Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She said she is still homeless, and the Council is still not helping her. She said it affected her mental health, had an impact on her child, and affected her income. We find the Council at fault. This caused Miss X unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration, and denied her a right to ask for a review of an important decision. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and improve its service.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Miss X, complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. Specifically, she complained the Council:
1. failed to provide interim accommodation when a refuge had no space for her;
2. delayed accepting its homelessness relief duty;
3. communicated poorly with her; and,
4. failed to do what it said it would do in her personalised housing plan.
2. Miss X said she is still homeless, and the Council is still not helping her. She said it affected her mental health, had an impact on her child, and affected her income.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (updated). I also considered the Ombudsman’s focus report, ‘More Home Truths: learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act’, published in March 2023.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. 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 inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
9. 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)
10. 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;
• care leavers; and,
• victims of domestic abuse.
11. When the council assesses the person, it must also complete a personalised housing plan. This plan outlines what the person and the council will do to try and prevent homelessness. Councils should work with people to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the person to take to help them 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)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B).
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. This includes decisions about:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• 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 relief duty stage; and,
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

What happened

14. In December 2022, Miss X and her young child had to leave the family home due to domestic abuse. Miss X contacted the Council and said she was homeless. The Council assessed Miss X and noted she had a child and was fleeing domestic abuse.
15. The Council told Miss X to go to a women’s refuge. There was no space in the women’s refuge, so the refuge told her to stay with her mother.
16. In January 2023, the Council accepted a relief duty for Miss X. It issued a personalised housing plan setting out what Miss X and the Council would do.
17. Between January and April, Miss X contacted the Council on a regular basis with updates on what she was doing to find accommodation, in line with the personalised housing plan.
18. At the end of April, the Council issued a decision letter, saying it discharged its duty to house her because she had “lost contact” with the Council.
19. In May, Miss X emailed the Council asking what was happening with her application. The Council told her it did not have an open application for her. Miss X asked the Council why this was, said she had not received a decision letter, and asked why she had no communication from the housing officer.
20. In July, Miss X complained.
21. In response, the Council said it had emailed its decision letter to her. It said she could have asked for a review of its decision, but she did not exercise that right within the timeframe. It said Miss X must now make her own housing arrangements.
22. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
23. In November, the Council contacted Miss X again to assess her housing needs.

Analysis

Interim accommodation

24. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide interim accommodation when a refuge had no space for her (part a of the complaint).
25. Councils have a duty to provide interim accommodation if they have a reason to believe the applicant may be eligible, homeless, and in priority need. Priority need includes people with dependent children and victims of domestic abuse. The Code of Guidance (chapter 21) is clear that where there is priority need because of domestic abuse, councils should provide interim accommodation immediately. This is the duty in any event, but the Code emphasises it again in relation to domestic abuse. The effect is an "accommodate first, ask questions later" approach.
26. The Council told the Ombudsman it did not accept it had a duty to provide interim accommodation because “there was no reason to believe [there was] priority need based on the information provided by the client at the time”.
27. I have seen the Council’s records of when Miss X presented as homeless. The records show the Council assessed Miss X as being eligible. The records note that Miss X had a young child and was fleeing domestic abuse.
28. I find the Council at fault for failing to recognise it had a duty provide Miss X and her child with interim accommodation.
29. I also find the Council at fault for failing to provide Miss X with interim accommodation.
30. These faults caused Miss X and her child injustice, in that they remained homeless and without Council help. The Council failed to provide a vulnerable woman and her child with accommodation at a time when they needed to escape domestic abuse. This caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration at an already stressful and difficult time.
31. The Council said Miss X should have kept checking with refuges for an available space, and said there is no evidence she did this. The Council said the case officer may have missed the fact that Miss X did not take up the offer of a place at a refuge.
32. The Council also said it did not think there was any problem after the first night (when Miss X could not get a space in the refuge). This was because it said Miss X never brought it up as an issue with the case officer. The Council said it was a missed opportunity for the Council to help Miss X further because there is no evidence Miss X told the Council what happened with the refuges after the first night.
33. Miss X told me that she did keep checking with the refuges and she told the case officer this in various phone calls. She said she called refuges several times and also spoke to the national domestic abuse helpline. Miss X said there were no refuges close enough that had space for her and her child. Any available space was three to four hours away from the area where her support network is (her mother, father, child’s father, work, friends and childcare). Also, there were some refuges with a space for her but no appropriate for her child to sleep as they were under five years old.
34. Further, Miss X has provided an email from the case officer dated the day after the first night she was not able to get a place at a refuge. The case officer said, “we will explore other options if women’s refuge can’t assist with your immediate housing needs”. There is no evidence the Council did this.
35. As I set out below, I find the case officer kept very poor records. On a balance of probabilities, it seems more likely than not that Miss X did tell the case officer about her efforts to find a place at a refuge.
36. The Council said Miss X may have been living in “luxury” accommodation at points during the scope of this investigation.
37. I have seen an email Miss X sent to the Council in November 2023. She told the Council she had stayed in various accommodations during the period in question so she and her child had a guaranteed place to stay. She said this was so there was less stress on her and those around her who she was staying with. With this email, Miss X sent the Council evidence of where she had stayed.
38. I have seen this evidence. It shows that Miss X and her child stayed at various inexpensive holiday parks and hotels at some points. At other points the evidence shows they stayed at more expensive locations, including one seven-night holiday abroad. The evidence shows that Miss X and her child paid for somewhere to stay almost every month, even if it was for one or two nights.
39. I do not find the majority of the accommodation to be “luxury” accommodation. I understand Miss X’s reasons for paying for somewhere to stay during those times. I find Miss X would not have had to do this had the Council done what it should have done. I do not find the evidence shows Miss X was “adequately housed” during this time. These were short-term holiday lets.

Relief duty

40. Miss X complained the Council delayed accepting its homelessness relief duty (part b of the complaint).
41. Miss X presented as homeless at the end of December 2022. The Council accepted a relief duty to Miss X in January 2023.
42. Councils must make inquiries into an applicant’s personal circumstances and the reasons why they became homeless. This is to make a decision on whether the council owes the person a further housing duty.
43. Although there is no timescale for a council to accept a relief duty, the Ombudsman can find fault if there is no reason for the delay. In this case, it appears the Council made its decision to accept a relief duty based on the information it got from Miss X in December. The Council made no further inquiries before January, so I find it should have accepted the relief duty as soon as it was satisfied it owed her the duty. This is fault.
44. The Ombudsman asked the Council to provide evidence of its inquiries regarding Miss X’s homelessness. The Council said it made “full and proper enquiries with all relevant persons”. When asked again to provide evidence of these inquiries, the Council said it “used its own interpretation of the Homeless Code of Guidance in respect to making inquiries relating to the reason for approaching”. It is not clear what the Council meant by this.
45. Without records, I find there is no evidence the Council made any inquiries regarding Miss X’s homelessness. If the Council had made inquiries, the information gathered would have supported what Miss X had already told the Council: that she had a dependent child and was fleeing domestic abuse.
46. I find the Council at fault for having no records of its inquiries. The lack of evidence and the Council’s response to our enquiries (above) suggests that it made no inquiries at all. If the Council needed no further information in order to be satisfied what duty it owed, it should have accepted the duty right away. If it needed more information, it should be able to evidence what that was.
47. Without this evidence, I find the Council had all the information it needed in December to find it owed Miss X the relief duty.
48. In April, the Council decided to end its duty to Miss X because she “lost contact” with the Council.
49. After 56 days of relief, the Council had to decide whether it owed Miss X the main housing duty. This should have been by March. I find the Council at fault for failing to make this decision in March.
50. Further to this, I have seen the numerous and regular emails Miss X sent the case officer between January and April 2023 about her homelessness application and the efforts she was making to arrange housing.
51. The Council said it had no records of any contact from Miss X to the Council during this period. It said:

“Had the client made contact during the said time frame, the Council would have provided tailored advice based on the situation at the time. The onus is on the client to ensure they maintain contact with the council regarding their application and respond promptly to requests for information. Should this not happen then their application will be closed on the basis that they have resolved their own housing need.”

52. I find fault with the Council for the way it decided to end its housing duty to Miss X. It is clear that Miss X did not lose contact with the Council at any point between accepting a relief duty and discharging that duty. The Council did not have any reason to end its duty. So, it should have gone on to consider whether it owed her a main duty, a decision which carries review rights. Not to have done so is fault.
53. I further find fault with the Council for failing to have any records of Miss X’s contact between January and April. We have provided a copy of Miss X’s emails to the Council for its records.
54. I find the fault caused Miss X injustice because it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration.

Communication

55. Miss X complained the Council communicated poorly with her (part c of the complaint). She said she did not receive the Council’s decision letter in April. She said the Council failed to respond to her emails between January and April, and also failed to respond to her questions in May.
56. The Council issued its decision letter in April. It said it emailed it to Miss X, but Miss X said she did not receive it. The Council said that officer no longer works for the Council. It said there is no record of the officer sending Miss X this decision letter, and no records of their communications with her. This is fault.
57. This caused injustice because it meant Miss X firstly did not know about the decision, and secondly did not know she had a right to ask for a review of the decision within a certain timeframe. This caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, and denied her statutory right to review.
58. Miss X said the Council did not reply to any of her emails between January and April. The Council said it has no record of any contact from (or to) Miss X. The Council said its usual process is that case officers should upload records of emails and phone calls to and from applicants. The Council accepts there are gaps in its records.
59. I find fault with the Council for failing to reply to any of Miss X’s emails during this period, and for failing to keep proper records.
60. I find this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, which is injustice.
61. In May, Miss X asked the Council why it decided to end its duty to her. She said she had not received a decision letter, and asked why she had no communication from the case officer. Miss X said the Council did not reply to this email.
62. I have seen no evidence that the Council replied to this email. This is fault. If the Council had replied to this email, Miss X would have known about its decision to end its duty to her. She also would have known about her review rights. And she would have been in time to ask for a review of the decision.
63. This fault caused injustice because it caused Miss X unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration.

Personalised housing plan

64. Miss X complained the Council failed to do what it said it would do in her personalised housing plan (part d of the complaint).
65. Miss X’s personalised housing plan said the Council will actively look for accommodation on Miss X’s behalf, and will be in contact regularly with her about this. The plan also said the Council will contact her regularly to get updates from her.
66. As I have already found above, there is no evidence that the Council contacted Miss X or replied to her emails between January and April. The Council has a duty to take the steps set out in personalised housing plans.
67. The Council told the Ombudsman that “The onus is on the client to ensure they maintain contact with the council regarding their application”. This is not in line with Miss X’s personalised housing plan. The Council should have been in contact with her regularly as set out in the plan. It failed to do this. This is fault.
68. There is no evidence that the Council actively looked for private sector rental accommodation for Miss X. The Council said there is no evidence of what the officer did because they left the Council. This action was in Miss X’s plan, so the Council should have done this. Without records, I cannot find the Council did what it should have done. This is fault.
69. The plan said the Council had provided Miss X “with temporary accommodation from”. There was nothing written after that. The plan also said the Council made a referral to “these local landlords”. There was nothing written after that either.
70. I find Miss X’s personalised housing plan was poorly written and confusing as to what had been provided and what action the Council had taken or would take. This is fault. The Council said the poor wording appears to have been an oversight by the officer completing the form.
71. I find these faults caused Miss X unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration. This is injustice.

The Ombudsman’s focus report

72. In March 2023, the Ombudsman published a focus report called ‘More Home Truths: learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act’. This sets out good administration in homelessness, which includes keeping in touch with the applicant and keeping good records. I find the Council failed to do both of these things.
73. In particular, the report says:

“Good record keeping is the backbone of good decision making. We should be able to see the council’s thinking about significant issues reflected in contemporaneous records. This is particularly important when there isn’t a decision letter and attendant review right, so things like taking notes of telephone conversations, offers of interim accommodation, or consideration of its suitability are vital.”

74. The report also sets out the significance of injustice that comes from faults dealing with homelessness applicants. As I set out below, I recommend the Council’s housing and homelessness staff, including managers, read this focus report.

Back to top

Agreed action

75. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise in writing for the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by:
• failing to provide interim accommodation to Miss X (part a of the complaint);
• failing to recognise it had that duty (part a of the complaint);
• failing to make a decision after the statutory 56 days of relief whether it owed Miss X the main housing duty (part b of the complaint);
• deciding to end its housing duty to Miss X on the basis that she “lost contact” with the Council, when it is clear she was in regular contact with the Council (part b of the complaint);
• failing to reply to Miss X’s emails and failing to send Miss X its decision letter ending its duty to her (part c of the complaint); and,
• failing to do what it said it would do in Miss X’s personalised housing plan (part d of the complaint).
76. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this apology.
77. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X of £2100. This is made up as follows:
• £1100 to reflect the failure to provide interim accommodation from January to November 2023 (when the council did a fresh assessment of Miss X’s housing needs, so it marks the end of the scope of my investigation because Miss X can make a fresh complaint about the Council’s decision and actions from November 2023 onwards). The Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies recommends a payment of between £150 and £350 per month to remedy the injustice caused by living in unsuitable accommodation due to council fault. I have taken into consideration Miss X’s and her child’s vulnerability, the evidence showing Miss X and her child stayed in short-term holiday lets, her reasons for this, and the fact that she would not have had to stay anywhere else had the Council done what it should have done. On balance, I consider a payment of £100 per month is appropriate and proportionate. From January to November is 11 months. 11 months multiplied by £100 is £1100;
• £500 to remedy the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by deciding to end its housing duty to Miss X on the basis that she “lost contact” with the Council, and failing to make a decision after 56 days of relief duty (part b of the complaint). This is at the maximum end of the range recommended by our guidance on remedies because of the significance of the injustice caused and the lengths Miss X went to in contacting the Council; and,
• £500 to remedy the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by poor communication (parts c and d of the complaint). This is at the maximum end of the range recommended by our guidance on remedies because of the significance of the distress caused, because it denied her right to request a review of the decision, and because of the impact of the Council failing to do what it said it would do.
78. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to make the following improvements to its service:
1. provide refresher training to all housing and homelessness staff, including managers, on the Council’s interim accommodation duty and relief duty;
2. make sure all staff in the relevant department know they must keep proper, contemporaneous records of all of their communications and actions; and,
3. share a copy of this decision and the Ombudsman’s focus report (‘More Home Truths: learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act’ published March 2023) with all housing and homelessness staff, including managers, and discuss them at a team meeting.
79. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

80. I have completed my investigation. I find the Council at fault, and this caused Miss X injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and improve its service.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman