Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her homelessness application, and failed to consider its duty to her when she was homeless. Miss X also complains the Council did not comply with homelessness legislation, which resulted in her not having support when she needed it. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for its consideration of Miss X’s homelessness application and delaying its acceptance of a prevention duty to her. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her homelessness application and make reasonable enquiries before making a decision.
2. Miss X complains the Council did not properly consider its homelessness duty to her when she was subject to an illegal eviction.
3. Miss X complains the Council owed her a prevention duty and should not have referred her to Wyre Council, as it had not accepted any relief or main housing duty to her.
4. Miss X says if the Council had accepted a prevention duty when she first presented, her homelessness could have been resolved sooner.
5. Miss X also complains the Council failed to consider relevant information about domestic abuse and the risk posed to her during its decision-making process. This included a delay in obtaining the relevant information about the domestic abuse.
6. Miss X says that because of the Council’s failure to properly consider her application, she was left without housing and support during a difficult time, and incurred financial costs. Miss X says she was left with no choice but to return to the place where she was subject to domestic abuse.  

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. 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)
8. 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

9. I considered Miss X’s complaint and information provided by her representative. I also considered information provided by the Council.
10. I considered comments from Miss X and the Council on a draft of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homeless law and guidance

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. 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. 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)
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
14. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they 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 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
16. Examples of applicants with priority need include those with children, who are pregnant, or who are vulnerable due to age or disability, or those fleeing domestic abuse.
17. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

Reapplication duty

18. Under section 195A(1) (re-application after private rented sector offer), the section 193(2) duty will apply regardless of whether the applicant has a priority need where:

• a person makes a re-application for assistance within 2 years of accepting a private rented sector offer under section 193(7AA); and,
• the applicant is eligible for assistance and has become homeless unintentionally.

19. Housing authorities should be aware that if, following the expiry of the initial 12 month assured shorthold tenancy, an applicant secures their own accommodation and then subsequently becomes homeless within 2 years of the original private rented sector offer then the re-application duty will still apply.
20. Housing authorities receiving a re-application cannot simply refer the applicant to the housing authority which made the private rented sector offer but must first carry out investigations to determine whether the applicant is eligible and homeless through no fault of their own. It is for the receiving housing authority to establish whether the applicant has become homeless unintentionally.
21. Once the receiving housing authority has established that the applicant is unintentionally homeless and eligible for assistance, they may refer the applicant to the housing authority that made the private rented sector offer. The conditions for referral of the case to the other housing authority are met once it has been established that the re-application has been made within 2 years and neither the applicant nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant will be at risk of violence or domestic abuse in the district of the other housing authority.

What happened

22. Miss X previously made a homelessness application to another Local Authority. That Local Authority accepted a relief duty and supported Miss X to find suitable accommodation within the Council’s area.
23. After six months, Miss X was served with a section 21 eviction notice. On 30th October 2022 Miss X approached the Council to make a homelessness application because of the section 21 eviction notice. The notice said she had until 23rd January 2023 to vacate the property.
24. The Council felt that Miss X was owed a reapplication duty from the previous Local Authority, as Miss X had become homeless again within two years of her previous application. On 1st November 2022 the Council referred Miss X to previous Local Authority and advised it had a reapplication duty. The other Local Authority told the Council Miss X could make a further homelessness application.
25. Miss X’s representative emailed the Council asking for clarification on whether the referral was done to the other Local Authority and what duty the Council had accepted. The Council said it had not accepted a prevention duty as Miss X was still owed a relief duty by the other Local Authority. It confirmed it had contacted the other Local Authority who had advised Miss X should make a homelessness application.
26. On 13th December 2022, the other Local Authority told the Council that it had placed Miss X in the Council’s area as she was fleeing domestic abuse. It wanted the Council to accept a relief duty to Miss X. The Council remained of the view the other Local Authority owed Miss X a relief duty.
27. Miss X told the Council she was unhappy with the decision to refer her to the other Local Authority, as she had fled domestic abuse from that area. She felt the Council had not considered that when it decided to refer her, and the Council should have made further enquiries.
28. Between 20th December 2022 and 12th January 2022, the Council contacted the other Local Authority for its assessment of Miss X, and Miss X’s landlord to establish the details of the eviction. It also discussed with Miss X whether she could stay with family after the eviction. Miss X told the Council she could stay with her mother. The Council says it asked Miss X if she needed further support, which she declined.
29. On 18th January Miss X’s representative asked the Council for its decision letter accepting a relief duty and Miss X’s Personal Housing Plan. The Council told the representative Miss X had advised she would be staying with her mother and that she did not need further support. Miss X later confirmed this is not what she had meant to communicate, and that she wanted the Council to accept a prevention duty.
30. On 20th January 2023, Miss X was illegally evicted from her property. She contacted the Council to explain the situation and said she was staying with her mother. The Council told Miss X that if she could stay with her mother long term, then there was no risk of homelessness. The Council asked Miss X to confirm with her mother if it could be a long-term arrangement. Miss X then told the Council her mother had said she could not stay long term.
31. On 25th January 2022, the Council carried out an assessment of Miss X’s circumstances. It did not record any concerns about domestic abuse. It also contacted the previous Local Authority again about its reapplication duty as Miss X was now homeless.
32. Between 25th January 2023 and 1st February 2023 the Council had several discussions with the other Local Authority about the understanding of reapplication legislation. Eventually, the other Local Authority accepted it still had a relief duty to Miss X. However, it asked if the Council had considered Miss X was fleeing domestic abuse from its area in its decision.
33. The Council contacted the police to establish any history of domestic abuse or risk to Miss X. The Police confirmed it had no records of domestic abuse or risk posed to Miss X. The Council contacted the other Local Authority to confirm it was satisfied there was no risk of domestic abuse towards Miss X, and the duty to her remained with the other Local Authority.
34. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2023. In her complaint she said:

• the Council had failed to make further enquiries on her homelessness application,
• the Council had wrongly decided not to at first accept a prevention duty, and
• the Council should not have referred her to the other Local Authority.

35. The Council’s response said

• The officer responsible for the case had sought advice from management and an advice service, and had been advised she could make a referral to the other Local Authority at this stage. However, the legislation was misunderstood, and by referring Miss X back to the other Local Authority early, the Council did not make detailed enquiries about whether a duty was owed.
• Because the Council at first did not make suitable enquiries about whether a prevention duty was owed, there was a delay in the Council accepting the duty.
• The Council should not have assumed Miss X was receiving support from the other Local Authority. However, this did not change the support the Council offered, as it was always clear the duty to Miss X lay with the other Local Authority.
• There were times there had been poor communication and confusion about what support Miss X was entitled to and who should be providing it.
• No financial remedy was warranted, as the outcome would still have been the same, regardless of whether the process would have been followed.

36. Miss X remained unhappy and bought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Duty to Miss X

37. The Council’s complaint response upholds that it should have accepted the prevention duty to Miss X sooner. I have seen from the Council records that while it did not accept the prevention duty at first, the Council was making some enquiries expected where a Council does accept a prevention duty.
38. It is clear that some of the confusion and delay in Miss X’s case stems from the other Local Authority’s refusal to accept that it owed Miss X reapplication duty. There was also a failure by the other Local Authority to provide the assessment information and circumstances of Miss X’s placement to the Council when it was initially requested. I accept that this caused some of the delay and confusion when communicating with Miss X. The Council has showed that it was continuously trying to address this with the other Local Authority, however, this does not detract from the prevention duty it owed Miss X in the interim.
39. If the Council had accepted the prevention duty sooner, it is likely Miss X would have been issued a decision and a Personal Housing Plan. This could have contained other methods of support, such as advice on private rented accommodation. It would be speculative to say if the Council had issued this decision sooner, Miss X would have secured alternative accommodation before the illegal eviction. However, on balance I am satisfied Miss X has been caused distress and uncertainty because of the delay.
40. The Council has already recognised that it can only make referrals if the relief duty has been accepted and has apologised to Miss X for completing a referral before accepting the relief duty. This is the most suitable remedy for this aspect of the complaint, as the Council has recognised that it misunderstood when to complete a referral, and on balance, it is likely the Council would still have made the referral to the other Local Authority when it accepted the relief duty later when Miss X became homeless.

Consideration of domestic abuse

41. I have not seen evidence that when Miss X first made her homelessness application to the Council, that it was aware she had previously fled domestic abuse. Therefore, I can only consider whether the Council considered this information from the time it became aware of this when the other Local Authority advised of the circumstances.
42. The Council should have made enquiries about the domestic abuse when it first became aware. This was fault by the Council. I cannot see at any point the Council discussed the allegations of domestic abuse or any risk posed to Miss X with her or sought to clarify the information with her. I can only see that it sought further information from the police in February 2023, three months after it was made aware.
43. Failure to seek and clarify information timely manner was fault by the Council. It should have made enquiries about this when it first became aware of the information, and it should have shown how it considered this information in any decision making. It would be speculative to say that if the Council had done this, the outcome would have been different, however I accept Miss X has been caused further uncertainty as a result.

Illegal eviction

44. Where complainants have been the subject of an illegal eviction, the Ombudsman expects Councils to be able to show that it considered the information provided and what action to take.
45. The Council’s case notes show the officer discussed with Miss X her legal rights to return to the property and offered to liaise with the landlord to try and achieve this. Miss X declined this as she did not wish to return to the property. The Council has demonstrated it carried out the expected actions, and I find no fault by the Council for this part of the complaint.

Interim accommodation

46. While there is no fault in how the Council responded to the information about the illegal eviction, I have also considered whether the Council should have provided interim accommodation at the point Miss X became homeless. At the point of the illegal eviction, Miss X was no longer threatened with homelessness, but was homeless, and so the Council owed her a relief duty.
47. If the Council had reason to believe Miss X may be in priority need, it should have provided interim accommodation. However, based on the evidence provided so far, the Council did not consider whether Miss X may have been in priority need. There is not enough information on Miss X’s circumstances for me to make a conclusive decision that if the Council had properly considered this, it would have provided interim accommodation. There was fault by the Council in failing to consider whether Miss X may be in priority need, but I cannot say the outcome would have been different. The injustice to Miss X is that she was caused further distress and confusion about what support she should have been receiving.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to

• Write to Miss X and apologise for the fault identified.
• Pay Miss X £250 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused.

49. Within 12 weeks, the Council has agreed to

• Provide further guidance and training to staff about when to complete referrals where the Council has reason to believe other Local Authorities may have a reapplication duty.
• Provide guidance and training for staff on the importance of recording and considering domestic abuse in homelessness applications.
• Review how the Council is recording its decisions and considerations when deciding if applicants may be in priority need.

50. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation. I find fault with the Council for its handling of Miss X’s homelessness application and delay in accepting the prevention duty.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman