Summary: Mr E complained about the Council’s conduct when he asked for help with his housing. He says the Council officer was unprofessional, contacted his mother without his consent and accused him of lying. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mr E’s homelessness application. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mr E complained about the Council’s conduct when he asked for help with his housing. He says the Council officer was unprofessional, contacted his mother without his consent and accused him of lying.
2. Mr E says it was distressing and the Council wrongly denied him help despite being homeless.
3. Mr E is supported by a representative (Ms F) in bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered information from Mr E. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Mr E 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

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the code of guidance) set out councils' powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make enquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make enquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts a maximum of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

What happened

13. Mr E contacted the Council for homelessness assistance in November 2022. He told the Council he had been rough sleeping. He also said he stayed with friends in the past, but he had not been able to do that for a while.
14. The Council arranged a meeting with Mr E in December to discuss his case further. The Council says it asked Mr E where he had been staying, but he could not provide an address. The housing officer contacted Mr E’s mother (Ms X) to understand where Mr E had been living. Ms X said Mr E stayed with her on and off and he had also been staying with other family members. She said she had not seen Mr E in a few weeks, and he could not stay with her any longer.
15. The Council says it told Mr E it did not have any reason to believe he was homeless, or he would be threatened with homelessness within 56 days.
16. The Council decided to make further enquiries into Mr E’s housing situation and his previous address history. It also attended a multi-disciplinary team meeting with professionals from various agencies. The professionals stated they had seen Mr E rough sleeping in his car, and he had told them he was homeless.
17. A representative complained to the Council on Mr E’s behalf in January 2023. She said the officer was dismissive at the meeting in December and she contacted Ms X without his consent. She said Ms X has mental health issues and therefore she was an inappropriate person to contact. She said the meeting caused Mr E distress and the Council refused him help because of the conversation the officer had with Ms X. She said Mr E was sleeping in his car and he did not have a fixed address.
18. The Council responded to the complaint. It said as part of the housing advisor role, the officer is required to properly consider all applications for housing assistance. If there is a reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, officers must make enquiries to see whether they are owed a duty under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. It said Mr E could not provide details of any addresses he lived at in the last five years, and he only provided Ms X’s. It said Mr E signed a disclosure form which authorised the officer to make enquiries. As a result of the information Mr E supplied, contacting Ms X to ascertain the reason for Mr E’s homelessness was a relevant enquiry.
19. The Council received some information about where Mr E previously lived. It conducted a home visit at his previous address. The person the officer spoke to said Mr E had not lived there for a while.
20. The Council received further information from the multi-disciplinary team that Mr E was still sleeping in his car. The Council agreed to contact Mr E and consider a new homelessness application.
21. The Council spoke to Mr E in February. It said he was satisfied he was homeless and eligible for assistance. It confirmed it owed him the relief duty. It drew up a personalised housing plan which set out the action it would take to resolve Mr E’s homelessness. It also provided Mr E with interim accommodation.
22. Ms F asked the Council to review its complaints response. She said Mr E did not sign a disclosure form or any paperwork. She also said Mr E used Ms X’s address for post only, but he did not live there so the officer should have not contacted her.
23. The Council responded and said it had already addressed Mr E’s concerns and therefore it had nothing further to add.

Back to top

Analysis

24. There are two different versions of events of what happened in the meeting in December 2022. Mr E says the officer accused him of being a liar, it contacted Ms X without his consent, and he only provided Ms X’s address for his post. The Council says Mr E signed a disclosure form which gave it permission to conduct enquiries on his behalf. It says the officer’s conduct was appropriate and Mr E could not provide his full address history which is why it contacted Ms X.
25. I do not have a recording of the meeting and therefore it is not possible for me to form an independent conclusion on what happened. The Council has provided me with a note of the telephone call with Ms X. However, it has no notes of its meeting with Mr E and so I cannot say with any certainty what was discussed. The Council has also provided me with a signed disclosure form from Mr E. However, it is not clear whether Mr E signed this before or after the officer called Ms X.
26. When Mr E approached the Council, it had to decide if there was reason to believe he might be homeless or threatened with homelessness. If it considered there was reason to believe he might be homeless, it would have a duty to secure interim accommodation for him. If it did not consider he might be homeless, it would not have a duty to secure accommodation, but it would have to provide Mr E with a written decision. This would provide details of his right to request a review of the decision if he was unhappy.
27. In this case, the Council says it did not consider there was reason to believe that Mr E might be homeless. It says Mr E could not advise where he had been staying and he could not provide an address where he was homeless from. It says to be homeless, there must be an address at some stage at which the applicant resided in. The Council should therefore have provided Mr E with a written decision immediately and provided details of his right to request a review. The Council’s failure to do so was fault.
28. However, I consider the Council’s decision there was no reason to believe Mr E might be homeless was flawed. Government guidance makes it clear the legal test for having 'reason to believe' someone is or may be homeless is low, and the Council does not need to be satisfied the applicant is homeless. Even where housing is available, there may be factors that make it unreasonable for an applicant to remain there.
29. As the Council decided to make enquiries, it must have considered it had reason to believe Mr E might be homeless. Therefore, it had a duty to offer Mr E interim accommodation while it made its enquiries. Not to have done so was fault. Councils should not delay providing interim accommodation while they conduct enquiries. Although Mr E may not have been able to provide a full address history, he explained he was rough sleeping in his car. Ms X also said she had not seen Mr E for a few weeks, and he could not stay with her. As a result of the Council’s fault, Mr E missed out on an opportunity to be accommodated sooner. He was rough sleeping in his car during a period of cold weather, which caused him distress and upset. This is a significant injustice which the Council needs to remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 6 October 2023 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr E for his upset and distress.
• Pay Mr E £700 for the period from December 2022 to February 2023 when he was not provided with any interim accommodation.
• Pay Mr E a further £300 for the upset and distress caused.

31. By 3 November 2023 the Council will:

• Issue written reminders to relevant officers about the duty to provide interim accommodation. It should ensure officers are aware that the legal test for having 'reason to believe' someone is or may be homeless is low. If officers need to make enquiries to establish if a person is homeless, there must be a reason to believe they may be homeless and so the interim accommodation duty applies.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they understand the Council’s duty to notify applicants in writing of the decision on their homelessness applications.

32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr E an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman