Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing application following a relationship breakdown. We found that the Council delayed in responding to Mr B’s application and review request, failed to advise him correctly in respect of his housing application, failed to assess his housing situation when he presented as homeless on two occasions in 2019 and failed to offer clear advice on progressing his housing application. This has caused Mr B significant frustration distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £500, to arrange a housing interview with him to progress his housing application and to ensure all housing staff are aware of the content of the housing allocations policy and the Council’s legal duties in respect of homelessness.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the Council) in respect of his application to join the housing register:
• delayed in dealing with his application and his request for a review;
• failed to clearly explain why he can’t join the housing register; and
• insisted he has to apply as homeless or give up his joint tenancy.
2. This has caused him significant distress as it has affected his ability to care for his children, as well as frustration and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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 the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

Council’s allocations policy

6. This policy says joint tenants who want to be re-housed separately have to apply together or end their existing joint tenancy otherwise they will not be able to sign a new tenancy if the Council makes them an offer through the Housing Register. If the situation arises because of relationship breakdown, applicants have to show formal evidence of separation, and end the existing tenancy before they can sign a new tenancy. Any cases accepted onto the Housing Register and subsequently made any offers will be subject to this condition.
7. The policy also requires applicants to have lived in the borough continuously for the three years before registration. It says that in exceptional circumstances such as domestic violence it is acceptable for applicants to move out of the borough for a short period.
8. Where a housing applicant in housing need does not meet the three year continuous residence requirement their application can be accepted and placed on the register (Band 2 Group B). Once the applicant meets the three year residence requirement, they will be moved into a higher priority group (Band 2 Group A).
9. If a person makes a homeless application to the Council, the Council will place their application in Band 2, Group A or B). If the Council accepts a full housing duty towards a single applicant due to their vulnerability, they may be placed in Band 1, Group B)
10. The policy does not say that a person with no fixed address is not eligible to join the housing register. It also says that a person can ask for a review of any decision that is made about their application and they should request the review within 28 days of the decision.

Homelessness duty

11. If the Council has reason to believe that a person may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, it must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether the person is eligible for assistance. ‘Reason to believe’ is a low threshold. The Council must then carry out enquiries into what duty, if any, is owed to the applicant.
12. The guidance says applications can be made to any department of the Council and do not need to be in any particular form. The courts decided in one case that a reference to impending homelessness in a housing register application triggered the duty to make enquiries.

What happened

13. Following a relationship breakdown, Mr B applied to the Council in August 2019 to join the housing register. He was staying with friends and sofa-surfing. He did not receive a response and chased the Council three times in November 2019. In response to the third email, the Council asked for a copy of his original application. It then said it was unable to register the application because he was sofa-surfing and had forwarded the application to the homeless service. It provided a contact number.
14. Mr B asked for a formal decision letter so he could appeal. The Council replied saying that it had already responded to his email. Following a further email from Mr B the Council, on 12 December 2019, asked for his reasons for wishing to appeal.
15. On 23 December 2019 Mr B said he had applied for housing due to his marriage breaking down and being homeless due to overcrowding. He said he had been moving around and staying in different places including warehouses, shops and a van. He said he had been offered a place in homeless hotels, but they were full of people with drug and alcohol problems, so it was not good for his mental health. He also said he had two young twin daughters and needed suitable accommodation so he could share childcare with his ex-wife as she was struggling due to a health condition. He said he had been living in the borough for six years as a tenant of a housing association. He said he was homeless and wanted to come in for an interview to explain his situation.
16. The Council did not respond to his appeal until 13 October 2020. It said it had spoken to Mr B in February 2020, but Mr B denies this. There is no record of a conversation.
17. The Council said it could not accept Mr B’s application as he became homeless after his relationship breakdown and again said he needed to approach the homeless service. It said it could not add him to the waiting list as he was sofa-surfing and had no fixed address. If he had stayed in the housing association property, his situation would be different, and the Council’s response would have been different. The homeless service would be able to find him temporary accommodation more quickly than if he joined the waiting list. In terms of shared care, the Council would need to see official documents from the courts, social services or a legal firm to confirm his responsibilities.
18. On 18 January 2021 Mr B disputed the Council’s decision. He said he was still a housing association tenant and was in and out of the property helping with child-care. He said he could not stay in homeless hostels for the reasons previously given and he did not accept the Council’s decision as it was based on incorrect information. He said he could provide a letter from social services regarding his domestic/childcare arrangements.
19. On 1 February 2021 he sent the Council a letter from his social worker confirming that he had co-parental responsibility for his two children. He made a formal complaint on 13 February 2021
20. The Council replied in March 2021. It said the officer responsible for his appeal was not at work and his emails were not being monitored so it couldn’t comment on the reasons for the delay with his case or the alleged telephone call in February 2020. It said the Council had a record of a joint housing application from him and his ex-wife, but no record that they had separated. It advised Mr B that if he was no longer part of the household, he should write to his landlord at the housing association and ask for his name to be removed from the tenancy. The Council advised him again to contact the homeless team.
21. Mr B remained dissatisfied and on 20 March 2021 escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said he had notified the Council of his separation in August 2019. He did not wish to remove his name from the tenancy as it would imply he had made himself intentionally homeless. He said he had a right to join the housing register and wanted to be rehoused separately from his ex-wife and two children who already lived in an overcrowded flat. He said the Council had not been clear of the steps he needed to take in order to do this. He requested to placed in Band 1 Group B so he could bid for properties.
22. The Council responded on 20 May 2021. It apologised for the delay in dealing with his application and the lack of response between August and November 2019 and again following his appeal in January 2020. It said it could not comment on the alleged telephone call in February 2020 as there were no notes. The caseworker had been on leave from January to April 2021 and their emails were not monitored. It noted he had contacted the homeless service in June 2019, but his case had been closed due to lack of engagement.
23. It said it could not process his application for two reasons:
• He had no fixed address to enable officers to process and assess the housing application.
• He remained a joint tenant of the housing association flat.
24. It said he needed to remove his name from the tenancy, by completing a tenancy surrender form from the housing association. Although it accepted there had been shortcomings in communication from officers it was satisfied that they had given Mr B appropriate advice to enable him to apply to the housing register. It again directed him to the homeless service.
25. In July 2021 Mr B complained to the Ombudsman. He also confirmed to the Council that he had surrendered his tenancy on 19 July 2021. He received no reply and chased the matter twice. In October 2021the Council advised him that the documents were insufficient: he needed to provide official confirmation form his landlord that he was no longer a tenant and formal confirmation of his separation.
26. Mr B then provided a letter from the housing association and a reference number from the courts and tribunal service regarding his divorce. In November 2021 the Council said he needed to provide an actual legal document showing the outcome of the divorce proceedings. Mr B said this was unreasonable as the court processes were delayed due to COVID and solicitor’s letters cost money. The Council replied saying it was reasonable for the Council to request proof of separation to guard against fraudulent situations and he was not being treated any differently to anyone else.

Analysis

27. Mr B told the Council in August 2019 he was homeless due to a relationship breakdown and made a housing application. The Council failed to respond for three months. This was fault which caused Mr B frustration and distress.
28. When the Council did respond it simply said he could not go on the housing register as he was sofa-surfing and referred his application to the homeless service. This response was inadequate as the allocations policy does not state that you cannot apply if you are sofa-surfing. There is no evidence that the homeless service responded to Mr B, but I consider the Council, at that point should have treated Mr B as homeless and carried out an assessment of his situation.
29. The Council did not provide Mr B with formal notification of the reason why he could not join the housing register, so he could request a review. It only did so after Mr B chased the matter several times. This was fault which caused Mr B frustration and time and trouble.
30. In December 2019 Mr B again described his circumstances and requested an interview to discuss his housing situation. The Council acknowledged that he was homeless but just gave him the number for the homeless service. This was fault. As the Council accepted Mr B was homeless, it should have arranged an interview to assess his situation and provide him with advice and assistance. The failure to do so meant Mr B was left without a solution to his housing situation and was caused significant distress.
31. The Council did not respond to his appeal until October 2020, 10 months later. This was fault which caused Mr B distress and inconvenience. The delay was exacerbated by the failure to properly explain in accordance with its policy why Mr B could not join the housing register. The Council just repeated the view that he could not join the register because he was sofa-surfing which was not accurate.
32. I consider the Council was also at fault for providing piecemeal and confusing advice regarding Mr B’s relationship breakdown and the impact on his housing situation. Mr B first informed the Council in August 2019 that he had left the marital home and needed alternative accommodation to co-parent his children. The Council did not ask for any documents or further information regarding the separation until March 2021. It then just advised him to remove his name from the tenancy agreement. Mr B expressed concerns about the impact of this action on his homeless status which the Council failed to respond to. This was fault which delayed Mr B’s actions on his tenancy until July 2021.
33. If the Council had taken a more pro-active approach at a much earlier point following Mr B’s initial housing application, the Council could have advised Mr B properly and completely about his situation in 2019. It could have progressed a homeless application and advised him of the steps he needed to take in respect of his separation. The failure to do this in 2019 has caused further delay since July 2021: the Council is now insisting on proof of his divorce before it will register his application. I consider this is unreasonable given that the Council only needed to satisfy itself that Mr B had separated from his wife and not divorced her and could have asked for evidence of this two years ago. More recently it could have advised Mr B to obtain a screenshot of his divorce application or suggested less onerous or expensive documents it would accept. The Council should recognise that not all couples pursue divorce after separating and neither do they always seek legal advice. It needs to ensure it is not placing unnecessary barriers in the way of people’s housing applications.

Injustice

34. I cannot say whether Mr B would have obtained housing sooner had the fault not occurred, because I do not know what the result of the homeless assessment would have been and whether Mr B would have been regarded as vulnerable or in priority need for other reasons. But I have concluded that the multiple failings by the Council in dealing holistically with Mr B’s housing case have caused him significant frustration, distress and time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B, I recommended that the Council (within one month of the date of my final decision):
• pays Mr B £500;
• arranges a meeting with Mr B to fully discuss and advise him on his housing situation including the options of a housing application and a homeless application and the documents he needs to submit in respect of his relationship breakdown, with a view to assisting him to progress one of these options as soon as possible; and
• ensures all housing staff are aware of the Council’s legal duties in respect of homelessness and the content of the Council’s housing allocations policy.
36. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman