Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his homelessness application. The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for delays and errors in its decision-making process which the Council agreed to remedy. However, the Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s final decision about Mr X’s homelessness.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision on his homelessness application. He said the Council ignored evidence his living conditions are unsuitable and ignored evidence about his medical conditions. He also said there were delays in the process.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Housing Act 1996 (Part 7).
• The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
• The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
5. 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

Legislation and statutory guidance

6. Part 7 of 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.
7. 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 which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
8. There is no test of reasonableness in the legislation or guidance. Councils should judge each application on its merits. In determining reasonableness, councils may have regard to general housing circumstances in the area. Statutory overcrowding or unfitness are relevant factors but do not guarantee a home is unreasonable to occupy.
9. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
10. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
11. 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)
12. A council 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
14. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
15. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the Council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
16. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:
• eligibility for assistance
• not in priority need
• intentionally homeless
• suitability of accommodation
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate, and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.
17. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

What happened

18. Mr X lives in a house of multiple occupation (HMO). He has a bedroom next to a communal kitchen. The kitchen and bathroom facilities are shared.
19. Mr X approached the Council in January 2020 because he considered his home was not habitable. He said his bedroom is part of a shared kitchen area and has been designated on a HMO licence as a room that should not be used as a bedroom. He said this is not habitable and living in shared accommodation affects his mental health.
20. The Council accepted a homelessness application from Mr X on 24 January.
21. Mr X gave the Council medical evidence about his condition on 25 January. The Council gave the evidence to its medical advisor, who recommended Mr X should have a single room, but shared facilities were suitable.
22. On 20 February, a housing officer (Officer one) wrote a letter to Mr X telling him he is eligible, and he is homeless, but he did not have priority need. It is unclear whether Officer one posted the letter to Mr X at that time.
23. Between March and June the Council gave Mr X details of several possible new homes. Mr X refused each home because he did not want shared facilities.
24. On 26 June, Mr X again told the Council his bedroom is inside a kitchen and is not habitable. He asked the Council to investigate.
25. The Council considered whether it should give Mr X priority need and asked for an opinion from its medical advisor. Its medical advisor said Mr X’s current home was suitable on medical grounds.
26. The Council contacted the managing agent of Mr X’s home in July. It asked whether Mr X had his own room or if he slept in the kitchen.
27. The managing agent said Mr X was not sleeping in the kitchen because it erected a partition wall to create another room. It said the landlord mistakenly applied for a HMO licence for four bedrooms, but it has now applied for a licence for five bedrooms.
28. The Council decided Mr X was not homeless and wrote to Mr X on 30 July to confirm its decision. It said he has accommodation available to him and the room he occupies is not a kitchen, because the landlord erected a partition wall to create another room. It was satisfied the accommodation is reasonable to occupy. It said he did not suffer mental health issues that will cause him harm by living in his current home.
29. Mr X asked for a review of the Council’s decision that he was not homeless on 17 August. He referred to the HMO licence agreement which said his room is a lounge area and is not habitable as it is open plan with kitchen facilities. He also said his mental health conditions had been overlooked. He said he has complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, so he needs a single occupancy home.
30. Mr X chased the Council for the outcome of the review on 2 November and again on 8 January 2021. The Council agreed an extension with Mr X until 20 January.
31. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman on 18 February 2021 as the Council had still not completed its review. As the Council had not completed its review or considered a complaint from Mr X, The Ombudsman referred Mr X’s complaint back to the Council.
32. Mr X contacted his local MP for help on 24 February. He said he asked for a review in August, but the Council had still not made a decision more than 26 weeks later.
33. The local MP contacted the Council on Mr X’s behalf on 26 February. He asked the Council to review the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation and circumstances.
34. On the same date, Mr X’s legal representative asked the Council for an update. The Council said it was waiting for Mr X to complete and return a vulnerability assessment form.
35. The Council replied to Mr X’s local MP on 15 March 2021. It said it accepts Mr X is homeless, but he does not have a priority need because he is not vulnerable. The Council therefore offered to help him find alternate housing rather than providing accommodation for him. It said a different housing officer (Officer two) was reviewing whether Mr X has priority need and Mr X submitted medical evidence which the Council’s medical advisor was reviewing. It said the review, or a ‘minded to’ letter should be completed by 19 March.
36. Officer two wrote to Mr X with the outcome of the review on 19 March. He said the Council was minded to uphold its decision that Mr X was homeless but did not have a priority need.
37. Mr X’s legal representative contacted the Council on 29 March. They said Mr X had asked for a review of the Council’s decision that he was not homeless.
38. Officer two said the Council had decided Mr X was homeless but not in priority need.
39. Mr X’s legal representative said the Council had produced two decisions. The first was a homeless but not in priority need decision, made on 20 February 2020, which Mr X did not receive. The second was a not homeless decision made on 30 July 2020 which Mr X asked the Council to review.
40. Officer two then spoke to the Council’s HMO licensing team, who confirmed it had issued Mr X’s landlord a new HMO licence allowing the house to be let as a five-bedroom HMO.
41. The Council emailed Mr X on 27 April. It said there had been a misunderstanding about the review, but it was now reviewing its not homeless decision as Mr X had requested. The Council told Mr X it was informed his landlord had erected a partition wall and it was gathering evidence about the HMO licence for his home. It also asked Mr X for information about how his accommodation impacted his health.
42. Mr X disputed that his landlord had erected a partition wall. He told the Council he had already given medical evidence.
43. The Council sent Mr X a copy of the HMO licence and floor plan for the house. It asked him for photographs showing the lack of partition wall.
44. Mr X said he did not need to send photographs. He referred to the earlier HMO licence for the house which showed only four habitable bedrooms.
45. The Council contacted the managing agent of Mr X’s home on 5 May asking for photographs of the partition wall the landlord erected.
46. The managing agent sent this evidence on 19 May. The Council asked Mr X for comments.
47. Mr X replied on 23 May. He maintained his room is part of the kitchen and not habitable. He repeated the impact shared housing was having on his mental health and said he was still waiting for a review decision.
48. The Council confirmed it had allocated Mr X’s review to a new officer.
49. Mr X brought his complaint back to the Ombudsman on 26 May 2021.
50. The Council wrote to Mr X on 4 June. It said it was minded to uphold its decision that Mr X is not homeless. The Council accepted Mr X is disabled, but said his condition is not as a result of his living conditions, nor do they make his condition significantly worse. It said it considered his medical evidence when reaching its decision and took advice from an expert.
51. The Council said Mr X lives in a HMO and has a separate room next to the kitchen which is large enough for a single person. It confirmed the managing agent had the necessary permission for the HMO and the Council’s housing team had no concerns about the suitability of Mr X’s room.
52. Mr X initially asked the Council for more time to make further representations before it made its final decision. However, Mr X then confirmed he would not make further representations.
53. The Council sent its final decision on Mr X’s homelessness application on 26 July. It said:
• It is satisfied Mr X is not homeless as the information from him and the landlord’s agent indicates he is renting a single room in a shared house consisting of five separate rooms let out to individual tenants.
• It was told the landlord erected a partition wall to separate the dining area from the kitchen and turn it into a fifth bedroom. The landlord has a new HMO licence allowing the house to be let out to five households. This was confirmed by the Council’s HMO licencing team.
• It sent Mr X a copy of plans showing he rents a separate ground floor room with a door leading into the kitchen and another leading out to the garden, and only Mr X can access the room.
• Mr X told the Council there is no partition wall but did not send any evidence of this despite being asked for photographs. However, the landlord’s agent provided photographs showing Mr X does not live in the kitchen.
• Based on the evidence seen, it is satisfied Mr X is renting a room that constitutes a separate dwelling, with shared use of communal facilities.
• It cannot conclude the shared accommodation he has is not reasonable for him to occupy on mental health grounds.
• It is clear Mr X has long-standing mental health issues, which he suffered before he moved into his accommodation and will continue to suffer if he moves.
• The Council’s medical advisor is of the opinion Mr X’s accommodation is suitable on medical grounds.
• Mr X’s medical reports do not state shared housing would not be suitable for him.
• It does not consider occasional contact with housemates would have such a drastic impact on his mental health that makes the accommodation not reasonable to occupy.
• There is no evidence noise from the kitchen is unreasonable or that he has a lower-than-normal tolerance to noise to the extent the accommodation is unreasonable for him to occupy.

Response to enquiries

54. The Council accepted it took longer than it should have to process Mr X’s homelessness application and review. However, it said Mr X gave incorrect information about his housing circumstances.
55. That led to the Council’s initial homeless but no priority decision. It said the decision was uploaded to the Council’s computer system in error, and that caused Officer two to review the wrong decision.
56. The Council accepted there were faults in the way it handled aspects of Mr X’s application, but it does not consider Mr X missed out on any housing entitlements because of those faults or delays. However, it accepts the length of time taken to make the original decision and review caused Mr X anxiety and frustration.
57. The Council also accepted there was a substantial delay in logging Mr X’s review, and the review itself was not carried out efficiently. It accepts this caused concern and frustration.
58. The Council told me it maintains Mr X was not homeless throughout the delayed assessment period and no duty to accommodate him was owed or denied.
59. The Council appreciates Mr X may have suffered some inconvenience and dissatisfaction as a result of its faults, but it does not consider he has suffered any injustice because he has always been adequately housed.
60. The Council proposed to apologise to Mr X for the confusion and delays, and to offer him £250 for the anxiety and time and trouble caused.
61. The Council also offered to help Mr X to a find a new home, through landlords the Council works with. It will also consider helping Mr X financially towards a deposit.

Back to top

Analysis

62. Mr X approached the Council in January 2020, complaining his home was not habitable because he slept in a communal kitchen.
63. The Council accepted Mr X’s account and decided he was homeless, but not in priority need. However, for reasons which remain unclear, the Council did not issue its decision to Mr X, and he did not know about it until several months later.
64. The Council did not initially check Mr X’s account with his landlord. It did not make enquiries to verify the information about his living conditions until July 2020, after Mr X raised it again in June.
65. While there are no set timescales in the legislation or guidance for the Council’s enquiries, and it seems likely Mr X gave incorrect information about his living conditions, it was remiss of the Council not to contact the landlord or its managing agent at the outset to verify the details.
66. On the evidence seen, Mr X is not living in a shared kitchen. He has a separate room next to the kitchen with its own door.
67. Mr X relied on the landlord’s former HMO licence, which states his bedroom is not a habitable room as it is not separate from the kitchen facilities. That licence was based on the floor plans for the house, which suggest Mr X’s bedroom does not have a door and was accessible from the kitchen.
68. Through its enquiries, the Council established the landlord erected a partition wall to separate Mr X’s room from the kitchen and he has his own door so only he can access the room. I have seen photographs taken by the landlord’s agent which confirm this.
69. Based on the information the Council gathered, I have not seen evidence of fault in its decision that Mr X lives in a habitable room of a shared house and is therefore not homeless.
70. Mr X asked for a review of the Council’s ‘not homeless’ decision on 17 August 2020. The Council completed its review on 19 March 2021, more than 6 months later. That was far too long and was fault. The Council should complete reviews of this kind within eight weeks. The Council did agree an extension in January, but the decision was already long overdue then, and the Council also missed the new deadline.
71. When the Council did complete the first review, it was wrong. The officer mistakenly reviewed the Council’s ‘no priority’ decision instead of the ‘not homeless’ decision. That mistake was a result of failings in the administrative process when the Council first considered whether Mr X was homeless. Again, that was fault.
72. After Mr X pointed out the error, the Council agreed to review its ‘not homeless’ decision. Again, that took too long than the prescribed eight weeks. Mr X pointed out the Council’s error in March 2021. It took the Council until 4 June to complete another ‘minded to’ decision. However, I appreciate the Council had to make more enquiries with the managing agent and HMO licensing team at that point. It also kept in regular contact with Mr X and asked him for more evidence about his living conditions, some of which he did not supply.
73. Turning to the Council’s final decision that Mr X is not homeless, I have not seen evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision. It considered Mr X’s evidence about his living conditions and about his medical conditions. It also considered evidence from the agent of his landlord and its HMO licensing team. In addition, the Council considered the opinion of a medical expert about the impact of Mr X’s home on his medical conditions.
74. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether someone is homeless, or whether their living conditions have an unacceptable adverse impact on their health. Those decisions are for the Council to make. Our role is to consider the process by which the Council reached its decisions.
75. In summary, there were clearly delays and errors in the decision-making process, but I have not seen evidence those faults undermine the decision itself.
76. The Council’s errors and delays will undoubtedly have been frustrating and distressing for Mr X. There is much the Council can learn from this case about the way it carries out homelessness enquiries and reviews in future.
77. I consider the remedy the Council has proposed is a suitable one and demonstrates the Council’s willingness to put things right. It reflects the frustration caused by the delays, as well as the unnecessary time and trouble it put Mr X to.

Back to top

Agreed action

78. Within six weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the confusion and delays, and to offer him £250 for the distress and time and trouble caused.
• Help Mr X to a find a new home. It will also consider helping Mr X financially towards a deposit.
79. The Council should also remind officers in its housing department the importance of making suitably prompt enquiries and meeting statutory deadlines.

Back to top

Final decision

80. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for delays and errors in its decision-making process which the Council agreed to remedy. However, the Ombudsman did not find fault in the Council’s final decision about Mr X’s homelessness.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman