Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he and his wife were threatened with homelessness. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision. However, the Council made an administrative error when it managed Mr X’s case. The Council has agreed it will review its administrative practice with staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not provide him and his wife, Mrs X, with proper support when they were threatened with homelessness. Mr X said the Council treated them unfairly because of their ethnicity and religion. He said this caused them distress. Mr X wants the Council to apologise to him and his wife.

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. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I considered the information the Council provided which included the Council’s records based on contact it had with Mr X.
7. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

8. 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.
9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from a council:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

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

The prevention duty

11. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure accommodation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases.
12. Councils can end their prevention duty in several situations including where the applicant:
• has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months; or
• is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
13. If a council has ended its prevention duty, it must notify the applicant in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.

Interim accommodation

14. Councils must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women; and
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

What happened

15. Mr X and his wife lived in accommodation which they had rented privately for several years.
16. In January 2022, Mr X contacted the Council. He said:
• his landlord had moved other occupants into the property and was asking Mr and Mrs X to leave;
• Mrs X was pregnant and her due date was July 2022; and
• he had not explored other private accommodation as it was not affordable for him.
17. Mr X wanted the Council to urgently provide him and his wife with suitable accommodation.
18. The Council told Mr X it would need a letter from his landlord which confirmed they were asking Mr and Mrs X to leave the property. It advised Mr X, if his landlord was not asking them to leave, he would need to look for private accommodation as council housing was limited. The Council said it could loan him money for a deposit and one month’s rent upfront providing it agreed the accommodation was suitable and affordable for Mr X and his wife. The Council provided Mr X with a list of local letting agents. It told him how to search for a suitable and affordable property. It also provided him with links to useful information such as claiming financial help for housing costs and how to get assistance with a rent guarantor.
19. Later in January 2022, Mr X told the Council his landlord had given him and Mrs X notice to leave the property by 15 February 2022. He provided the Council with the notice letter. It was unclear whether this was a valid notice. Mr X told the Council he had still not been able to secure private accommodation due to him being on a low income and his financial history. He asked the Council again for urgent accommodation. He said they required a one-bedroom or a two-bedroom property within the same borough as his wife worked within the borough and was not able to travel far due to her pregnancy.
20. The Council contacted Mr X and discussed housing options with him. It told him until the baby was born, Mr X and his wife would only be eligible for a one-bedroom property. However, it advised Mr X to look for private accommodation as council housing was limited, it could not guarantee if or when it could offer it to him. The Council asked Mr X questions such as what his plans were in relation to housing before they had planned to start a family and about his wife’s pregnancy.
21. Following this, the Council accepted a prevention duty because it said Mr and Mrs X were threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days. It confirmed this decision in writing. It completed an assessment of Mr and Mrs X’s needs and sent Mr X a Personalised Housing Plan. The Personalised Housing Plan outlined what action the Council required Mr X to take. This included for Mr X to:
• continue looking for private accommodation. It advised Mr X to look outside of the borough for more availability; and
• provide the Council with copies of essential documents such as passports, proof of income, bank statements for both him and his wife and confirmation of his wife’s pregnancy.
22. The Council said once it had received information on Mr and Mrs X’s capital, it would consider how it could assist them. The Council also told Mr X it would need to speak with his landlord to get a better understanding of Mr X and his wife’s current living arrangements and why the landlord wanted them to leave the property.
23. Between January 2022 and February 2022, the Council:
• spoke with Mr X’s landlord who explained to the Council why it required Mr and Mrs X to leave the property; and
• attempted to work with Mr X to obtain supporting information it had asked for in his Personalised Housing Plan. Mr X did not provide sufficient evidence the Council required such as his bank statements and proof of income, despite the Council asking him for it several times.
24. In May 2022, Mr X told the Council he had secured private accommodation for 12 months. Mr and Mrs X moved into the property in June 2022. Although Mr X’s landlord had given them notice to leave the property by February 2022, Mr and Mrs X were able to stay there until they moved into their new accommodation.
25. The Council ended its prevention duty in May 2022 as Mr X had secured private accommodation for 12 months. The Council also ended its duty because Mr X had failed to provide supporting information it had requested from him since January 2022. The Council did not write to Mr X to confirm its decision to end its prevention duty. This meant he was not given information about his right to ask for a review of that decision if he had disagreed with it. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it made Mr X aware of his right to request a review in previous correspondence.

Mr X’s complaint

26. Between January 2022 and May 2022, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council:
• did not consider he was unable to secure private accommodation due to his financial circumstances;
• did not offer him more financial help for him to secure private accommodation;
• questioned him why him and Mrs X were having a baby;
• advised him to look for private housing outside of the borough when he told the Council his wife could not travel far to work and medical appointments due to her pregnancy; and
• asked his landlord inappropriate questions about him and his wife.
27. He believed the Council had treated him and his wife unfairly because of their ethnicity and religion.
28. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint and did not uphold it. It considered it had advised Mr X appropriately. It did not agree with Mr X it had treated him and Mrs X unfairly because of his ethnicity and religious beliefs. The Council also said its records did not reflect this.
29. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Back to top

Findings

30. When Mr X made the Council aware he and Mrs X were threatened with homelessness, the Council:
• accepted its duty to prevent them from becoming homeless and issued a personalised housing plan;
• gave Mr X advice on how to secure private accommodation considering his financial difficulties; and
• told Mr X it could support him financially with securing private accommodation.
31. The Council appropriately responded to Mr X’s request for assistance and in line with legislation. The Council was not at fault.
32. Mr X said the Council did not provide him and his wife with accommodation when they were threatened with homelessness because of his ethnicity and religious beliefs. The Council has a duty to provide interim accommodation where it has reason to believe an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. The Council did not have reason to believe Mr X and Mrs X were homeless. Therefore, the Council was not required to provide them with interim accommodation. I have reviewed the Council’s records and saw no evidence of it discriminating Mr X. There was no fault by the Council.
33. The Council ended its prevention duty in line with guidance because Mr X had managed to secure private accommodation for 12 months and he did not provide the Council with sufficient information about his finances. However, the Council did not notify Mr X it had ended its duty. This was fault. The Council said it made Mr X aware of his right to request a review in previous correspondence but this would have been in relation to a different decision the Council had made. Although this fault is unlikely to have caused Mr X a significant personal injustice as he had already secured private rented accommodation, it would have been good administrative practice for the Council to confirm in writing its decision to end its duty and set out the relevant review rights.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will remind relevant staff of the importance of notifying applicants when it has decided to end its prevention duty. The Council will provide evidence to the Ombudsman it has actioned this.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have now completed my investigation. I found some fault however it was unlikely to have caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. The Council has agreed to put measures in place to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman