Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness application and his complaint. Mr X said there has been a significant impact on his physical and mental health from being street homeless. He is constantly at risk. He said this has caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Mr X injustice. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and improve its service.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness application and his complaint.
2. Mr X said there has been a significant impact on his physical and mental health from being street homeless. He is constantly at risk. He said this has caused unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr 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.
6. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I considered the Ombudsman’s published focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act” (published March 2023). I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (updated).

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

7. 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.
8. If someone applies to a council for housing, the council must determine if the person is homeless or threatened with homelessness, and whether they are eligible for assistance. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person.
9. The council has a duty to notify people about its decisions, including what duty is owed and decisions to end those duties. All letters must include information about their right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184; and Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 to 18.35)
10. The council must also assess the person and complete a personalised housing plan. This plan outlines what the person and the council will do to try and prevent or relieve homelessness.
11. 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)

What happened

12. Mr X approached the Council for help in June 2023 because he was street homeless. In July, he chased the Council for a response. The Council sent him forms to complete which he sent back promptly.
13. The Council assessed Mr X over the phone shortly after this. A week later, Mr X chased the Council for an update. At the end of July, Mr X complained.
14. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said it received his online enquiry in June but said “it was missed”. It said it did not open his email and did not action it. The Council said it allocated Mr X a caseworker but they went on leave and were not able to take any action on his case. It said it reallocated his case when Mr X chased it up in mid-July.
15. The Council apologised for delays dealing with his application, for its errors, and for its lack of communication with Mr X. It acknowledged that this caused Mr X uncertainty and stress. It offered him £150.
16. In mid-August, the Council spoke to Mr X over the phone. It offered him at least one place in accommodation which was outside Islington. Mr X said he could not live in that borough for safety reasons.
17. The Council sent its second reply to Mr X’s complaint in September. It apologised for the delay assessing Mr X’s needs. It said the delay was due to staff shortages and high levels of referrals. The Council said it could not find the documents and information Mr X supplied with his application in order to process it. It said it could not find a tangible reason for this. It recognised this caused frustration and distress.
18. The Council said it had offered Mr X shared accommodation but he declined it. It said after Mr X refused that offer of accommodation, its responsibility to help him ended. The Council offered an increased payment of £200.
19. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
20. In November, the Council sent Mr X a letter saying it had accepted a relief duty after his application in July. It also sent him a personalised housing plan.

Analysis

Homelessness application

21. The Council has already accepted there were delays assessing Mr X’s application. This is fault.
22. The Council lost the documents and information Mr X provided with his application. This is fault.
23. Mr X said the Council did not send him a decision letter or any other letters, other than its complaint responses.
24. There is no evidence the Council sent Mr X a decision letter on whether or not it accepted a duty to him until November, after the Ombudsman made enquiries with the Council. This is fault.
25. There is also no evidence that the Council sent Mr X his personalised housing plan (PHP) until November. This is fault.
26. The Council said it offered Mr X accommodation in August. There is no evidence that the Council sent Mr X its offers in writing. The Council appears to have ended its relief duty to Mr X because he declined this offer. Therefore, it seems that the offer to Mr X was a final offer of accommodation for the purposes of ending its duty to him.
27. A final offer of accommodation before a council ends its duty to a homeless applicant must be in writing, and it must state that it is the final offer for the purposes of ending a duty to that person. There is no evidence the Council did this. This is fault.
28. Mr X said he did not know the Council had ended its duty to him. It appears the Council did end its duty to him, but it is not clear when. There is no evidence the Council sent Mr X a letter telling him it had ended its duty to him and giving him his appeal rights. This is fault.
29. I find these faults caused injustice to Mr X. Most crucially, the delays meant Mr X has remained street homeless. Had the Council sent its decision letters, PHP, and offers of accommodation in writing as it should have done, it may be that Mr X would not have had to live on the streets for as long as he has.
30. There is also injustice because the faults denied Mr X a right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision to end its relief duty to him, and denied him a right to challenge the Council’s record of what was said in the assessment (this information was in the PHP). These faults also caused Mr X unnecessary and avoidable distress, uncertainty, and frustration.
31. The Ombudsman’s focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act”, says that delays completing assessments and accepting duties are more than just administrative oversights. It says these failings represent missed opportunities to achieve one of the main aims of the Act: preventing homelessness.

Complaint handling

32. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his complaint. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and follow up response, and the Council’s complaint responses.
33. I do not find fault with the way the Council handled Mr X’s complaint. I find the areas Mr X complains about in the complaint handling are really complaints about how the Council handled his homelessness application. I have found the Council at fault for that.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for some of the injustice caused by the faults. I am also satisfied the Council has recruited more staff, which addresses the staff shortages that were the apparent reason for the delay processing Mr X’s application.
35. Mr X has not accepted the Council’s offer of £200 given in its complaint responses. The Council told the Ombudsman it would make a payment to Mr X of £350. I do not find this remedies the level of injustice caused to Mr X. I therefore recommended the financial remedy below, which the Council agreed to.
36. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council will apologise in writing for the unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty caused by failing to send:
• decision letters setting out Mr X’s review rights;
• written offers of accommodation; and,
• Mr X’s personalised housing plan.
37. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
38. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council will make a payment to Mr X of £800 to remedy the unnecessary and avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty caused by the faults. In arriving at this figure, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. This sets out a usual maximum financial remedy of £500 for distress, frustration, and uncertainty. However, it also says there is a disproportionate impact of these faults on homeless people. I therefore consider a payment of £800 is appropriate and proportionate to the level of injustice caused to Mr X.
39. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council will complete a fresh assessment of Mr X, including interviewing him again. Mr X does not agree with the Council’s record of what was said in its assessment phone call in August. Therefore, a fresh assessment seems a positive way forward. The Council has agreed to this.
40. Within three months of this decision, the Council will review the way it covers staff holidays or absences. When an officer goes on leave, their caseload should be covered so homeless people are not left waiting.
41. Within three months of this decision, the Council will share a copy of this decision and the Ombudsman’s published focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act” (published March 2023) with relevant staff, and discuss them at both an appropriate team meeting and a management meeting.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and take action to improve its service.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman