Summary: Ms X complains that the Council failed to provide sufficient help with her homelessness. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered what homelessness duty it owed to Ms X when she first made her homelessness application and in how it considered her priority on the housing register. There is evidence of fault in how the Council drew up Ms X’s personalised housing plan and it delayed in reviewing that plan. But these faults did not cause significant injustice to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to provide sufficient assistance with her homelessness, particularly when she was fleeing domestic abuse. Ms X considers that as a result she and her baby have had to sleep on a sofa at her mother’s house for longer than necessary.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s decision to accept the prevention duty to Ms X in spring 2022. Ms X would have had the right to seek a review of the duty owed by the Council and then appeal to the county court. But I consider it is appropriate to exercise discretion to investigate this matter as the Council did not notify Ms X of her right to seek a review of the duty owed.
3. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to end its prevention duty in autumn 2022. Ms X had the right to seek a review of this decision and appeal to the county court if she disagreed with the outcome of the review. The Council notified Ms X of her right to seek a review of its decision when it ended the prevention duty. I therefore consider it is reasonable to expect Ms X to have sought a review if she disagreed with the decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for an organisation review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• discussed the issues with Ms X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• invited Ms X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
11. Assessments and personalised housing plans must be kept under review throughout the prevention and relief stages. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 11.32)
12. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants 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)
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
     

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;

14. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
15. The Council’s housing allocations scheme allocates properties by placing applicants into four priority bands with band one being the highest and band four being the lowest priority. Band one may be awarded if there is a serious risk to the applicant due to domestic or other violence. Band three priority is awarded to applicants who are owed a homeless duty or are living in overcrowded accommodation.
16. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 gives councils the power to provide accommodation for children in need in its area. This power may be used where a housing duty has ended.

What happened

17. The following is a summary of the key facts relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
18. Ms X lived with a relative for a number of years. In early 2022, Ms X made a homelessness application as her relative had asked her to leave as she was pregnant. The Council carried out an assessment of Ms X’s housing circumstances. Its records note Ms X was staying at a friend’s and her mother’s properties. The Council considered Ms X was at risk of homelessness so accepted the prevention duty.
19. The Council drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) for her. This set out the steps Ms X and the Council should take to prevent her homelessness. The Council’s steps included matching Ms X with a property which would meet her needs when one became available to the Council. The steps also included carrying out an affordability assessment, providing information on the rent deposit scheme and renting in the private sector.
20. The Council provided information on renting in the private sector, the rent deposit scheme and an affordability questionnaire to Ms X to complete. The Council did not match Ms X to a suitable property. In response to my enquiries the Council said the officer who drew up the PHP no longer works for the Council and it is unclear what the officer meant by this step. It considers the step may have referred to properties identified through housing providers or private sector housing sourced by its Acquisitions Team. But it considers Ms X would not have realistically received such an offer due to demand and the greater priority of other households, such as families in bed and breakfast accommodation. It also did not refer to temporary accommodation as Ms X would not be offered this under the prevention duty.
21. In summer 2022, Ms X’s partner assaulted her. She and her baby moved to her mother’s property.
22. In autumn 2022, the Council reviewed Ms X’s case and noted children’s services involvement due to the incident of domestic abuse. The Council’s records note Ms X advised that she had no safety concerns regarding her former partner. The Council’s records show Ms X initially said her mother would not allow her to stay as the property was overcrowded. The officer discussed temporary accommodation with Ms X in the event she had to leave the property. The Council’s records note Ms X did not want to move to temporary accommodation.
23. The Council’s records not it ended its prevention duty as Ms X’s mother agreed to accommodate her and her baby. So it considered Ms X was no longer at risk of homelessness. Ms X disputes that her mother agreed to accommodate her. The Council’s letter notifying Ms X of its decision explained how she could seek a review of its decision. Ms X did not seek a review of the Council’s decision.
24. Ms X is on the housing register under band three. She complained to the Council that she should have a higher banding as she had experienced domestic abuse and renting privately was not an option as she had lost her job. The Council replied at stage one of its two stage complaints procedure. It explained that she was not entitled to a higher band due to domestic abuse and provided details of housing associations and other organisations who may be able to help find rented properties.
25. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two. She considered the Council had a duty of care as she was fleeing domestic abuse and she was living in an overcrowded property. The Council explained its duty was to prevent her from becoming homeless. It encouraged her to keep bidding and to look for private rented housing in the borough and other boroughs.
26. I asked the Council why it had not exercised its power under the Children Act 1989 to provide accommodation for Ms X and her baby when the housing duties ended. The Council said it did not accommodate them as they were not homeless.
27. The Council has acknowledged it should have reviewed Ms X’s PHP before autumn 2022. It said the delay was caused by an increase in households presenting for homelessness assistance which had an impact on the capacity of officers to review PHPs. The Council has said it has taken steps to address the shortfall in capacity to respond to this demand.

Analysis

28. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to accept the prevention duty rather than the relief duty to Ms X in early 2022. The Council made this decision after carrying out an assessment of Ms X’s housing circumstances. As there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, I do not have grounds to question it.
29. The Council did not notify Ms X of her right to seek a review of the duty owed by the Council in its prevention duty decision letter. This is fault. As a result, Ms X was not aware she could seek a review of the decision.
30. The Council has provided evidence to show it carried out its required steps in the PHP to assist Ms X in finding accommodation. The Council has acknowledged the step regarding matching Ms X to a property was unclear and it is not certain what the officer meant by this step. The lack of clarity in the PHP is fault which may have raised Ms X’s expectations about being offered a property. But I do not consider this is sufficient injustice to warrant a remedy from the Council.
31. The Council has acknowledged it should have reviewed Ms X’s PHP before autumn 2022. Councils are required to keep PHPs under review during the prevention duty. It should have at least reviewed the PHP after 56 days when the prevention duty was due to end. It would also have been aware Ms X’s circumstances would change with the birth of her baby and should have reviewed it at that time. Had the Council done so, it could have been aware of the incident of domestic abuse sooner. However, I do not consider the failure to review the PHP caused significant injustice to Ms X as she was living with her mother at this time. It is also unlikely the Council would have amended the steps it had agreed to take.
32. The Council did not consider its power to provide accommodation to Ms X and her baby when it ended the prevention duty. I do not consider this is fault by the Council as it knew Ms X and her baby were accommodated by her mother.
33. Ms X considers the Council should have awarded higher priority to her under its allocations scheme as she was fleeing domestic abuse. The Council reviewed the priority band awarded to Ms X when she made her complaint and explained why it considered she was appropriately placed in band three. The children’s services reports also show that there were no ongoing safeguarding concerns regarding domestic abuse. I am therefore satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to place Ms X in band three and this decision is in accordance with its allocations scheme.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. That the Council:
1. reviews its templates for its prevention and relief duty decision letters to ensure it includes information on how an applicant can seek a review of the duty owed.
2. reminds officers of the requirement set out at paragraph 11.32 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance to keep PHPs under review during the prevention and relief duty stages.
35. The Council should take the above action within two months of the final decision.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

37. There was fault by the Council but this did not cause significant injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman