Summary: Mr X complains the Council delayed deciding its housing duty and left him unsure about its decision and his rights. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to reasonably explore the circumstances of Mr X’s homelessness application. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for delaying its decision on Mr X’s homelessness application, which delayed Mr X’s right to a suitability review. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for how it provided support to Mr X as someone previously in care. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed deciding the result of his homelessness application and left him in unsuitable interim accommodation without the right to review.
2. Mr X complains the Council did not properly communicate with him about the accommodation or which housing duty it owed him. This left him confused about situation and his rights.
3. Mr X complains the Council left him without proper support as a care leaver, which resulted in the Council not supporting him with his housing.
4. Mr X also complains about the Councils handling of his complaint and the Council has failed to recognise the impact its maladministration has had on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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

8. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
9. I invited Mr X and the Council to comment on a draft of my decision, and considered any comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness legislation

10. When someone applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, several duties arise.
11. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) requires the housing authority to make inquiries to satisfy if an applicant is eligible for assistance. If so, what duty it owes the applicant under the provisions of the Act.
12. Where a housing authority has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in “priority need” it has a duty to provide interim accommodation under Section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996.
13. The housing authority must complete an assessment of an eligible person to determine what housing duty it owes them. An assessment must include consideration of:

• The circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness.
• The housing needs of the applicant including what accommodation would be suitable for the applicant and any people with whom the applicant lives or might reasonably be expected to stay.
• What support would be necessary for the applicant and any other relevant persons to be able to have and retain suitable accommodation.

14. Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996, known as the “relief duty” gives the housing authority a duty to all applicants who are both homeless and eligible for assistance. This duty requires the housing authority to take reasonable steps to help a person secure suitable accommodation that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months.
15. If, at the end of the relief duty, a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (Paragraph 14.16) says a local authority should not delay in completing inquiries as to what duty it will owe after the relief duty. Where the local authority has the information it requires to a make a decision, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In some instances, the local authority may need to complete significant further investigation, the local authority should complete this further investigation within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed
17. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
18. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
19. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)

What happened

20. Mr X had been a looked after child by the Council for seven months between 2011 and 2012.
21. In 2012, The Council discharged Mr X into the care of his grandmother.
22. In June 2021, Mr X approached the Council as homeless after an incident with a family member.
23. As Mr X had previously been in care, the Council decided that it was reasonable to believe he may have been in priority need. The Council accommodated him under section 188 of the housing act. It then completed a homelessness assessment to decide it owed Mr X a relief duty.
24. Mr X complained to the Council that it had delayed making a decision about his housing and that his temporary accommodation was unsuitable. The Council visited Mr X to discuss why he felt the accommodation was unsuitable. It recognised there was a delay in deciding the relief duty. It also carried out an informal suitability review of his accommodation and found that it met the criteria for suitability.
25. In August 2022, the Council wrote to Mr X, it told him that it owed him a relief duty and issued him with a PHP. The Council advised Mr X that he was entitled to a formal right of review for suitability to his temporary accommodation and would now be able to apply for the housing register.
26. The Council completed a formal review of the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation and found that it met the suitability criteria.
27. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s delay in deciding its relief duty and remained of the view the accommodation was unsuitable. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Delay in homelessness decision

28. The Council wrote to Mr X five months after it agreed to undertake an assessment due to him being in priority need. It told Mr X that it had a relief duty towards him and that it would support him to find somewhere new to live. It issued him a personal housing plan.
29. Housing legislation says where the local authority has the information it needs to a make a decision, it should be possible to tell the applicant on or around day 57. Occasionally, the local authority may need to complete significant further investigation, the local authority should complete this further investigation within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed.
30. The Council said the delay was because of a shortage of staff. It also said there had been delays due to COVID-19. I accept that it is likely COVID-19 did cause unforeseen delays, however I have not seen evidence from the Council that it sought further advice and information from other agencies in this time. Therefore, the Council unnecessarily delayed completing the assessment and issuing its decision.
31. The assessment for whether the Council owed a housing duty should have taken no more than three months which would include the first assessment time and the extra 15 working days if needed. I therefore find the Council delayed deciding if it owed a housing duty.
32. The Council has been able to evidence that Mr X would likely not have been offered accommodation through the housing register if the application had not been delayed. However, the delay in deciding the main duty to Mr X has meant that he joined the housing register later than he would have done if there had been no delay.
33. The Council has already addressed the issue of significant delays with its assessment of homelessness applications and has employed more staff. This is a suitable remedy to ensure that further applications do not experience such delay. The Council has also has a policy which means it has backdated Mr X’s application to the housing register to the reflect his original application date.
34. However, Mr X was caused distress by the continuing delay with the Council’s decision making and its failure to keep him updated about his application.

Suitability of accommodation

35. Part of Mr X’s complaint is the temporary accommodation the Council placed him in was not suitable for his needs due to the distance to his workplace.
36. The Council’s delay in accepting a main housing duty meant that Mr X’s opportunity for a suitability review was also delayed. However, when Mr X complained to the Council, it completed an informal review of suitability and found that it was suitable. It also completed a formal review of suitability when it reoffered the accommodation to Mr X following its decision about the main housing duty.
37. While the opportunity for a formal suitability review was delayed, the Council has been able to show that it considered the suitability of the accommodation when it placed Mr X. It has also showed that it has tried to source alternative accommodation for Mr X. Once the Council accepted it had a main housing duty, it formally reviewed the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation and found that it met its suitability criteria.
38. There was fault by the Council in delaying the right to review, but this did not cause Mr X injustice as the Council remains of the view the accommodation is suitable.

Leaving care support

39. Part of Mr X’s complaint was that he was a care leaver, and should have been entitled to more support to obtain housing and stable finances.
40. The Council has explained that while Mr X was a looked after child, because he was discharged into his family’s care and remained there until after he was 18 years old, he did not meet the criteria for the Council’s leaving care service.
41. The Council was of the view that it had taken into consideration that he was previously in care when it accommodated him under section 188 of the housing act, but this did not mean he was eligible for the leaving care service.
42. As Mr X “presented as a young man holding full-time employment in a responsibility job with no health issues” the Council had no reason to believe he would not be able to manage his responsibilities to pay his rent. Additionally, when Mr X alerted the Council to the issues he was having with his finances, the Council supported him to arrange a payment plan.
43. I find no fault with the Council for how it supported Mr X in this regard.

Domestic Abuse

44. Part of Mr X’s complaint is that he approached the Council as homeless due to domestic abuse from a family member.
45. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it did not know of any domestic abuse, but that it was aware of an incident between Mr X and a family member that had resulted in him being made homeless.
46. I have reviewed the Council’s records for Mr X’s approach. The incident between Mr X and his family member is recorded and the Council asked Mr X to clarify the incident.
47. Domestic Abuse is defined as “an incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening, degrading and violent behaviour, including sexual violence, in the majority of cases by a partner or ex-partner, but also by a family member or carer”. In this case, Mr X told the Council he had been involved in a violent incident by a family member.
48. The Council should have better explored this with Mr X and given better consideration as to whether Mr X was experiencing domestic violence. The Council should have used the conversations in its assessment with Mr X to explore the circumstances of Mr X’s homelessness and whether he needed additional support for domestic violence.
49. However, as the Domestic Abuse Act was not in place at the time of the application, and the Council had accommodated Mr X in priority need already, the failure to explore this with Mr X did not impact his homelessness application. The Councils’ actions already meant that Mr X was accommodated immediately and was not at risk.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within 4 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Mr X and apologise for the fault identified.
• Pay Mr X £300 in recognition of the distress caused to him because of the Council’s fault.

51. Within 12 weeks the Council has agreed to

• Review how it identifies domestic abuse between family members when homelessness cases are assessed. This should include how staff members identify domestic abuse between family members and how to record this in the assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I have now completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for failing to reasonably explore the circumstances of Mr X’s homelessness application. I also find fault with the Council for delaying its decision on Mr X’s homelessness application, which delayed Mr X’s right to a suitability review. I do not find fault with the Council for how it provided support to Mr X as someone previously in care.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman