Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s involvement in the decision that the property where he was living was unsafe which meant he could no longer live there. He said the Council failed to provide any accommodation for him while it considered his application as homeless. And failed to help him to find accommodation and decided he was not in priority need. He said the Council failed to deal with his requests for a review of the decisions. As a result he had no accommodation for over nine months and had to sleep in his car. There was fault that caused injustice to Mr B. The Council will apologise, make a payment to him, reissue the decision and take other action to ensure the errors will not recur.

The complaint

1. I call the complainant Mr B. He complained about the Council’s involvement in the decision that the property where he was living was unsafe which meant he could no longer live there. He said the Council failed to provide any accommodation for him while it considered his application as homeless. And failed to help him to find accommodation and decided he was not in priority need. He said the Council failed to deal with his requests for a review of the decisions. As a result he had no accommodation for over nine months and had to sleep in his car.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
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 considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the key law and 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. Councils must take reasonable steps to help the eligible homeless person secure accommodation. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. I refer to this as the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
8. 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)
9. 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.
• If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for them. I will refer to this as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
10. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions, amongst others:
• their eligibility for assistance; and
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Summary of the key events

11. Mr B was living in privately rented accommodation. In October 2020 the environmental health section of the Council inspected the property. Because of concerns about safety they called the fire brigade who served a prohibition notice which meant it could no longer be occupied.
12. Mr B approached the Council immediately as he had nowhere to go. He was given an appointment for just over a week later for a telephone homelessness assessment. The Council did not offer any interim accommodation because it did not consider he was likely to be in priority need. Mr B complained to various people at the Council and his MP that he was sleeping in his car and needed urgent accommodation of some sort.
13. Mr B continued to chase various people about his situation. On 11 November the Council accepted it had the relief duty to Mr B as he was homeless and was eligible for help in finding somewhere to live. It sent him a personalised housing plan (PHP).
14. The Council contacted Mr B’s former landlord but he was not able to assist with the provision of any other accommodation.
15. In early December the Council made its formal decision on Mr B’s homelessness application. It decided he was not in priority need so it did not have the full housing duty to him. This meant the Council would not provide temporary accommodation and the only action it would take was as set out in the PHP. That duty would end after 56 days from when it was accepted.
16. Mr B requested a review of the decision, explaining his reasons, in early December and the Council reissued its formal decision on 21 December.
17. In early January the Council wrote to Mr B to say the relief duty had ended. In the middle of that month it responded under its complaints procedure to some of the points he had raised in his review request in December. It said he could go to stage 2 of the complaint process.
18. On 24 January Mr B sent two emails to the Council. One was in response to the stage 1 complaint response, the other was requesting a review of the decision to end the relief duty.
19. In early February the Council wrote to Mr B saying it was minded not to uphold his review request. Mr B provided more information. The Council wrote to him later that month giving its formal decision not to uphold his review request on the ending of the relief duty.

Analysis

The loss of the previous property

20. I understand Mr B was unhappy that he had to leave where he was living previously. But this was because of action by the fire service, not the Council, and was because of the poor condition of the property. There was no fault by the Council here.

Approach to the Council as homeless

21. When Mr B approached the Council it considered it was unlikely he was in priority need. It said it would consider any further information from him but it would not offer interim accommodation. The Council had good grounds for its view that Mr B was unlikely to be in priority need based on the information he had provided so there was no fault in that decision.
22. There was some delay in arranging a full homeless assessment which is fault. But that has not caused any significant injustice to Mr B. Even if the assessment had been carried out sooner he would have been in the same position because the Council would still have not provided any accommodation for him.

The relief duty

23. The Council accepted it had the relief duty to Mr B in November and issued a PHP. This set out the action it should take to help Mr B. This included contacting Mr B’s former landlord, providing information to him about renting in the private sector and local housing allowance rates and to refer his application to the medical adviser.
24. The Council spoke to Mr B’s former landlord who was unable to offer further assistance. It referred Mr B’s application to the medical adviser which concluded Mr B was not vulnerable. The Council accepted the information it provided to Mr B was out of date about housing allowances. This was in a leaflet sent to him which appears to be old. Moreover, the PHP did not explain what action Mr B needed to take. The information I have seen does not, therefore, show that the Council took reasonable steps to help Mr B to secure accommodation.
25. I cannot say with complete certainty what difference that will have made to Mr B. He should have been better informed about what he needed to do and what the Council could do. But the Council was clear that it could provide help with a deposit but could not be a guarantor for rental payments. I understand Mr B thought the Council would look for social housing for him but I have seen nothing to suggest that he was given information that would suggest that was going to happen. On the balance of probabilities it was unlikely Mr B’s position would be different if the Council had been clearer in the information it had given to him.

Main housing duty

26. In December the Council decided it did not owe Mr B the main housing duty because he was not in priority need. It set out the reasons for its decision and told him how he could challenge the decision. Mr B requested a review.
27. The Council considered the points made by Mr B and reissued its decision just under two weeks later.
28. Relevant here is that Mr B had two, similar, email addresses. Most of his email correspondence was from one address but the Council’s records which were completed by an officer in conversation with Mr B had a second email address. Any correspondence the Council generated from its system used the second email address. But if an officer was replying to Mr B, and he had used the first email address, then it would go back to that address. The Council’s notification of its decision was sent to the second email address and it is clear Mr B received it as he requested a review.
29. The revised decision says on it that it was sent to the same email address but the Council has not been able to locate a copy of the actual email. Mr B says that he did not receive it. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I conclude that it was not sent. This meant Mr B was not able to further challenge the Council’s decision that he is not in priority need.

Ending of the relief duty

30. The Council wrote to Mr B in early January advising the relief duty had ended. Mr B wrote requesting a review. The Council responded rejecting the review but again advising Mr B he could challenge the decision in court.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. The Council will, within a month of the final decision;
• apologise to Mr B and pay him £250 in recognition of the injustice caused to him from the faults found;
• reissue the revised decision on his homelessness application notifying him of how he can challenge that decision. If any challenge is successful then that has consequences for the impact the fault has had on Mr B. If that is the outcome the Council should consider providing further remedy to Mr B. If agreement cannot be reached then Mr B can make a further complaint to us.
32. The Council will review its procedures to ensure that correct information is given to homeless applicants and that Personal Housing Plans are fully completed to ensure that it complies with the duty to take reasonable steps to help applicants secure accommodation. It should do this within two months of the final decision and tell us of the action taken.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman