Summary: Mr X complained that the Council refused to include his son in his homeless application. We found the Council was at fault because it provided no contemporaneous documentary evidence of its decision-making and failed to provide Mr X with reasons for its decision. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He says it refused to include his son in his application. He says this caused him distress and anxiety.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 have considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I have also considered their comments on a previous draft of this statement.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (‘the Code’) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:

• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need; and
• not intentionally homeless.

9. Section 189 (1) of the Housing Act 1996 provides that certain categories of applicant have a priority need for accommodation including “a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside”.
10. The Code states that a homeless application includes the applicant and:

(a) any other person who normally resides with them as a member of the family; or

(b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with them.

Key facts

11. Mr X ’s young son, C, was living with his mother, Ms Y.
12. On 26 April 2023 Mr X sent an email to the Council’s Housing Options service saying he wished to make a homeless application for himself and C. He explained he had parental responsibility for C and currently shared care responsibilities with Ms Y who was facing eviction. He said C was on a child protection plan and Children’s Social Services (CSS) had advised him to make a homeless application. He was currently staying in an Airbnb which he shared with other lodgers.
13. CSS sent an email to Housing Options in support of Mr X’s application and explained C was cared for by both parents, but Ms Y was due to be evicted.
14. Housing Options asked Mr X to provide various documents so an appointment could be booked. These included C’s birth certificate and proof of benefits. The team also asked him to complete an application form. Mr X provided the requested documents and completed the application form.
15. Housing Options requested further documents. Mr X provided these and a telephone appointment was arranged for 18 May. This was later rearranged for 24 May.
16. On 12 May C began living with Mr X full-time. CSS wrote to Housing Options explaining Mr X initially made a homeless application because C was facing eviction, but the situation had changed and he needed to take over sole care of C imminently as Ms Y’s mental health had deteriorated. CSS requested urgent housing for Mr X because his current accommodation was not suitable for C. Housing Options responded confirming an appointment had been made for Mr X.
17. On 19 May CSS provided Mr X and C with temporary accommodation. It sent a further email to Housing Options explaining this and saying: Ms Y was being made homeless so C could not remain living with her; Mr X had applied to the Court for a child arrangement order; C was subject to a child protection plan and CSS had significant concerns about Ms Y’s parenting capacity. CSS asked Housing Options to review the matter.
18. On 22 May CSS contacted Housing Options again chasing up a response. Housing Options responded saying C would not be included in Mr X’s application. CSS asked why this decision had been made.
19. The following day CSS sent a further email to Housing Options asking for the reasons behind its decision. Housing Options responded stating that, as far as it was concerned, C was reasonably expected to live in his mother’s accommodation. CSS replied saying Ms Y could not care for C because of her mental health breakdown and asked Housing Options to include him on Mr X’s application. Housing Options responded the following day stating it would not consider C as part of Mr X’s homeless application at that time.
20. A housing officer completed a telephone assessment on 24 May. Mr X made a complaint about the way he was treated by the officer who he says was rude and patronising towards him.
21. The following day Mr X contacted Housing Options saying he now had sole responsibility for C’s care and they were staying in temporary accommodation provided by CSS.
22. On 7 June Mr X made a stage 1 complaint about the lack of housing support he and C had received and about the conduct of the housing officer.
23. The Council responded the following day saying it did not have a recording of the telephone call but the officer who spoke to Mr X said they did not mean to cause him any upset and denied being intentionally rude or unhelpful. The Council acknowledged Mr X had parental responsibility for C but explained that, when assessing homeless applications, it was governed by the Housing Act 1996. It said Mr X’s caseworker had had many conversations with the professionals involved in C’s care, and that of his mother, to decide whether the Council could treat him as being part of Mr X’s household but “regrettably, due to the information we have on file, your son will not be included as part of your homeless application”.
24. On 20 June the housing officer telephoned Mr X and advised she was unable to include C in his application but would provide support to help him search for a private rented property. The notes of the conversation show Mr X became agitated and said that, if the Council would not add C to his application, he did not want to proceed. Accordingly, the Council closed the case.
25. In late July Mr X contacted the Council again. Shortly afterwards the Court made an interim order for C to live with Mr X following Ms Y being admitted to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Council accepted a duty to Mr X and included C on his homeless application.

Analysis

The Council’s decision not to include Mr X’s son in his application

26. The Code says that, where a child is not currently living with the applicant, the housing authority will need to decide whether, in the circumstances, it would be reasonable for them to do so. It says the housing authority should consider each case individually and consider the specific needs and circumstances of the child, including whether suitable accommodation is available to them with their other parent.
27. In this case, C did not usually live with Mr X but began doing so on 12 May with Ms Y’s agreement. CSS supported that agreement as it had significant concerns about Ms Y’s mental health and ability to parent C and it provided Mr X with temporary accommodation. However, housing officers took a different view.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council said officers decided not to include C in Mr X’s homeless application on the basis of section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) and relevant case law relating to ‘priority need’ under the Act.
29. However, I have seen no contemporaneous evidence of the reasons for officers’ decision and what information they considered when reaching it. The Council’s stage 1 response refers to Mr X’s caseworker having “many conversations with the professionals involved in your son’s care and that of his mother” but I have seen no evidence of such conversations in the period up to June 2023. There should be a clear, documented decision-making process. This lack of evidence of proper decision making was fault and causes uncertainty.
30. Likewise, I have seen no evidence that the reasons for the decision were explained to Mr X. The stage 1 response stated, “due to the information we have on file, your son will not be included as part of your homeless application”. This does not explain to Mr X why the decision was made. The Council says this was because it was unable to disclose sensitive information to Mr X. However, it could have stated that this was the case. Failure to inform Mr X of the reasons for the decision caused him uncertainty and put him to the inconvenience of complaining to us.
31. There is also inadequate evidence that housing officers properly explained the reasons for their decision to CSS. I would have expected to see evidence of the two departments working together and taking a holistic approach to matters and, at the very least, evidence of housing officers explaining the reasons for their decision to CSS.
32. The Council has now explained the reasons for housing officers’ decision, and I am satisfied with its explanation. I find no grounds to question the merits of the decision which is one officers were entitled to make.

Complaint response

33. Mr X says the Council dismissed his complaint without properly investigating the conduct of the housing officer during the telephone assessment leading to a biased and dismissive response.
34. At stage 1 the Council explained it did not have a recording of the telephone conversation and so could not verify the nature of the call. However, it confirmed the officer had said they did not mean to cause any upset and denied being intentionally rude or unhelpful.
35. I am satisfied the complaints investigator investigated the complaint properly by discussing the matter with the officer. I do not consider they could have done any more in the absence of a recording of the conversation.

Back to top

Agreed action

36. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• send a written apology to Mr X for the fault identified; and
• pay him £200 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I find the Council was at fault because:
• it has provided no contemporaneous documentary evidence of its decision making;
• it failed to advise Mr X of the reasons for its decision; and
• there was inadequate liaison between housing officers and CSS.
39. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman