Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused to assist her or accept a homeless application her when she presented as homeless with her two young children. The Council’s failure to make timely enquiries and act on information already available regarding Miss X’s eligibility amounts to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused to assist her or accept a homeless application her when she presented as homeless with her two young children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Miss X;
• Miss 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

Homelessness

5. 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.
6. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries to establish if the council has a duty to assist them.
7. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s 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)

What happened here

9. Miss X is not a UK national and was being supported by the Council’s No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) team. When the Home Office granted her leave to remain in the UK with recourse to public funds, the NRPF team advised Miss X she would have to leave the accommodation provided.
10. In late October 2020 Miss X contacted the Council’s housing options service requesting assistance as she had been advised by the NRPF team she had to leave her accommodation by 6 November 2020. The Council asked Miss X to provide documentation including proof of her immigration status. Miss X provided this the same day.
11. The housing options service also contacted the NRPF team asking it to follow a new process to request temporary accommodation and end its support for Miss X. The Council extended Miss X’s accommodation and referred her case to its panel for consideration. The panel asked for further documentation including Miss X’s children’s birth certificates and a letter from the Home Office outlining the conditions attached to the leave to remain granted.
12. The Council then wrote to Miss X on 15 December 2020 to request this letter from the Home Office. It confirmed it would then book an appointment to discuss her housing options. There is no record of Miss X providing a copy of this letter.
13. However, the Council’s records show that on 18 December 2020 the NRPF team contacted the housing options team to confirm the terms and conditions around Miss X’s leave to remain are stipulated on her residence card and in the end of support letter provided by the NRPF team. It confirmed the NRPF team would not extend Miss X’s temporary accommodation as she had leave to remain and could make a claim for housing.
14. A homeless charity also contacted the Council on 18 December 2020 asserting the Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation. Miss X was homeless as she had to leave the temporary accommodation that day, she was eligible for assistance as she had leave to remain with recourse to public funds and was in priority need as she had two young children. The charity asked the Council to provide Miss X with emergency accommodation immediately.
15. The Council made enquiries with the Home Office on 18 December 2020 but did not provide emergency accommodation. Miss X states she and her young children were left homeless in the rain until social services provided accommodation for the weekend.
16. The Council’s records show the Home Office confirmed on 21 December 2020 that Miss X had leave to remain in the country with recourse to public funds. The case records note the housing options service also located NRPF’s documents for Miss X on that day. In addition, the homeless charity contacted the Council again on Miss X’s behalf on Monday 21 December 2020 and requested emergency accommodation.
17. The Council provided Miss X and her family with temporary accommodation on 21 December 2020 and accepted a relief duty the following day.
18. On 22 December 2020 Miss X made a formal complaint about the way the Council had dealt with her homelessness application. She asserted she had provided the documentation requested and that the Council should have provided accommodation on 18 December 2020. Miss X believed the Council had only agreed to assist her as a result of the charity’s intervention and that the Council had discriminated against her.
19. The Council responded on 29 December 2020 and acknowledged Miss X had provided her residence card but noted she had failed to provide the Home Office decision letter. This letter would have contained the terms on which her leave to remain in the UK was granted. The Council stated the failure to provide this letter caused a delay in her case and the Council had to make enquiries of the Home Office. Once the Council was satisfied Miss X was eligible for housing assistance it provided interim accommodation.
20. The Council noted that Miss X had informed an officer that she and her children had gone to stay with a friend when her accommodation was terminated by the NRPF team. It also noted that she had not reported the need to stand in the rain to the housing options team.
21. In addition the Council asserted it had explained several times how important it was for her to send the Home Office decision letter and that her application could not be progressed without it. It also stated that being eligible and in receipt of Universal Credit did not automatically mean a person qualified for housing assistance. It did not therefore agree that the Council had discriminated against or ignored her.
22. Miss X did not take any further action at that time, but in January 2022 she asked the Council to consider her complaint further. The Council’s response stated progress on Miss X’s application was not due to the charity’s involvement but on the information provided by the Home Office. The Council maintained its position that Miss X should have provided a copy of her decision letter from the Home Office.
23. It also reiterated that an entitlement to Universal Credit does not automatically equate to an entitlement to housing assistance, and that the Council is not bound by decisions made by other authorities. It noted Miss X had provided a copy of her residence card and a cover letter which referred to a separate letter that stipulates the conditions of her leave. This suggested there may be conditions the Council would need to take note of.
24. Miss X remains unhappy and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She considers the Council’s refusal to accept her homeless application was gatekeeping and states its actions caused her and her young family considerable distress and anxiety.
25. In response to my enquires the Council states it accepted Miss X’s application on grounds she was threatened with homelessness. As part of its enquiries it requested documentation to confirm her eligibility for housing support. It states that Miss X’s refusal to provide the Home Office decision letter gave the Council reason to believe she may have been entitled to other public funding but not housing. These conditions are not always stipulated on the residence card, which is why it requested the decision letter.
26. The Council states the decision not to provide interim accommodation was due to it not having reason to believe Miss X was eligible, specifically that she had recourse to public funding including housing.

Analysis

27. 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. This is a low threshold. The Council states it did not have reason to believe that Miss X was eligible, but the documentation available does not support this.
28. The Council was aware its own NRPF team had been supporting Miss X and had ended this support as she had been granted leave to remain with recourse to public funds. An officer from the NRPF team expressly confirmed in an email to the housing options team on 18 December 2021 that Miss X had leave to remain and could make a claim for housing.
29. The Council’s records show the housing options team did not access the NRPF team’s records or documentation until 21 December 2020. By which stage it had also received confirmation from the Home Office regarding Miss X’s status and eligibility. Given that the Council had accepted Miss X was threatened with homelessness and it had a duty to make enquiries in October 2020 we would have expected the Council to obtain this information sooner. Particularly as this information was already available on the Council’s systems.
30. I consider the Council’s failure to make timely enquiries and act on information already available regarding Miss X’s eligibility amounts to fault.
31. In its response to Miss X’s complaint the Council states she advised officers she was staying with friends and did not need accommodation. Miss X disputes this. I have not seen any evidence of a conversation where Miss X states she has accommodation available for the weekend. Nor, however I have I seen any evidence of Miss X advising the Council she and her children were on the street in the rain with nowhere to go.
32. Fortunately social services provided Miss X with accommodation for the weekend so that she and her children were not street homeless. This does not however diminish the stress and anxiety Miss X experienced due to the uncertainty about where she and her children would stay.
33. Miss X asserts an appropriate remedy for this stress and anxiety would be an immediate offer of permanent accommodation. I do not consider that appropriate in these circumstances but consider there should be a financial payment to recognise the injustice caused.
34. I note that the same officer responded to both stages of Miss X’s complaint. The Council’s complaint policy states that stage one complaints will be investigated by the Service manager, and that a Senior Manager will investigate at stage two. The policy does not expressly state that a different officer will investigate at stage two, but we would not expect the same officer to investigate at both stages of complaint. This would clearly not be appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £200 in recognition of the distress and anxiety she experienced as a result of the Council’s failure to provide temporary accommodation on 18 December 2020.
36. The Council has also agreed to provide reminders/ training to relevant staff regarding the appropriate officers to consider each stage of a formal complaint.
37. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

38. The Council’s failure to make timely enquiries and act on information already available regarding Miss X’s eligibility amounts to fault. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman