was providing emergency/interim accommodation;
• clarify the situation in writing or give her a right of appeal;
• ensure the accommodation provided was suitable and ignored her view that hostel/B&B accommodation was inappropriate for her;
• act when she complained about the conditions in both places; and
• inform her in writing when it ended the housing duty and closed the case.
2. It also failed to respond to her complaint in a holistic manner. Miss B said these failings meant had to find her own accommodation and use up her savings in doing so. The situation also caused her significant distress.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss B 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

Homelessness

Applications

7. 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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)

The prevention duty

9. 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. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

10. 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

11. 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(due to illness, age, children or other vulnerability). (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Review rights

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;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end; and
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

The Supportive Multi Agency Response Team (SMART)

13. SMART is a Front Door Team for the Learning Disability, Mental Health, and Autism Service at the Council. SMART provides short‑term, multi‑agency, intervention, and assessment.
14. SMART ensures that adults who present with immediate risk, vulnerability, or urgent unmet need receive a rapid safeguarding and wellbeing response, even where their long‑term eligibility for services has not yet been established.
15. SMART applies when:
• There is immediate risk of harm or homelessness.
• A person is vulnerable and unable to self‑manage the situation safely.
• A proportionate, short‑term intervention is required to prevent escalation pending full assessment

What happened

16. Miss B is a young woman with health conditions. She approached the Council as homeless on the morning of Friday 20 September 2024 following a family dispute. The housing officer (HO) telephoned a family member who confirmed what had happened and that Miss B was not allowed back in the house. HO asked Miss B to return with some paperwork. There was no discussion about where Miss B would stay over the weekend.
17. Later that day Miss B attended the duty social care team with a different family member. No family members could accommodate her, and it was too late in the day for the housing team to be able to assist, so SMART arranged emergency accommodation over the weekend and advised Miss B to attend the housing team on Monday. They considered that the SMART protocol applied because she presented as a vulnerable adult seeking emergency accommodation which the housing team had not provided.
18. The housing records show that Miss B returned to the housing department on 23 September with documents confirming her medical conditions, the reason she left her previous accommodation and some financial information. HO completed a housing assessment and asked Miss B to return with more documents by 1 October. HO provided Miss B with a list of hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation.
19. The Council’s customer service centre contacted HO three times on 25 September asking if Miss B’s stay at the hostel could be extended as she had lots of belongings and the caretaker was about to change the locks. She had nowhere to go and she was very anxious. HO said there was no record of the housing department booking any emergency accommodation and Miss B needed to provide more information before anything else could be done. HO did not contact the safeguarding team or SMART to find out who had arranged the accommodation.
20. On 27 September the safeguarding team found Miss B an alternative hostel.
21. On 30 September Miss B contacted HO to say she was currently in hospital due to anxiety-induced problems and felt she was being passed from place to place.
22. By 4 October Miss B had found her own accommodation in a shared house. She said it was unaffordable, but HO said given her income and savings they considered it was affordable for her.
23. On 8 October the medical adviser decided Miss B did not have any specific medical needs in respect of housing.
24. HO tried to contact Miss B on 9 October. Miss B said she wished to only have email contact. She also made a formal complaint about the conditions in both hostels. She said the second one was male-only, she didn’t have a key for her door for two days, there was no heating and she was left waiting for hours outside on the street.
25. The Council responded on 11 November. It said it should have accepted that she was homeless on 4 October 2024 and owed her a prevention duty. It should have acted to prevent her homelessness or helped her to find alternative accommodation. It found no fault with the conditions of the properties or the medical advice and offered her £45 for the failure to accept a housing duty towards her. It noted she had secured her own accommodation.
26. The Council closed her housing case on 27 November.
27. Miss B complained again in April 2025 as she had not received the £45. On 24 April the Council apologised and said it would pay her an additional £100.
28. At the end of May 2025 Miss B raised another complaint about the way she was treated in September and October 2024. The housing team responded on 17 June. It did not find fault and said the mental health team placed Miss B in the hostels so it had no awareness of their condition or suitability.
29. The adult social care team responded on 24 June. It found no fault in the way it had carried out an assessment and provided support with building self-confidence. It did not mention the housing at all.
30. The housing team responded at stage two on 22 July. It repeated that both of the placements had been arranged by adult social care and she should complain to that department. There was no evidence of mistreatment in the initial contact, and this was dealt with in the November response to her complaint. It said it should have confirmed the case closure in writing and acknowledged that they £145 had only just been paid. It offered her a further £50.

Findings

Homeless application

31. When Miss B first approached the Council on 20 September, she provided evidence that she was homeless and that she had medical conditions which potentially made her vulnerable. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it had reason to believe she might be homeless and in priority need, and therefore in need of interim accommodation. This was fault which caused Miss B injustice as she felt she had to attend a different department to obtain accommodation.
32. When Miss B returned to the housing department on 23 September with evidence of her medical conditions the Council still did not consider offering her interim accommodation, simply providing her with a list of hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation. It completed a housing assessment but did not confirm it owed her any housing duty and did not complete a Personal Housing Plan. Neither did it try to establish which part of the Council had provided accommodation for Miss B and why or liaise with them over a longer-term strategy .This was fault which caused Miss B distress and uncertainty over her accommodation options.
33. HO then failed to consider Miss B’s housing status on 25 September when they were contacted on three occasions by the customer service team requesting an extension of the hostel stay as Miss B had nowhere else to go. HO refused on the grounds that the housing team had not made the booking. I consider HO should have made further enquiries of other Council departments to establish the extent of Miss B’s vulnerability and discuss a longer term option. This exacerbated the injustice to Miss B who was caused significant anxiety by her imminent eviction from the hostel.

Decisions in writing

34. At no point did the Council confirm any decision in writing or give her a right of review against it, including the decision as to whether she was homeless, in priority need or whether the Council owed any duty towards her or when it closed her case. This was fault which meant Miss B had not opportunity to challenge the way the Council was dealing with her case.

Suitability of accommodation

35. The accommodation secured by the safeguarding team was emergency accommodation and while not ideal, provided Miss B with somewhere to stay over the weekend. By Monday 23 September I consider the Council should have considered the situation in more depth and looked at offering her more suitable accommodation, particularly as Miss B says the second hostel was male-only and she was unable to secure her door for several days. It is arguable this was not suitable for a potentially vulnerable young woman.

Complaint-handling

36. The Council’s housing team responded to her initial complaint in November 2024 and acknowledged that it should have accepted her as homeless, acknowledged it owed her the prevention duty and worked to prevent her homelessness. It offered her £45 but then failed to pay it. The delay in payment was fault and the amount offered was very low. There was no indication that the injustice to Miss B was properly considered.
37. Miss B was forced to complain again in 2025 as the promised payment had not been made and she was unhappy with the original complaint response regarding the suitability of the accommodation and how she was treated. She received two separate responses from the housing team and adult social care; the former said the housing was the responsibility of adult social care and the latter failed to mention housing at all. Both responses were inadequate and failed to consider the extent of the fault or the consequences of it. As the Council acknowledged in its response to my enquiries, it would have been better for the Council to have provided a joint response from both departments covering all the issues Miss B had raised. The failure to do so was fault which caused Miss B further uncertainty and frustration.

Back to top

Action

38. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss B I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision, apologises to Miss B and increases its payment of £145 to £300 (ie pays an additional £155).
39. As we recently asked the Council in a different complaint to produce an action plan regarding improvements to its homeless service. I have not made any further service improvement recommendations.
40. The Council has agreed to my recommednation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman