Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to deal with her homelessness case and about its poor communications with her during that time. The Council was at fault when it continually failed over several months to take any action in relation to Ms X’s case. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £400 to remedy the injustice it caused her. It has also agreed to provide proof of the steps it has taken to prevent a similar recurrence of the fault in future.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to deal with her homelessness case from March 2020 and its poor communications with her at that time.
2. Ms X says this caused her distress because she felt uncomfortable having to stay with a friend and she was forced to sleep in her car.

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 spoke to Ms X and considered her view of her complaint.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included the Council’s case files, complaints correspondence, Ms X’s housing application form and the information she provided as proof for her homelessness case.
7. I gave the Council and Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness legislation

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (‘the Guidance) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. If there is reason to believe that a person may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, the housing authority must carry out an assessment to determine if this is the case, and whether the person is eligible for assistance.
10. A person is to be considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them (and their household) and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in. (section 175 of the Act)
11. ‘Entitled to occupy’ covers categories where there is an express legal right of occupation, such as owner-occupiers and tenants. People staying with family or friends will only have rights of occupation until permission for them to stay is withdrawn.
12. The Code says there is no simple test of reasonableness with regard to ‘reasonable to occupy’ and councils should judge each application on the facts of the case (Code 6.23). But in determining reasonableness, it is unlikely it would be considered ‘reasonable’ for a person to sofa surf.
13. The Act specifically says it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is likely that this will lead to domestic or other violence against them or a person normally living with them. This also includes threats of violence 'which are likely to be carried out'.
14. The first assessment a council must make is whether it needs to provide interim accommodation. This duty is triggered as soon as the council has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible (this normally depends on the immigration status of the person seeking assistance), homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty and councils cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources.
15. The council’s duty to provide interim accommodation lasts until the applicant is notified what duty, if any, is owed to them by the Council.
16. If the Council decides the applicant is eligible, has a priority need and is not intentionally homeless, it will owe them the full housing duty. Under the main housing duty, housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is ended, usually through the offer of a settled home.
17. The events Ms X complains about took place during the Covid19 lockdown. The Coronavirus Act 2020 did not change the existing homelessness prevention and relief duties in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)

What happened

18. Ms X lived with a relative until March 2020. At this point, the relative discovered Ms X was pregnant and made threats of violence against her. Ms X reported the matter to the Police and was given a crime number.
19. Ms X left and went to live with her partner’s family. However, the relative made threats to the family and sent other family members to try to make Ms X return home and have an abortion. As a result, Ms X moved at the beginning of April to a friend’s house where she slept on her sofa. Ms X said her friend said she could only stay until the end of May.
20. At the same time as she moved to her friend’s property, Ms X contacted the Council and explained that she was sleeping on her friend’s sofa and had to move out at the end of May. A Council Housing Officer informed her that she should provide information including the Police crime number, proof of pregnancy, financial and work details and a letter from her friend to say she could only stay temporarily with her. Once the Council had that information the Officer said they would assign her to a case worker.
21. Ms X provided the Council with most of the information it required in April. A Council Housing Officer spoke to her at the end of April to say they were still waiting for the letter from her friend. Ms X provided this on 22 May.
22. The Council’s case notes record Ms X phoned on 26 and 27 May to ask if it had allocated her case to a case worker. On 27 May, the case notes record she was told her case would be allocated that day.
23. Ms X said she left her friend’s house at the end of May. She spent two nights sleeping in her car and then contacted a national homelessness charity. She said it advised her to contact a different Council area (Council B). Ms X contacted Council B the same day and it immediately found her temporary accommodation.
24. Ms X phoned a Housing Officer again on 4 June because she had heard nothing further from the Council. Later that day she called the Housing Triage Team and told them the Housing Officer had been rude to her and made upsetting comments. She said the Officer had also told her to stop calling the Council and to wait for someone to call her.
25. Ms X said she phoned the Officer back to ask for her name because she wanted to make a complaint. She said when she told the Officer this they were rude to her and made her cry.
26. Ms X complained to the Council in June. She said the Council Officer had been rude to her during a call earlier that month.
27. The Council responded later in June. It apologised if Ms X had felt distressed or upset by the call.
28. Ms X remained unhappy and complained again at the end of June. She said the Housing Officer had shouted at her and made derogatory remarks. She also said the Council had not addressed her main complaint. This related to the Council’s failure to meet its homelessness duties towards her. Ms X said:

“I am now 26 weeks pregnant, having contacted [you] since I was 12 weeks and still have had no real acknowledgement or duty of care shown from yourselves. My case worker finally called me last week only to tell me to “not panic” and to “not call for 4 weeks” as she has back to back appointments… she was in a rush to get me off the phone call… and stated again before ending that if I keep calling the general housing line that I will not get through to her… I have made it clear to members of your team on the telephone now numerous times that I have had to leave my friend’s house – as stated in the letter you requested over two months ago. I have resulted to sleeping in my car”.

29. Ms X heard nothing further from the Council. At the end of July, she contacted the Housing Triage Team again who spoke to Ms X’s case worker. The case worker said they required further information from Ms X. There is no evidence Ms X was asked to provide this information.
30. On 7 October, the case worker called Ms X and arranged a telephone assessment for 13 October.
31. The case worker called Ms X on 13 October but she was in hospital having her baby and so she could not discuss anything at that time. Ms X said she told the case worker she was in temporary accommodation with Council B and would contact the case worker again when she was able to speak.
32. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint later in October 2020, almost 4 months later. It apologised for the delay in replying. The Council said that:
• because there was no recording of the telephone call with the Housing Officer, it was not possible to come to a finding on how she had spoken to Ms X. The Council said that it had spoken to the Officer who extended her apologies to Ms X if she felt she they had not treated her with compassion;
• it had not contacted her to book an interview due to an administrative error. The Council said it would contact Ms X as soon as possible to arrange this. It said it had also taken steps to ensure the same administrative error did not occur again.
33. Ms X then complained to the Ombudsman. She said she had not been back in touch with the Council since then because she was unsure if she wanted to pursue housing in its area after the way the it had treated her. She said in any case, Council B had accepted her case. However, more recently Council B had told her it was referring her back to the original Council. Ms X said she was concerned at the prospect of dealing with the Council after the way it had previously treated her.
34. In response to my enquiries, the Council apologised to Ms X and made the following points:
• although it took Ms X some time to provide the documents the Council requested, it could have avoided the delays this caused. The Council said that since then it had altered its procedures and now allocated a caseworker within one day of receiving an application. It also said it had changed procedures so delays would not occur simply because Housing was waiting for documentation from the applicant;
• there was a “substantial delay” in contacting Ms X to carry out a full assessment. This was only booked in once Ms X had complained a second time to the Council;
• although Ms X did not contact the caseworker as instructed once she had left hospital, the Council “ought to have proactively sought an update on the position sooner”; and
• the Council failed to take the opportunities it was offered to consider Ms X’s circumstances and whether it owed her an interim duty to accommodate her.
35. The Council concluded by stating “We acknowledge there was a delay in allocating [Ms X’s] case… At the time of application in April 2020 the Council’s resources were extremely stretched as a result of… the Covid-19 pandemic… whilst this does not justify the failings in this case, I hope it provides some context as to how it may have occurred… however, the Council has since taken positive steps to avoid the potential for this situation to be repeated”.

My findings

36. The Council has accepted it delayed dealing with Ms X’s case and missed opportunities to consider Ms X’s circumstances as to whether it owed her a duty to provide interim accommodation.
37. If the Council had acted without fault, it is likely it would have found it owed Ms X a duty to provide interim accommodation. The fact Council B decided she was owed such a duty and acted immediately, lends strength to this.
38. As a result of the Council’s fault, Ms X was caused unnecessary distress at a time when she was particularly vulnerable. This was compounded by the additional time and trouble she had to go to when the Council failed to deal with her complaint appropriately.
39. The Council states it has already made procedural changes to prevent a similar occurrence in future. It should provide proof it has done so.

Back to top

Agreed actions

40. Within one month of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £400 to acknowledge the distress and unnecessary time and trouble its faults caused her.
41. Within three months of the date of the final decision the Council has agreed to provide evidence of the changes in procedures it has made to help prevent a recurrence of the faults identified in this decision statement.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman