Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application, failure to record information correctly on her personal housing plan, failure to offer her interim accommodation and failure to consider medical information in reaching its decision about her priority need. We do not find fault in the steps taken by the Council in managing Ms X’s application and therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:

a) Failed to properly assess her homelessness application and offer her emergency accommodation.

b) Noted incorrect information in her personal housing plan (PHP).

c) Did not properly consider her medical information and personal circumstances in reaching its decision about her homelessness priority.

d) Did not properly reach its decision about her allocation banding on its housing register.

2. Ms X says her longstanding medical conditions have deteriorated as she remains homeless and unable to bid for suitable properties. Ms X says this caused her avoidable distress and continued hardship.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated Ms X’s complaint strands as set out at paragraphs 1a to 1c.
8. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint strand as set out at paragraph 1d about her allocation banding. Ms X did not raise this as a part of her complaint to the Council as it was still completing her application to join the housing register at the time. Ms X’s complaint is therefore premature, and she would need to exhaust the Council’s complaints process in relation to this issue before we can consider it as explained at paragraph 5.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council during our investigation and made further enquiries as necessary.
10. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness applications

11. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless it must make inquiries to satisfy itself what, if any, duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 (1))
12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
13. Homeless applicants may request a review by the Council within 21 days of the decision on their homelessness application. And if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Homelessness Code of Guidance section 25)

Interim accommodation

14. While a Council is carrying out inquiries in an applicant’s case it must also secure accommodation for the applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. A person may be in priority need if they:
• are at risk of domestic abuse
• are a pregnant woman or live with a pregnant woman
• have dependant children living with them or who are reasonably expected to live with them
• lost their accommodation because of an emergency such as a flood, fire or other disaster
• or someone they live with is vulnerable because of old age, mental health condition or disability. (Housing Act 1996, s189(1))

Relief and main housing duties

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty.
17. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that where the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days.
18. If the applicant’s homelessness has not been successfully relieved by then, the Council will owe them the main housing duty. The Council must ensure suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until that duty is completed. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

What happened

19. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.

2023

20. In mid-August 2023, Ms X approached the Council for homelessness assistance.
21. In September 2023, the Council completed a telephone assessment followed by an in-person appointment to gather information. It decided Ms X was homeless but not eligible for further assistance. The records indicate this was because Ms X failed to provide documents to confirm her identity.
22. In October 2023, the Council issued its homelessness assessment outcome letter. Ms X then sought a review and provided further information from her GP and the missing identity documents.
23. At the end of October 2023, the Council overturned its earlier decision, accepted its homelessness relief duty, and completed Ms X’s PHP. The Council’s records say Ms X did not request emergency accommodation as she was staying with a friend at the time.
24. The Council wrote to Ms X to explain she needed to send further medical information for it to consider whether she was in priority need due to her health.
25. In early November 2023 the Council updated Ms X’s PHP. It also forwarded a full copy of Ms X’s medical records to its independent medical advisor for further consideration of Ms X’s vulnerabilities and future housing needs. This was to establish whether Ms X was also eligible for emergency accommodation in view of the medical issues she had mentioned during her assessment.
26. In mid-November 2023, the Council’s medical advisor reported that based on her medical history, Ms X did not have any specific housing requirements.
27. In late December 2023 Ms X’s PHP was updated again and the Council tried to reach Ms X to discuss her plan, but she failed to respond. The records say the Council was also trying to obtain copies of Ms X’s bank statements as part of its ongoing enquiries.

Ms X’s complaint

28. In early November 2023, Ms X complained to the Council about the issues she has raised with us at paragraph 1a to 1c. She also included other matters which are not part of my investigation.

The Council’s complaint responses

29. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in December 2023. The Council accepted Ms X’s home address was not correctly recorded in her PHP but explained this had been amended and a new PHP was issued in December 2023. The Council explained it had not offered interim accommodation as it did not consider Ms X to be vulnerable or in priority need and she was staying with a friend at that time. It confirmed Ms X’s medical information had been properly considered and said it had not reached a decision about Ms X’s housing registration and banding allocation as it had not yet received the financial information it required.
30. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to reconsider her complaint.
31. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in January 2024. It reiterated its position, as set out in its initial response, about Ms X’s updated PHP and apologised for the initial error in noting her address. The Council explained it had accepted a housing relief duty but did not offer emergency accommodation as Ms X did not meet its eligibility criteria. The Council accepted the allocated officer has not spoken to Ms X about her application to join its housing register but said it still had not received the financial information it had requested in December 2023.
32. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2024.

2024

33. Throughout January 2024, the Council made efforts to reach Ms X by telephone and email to discuss a further review of her PHP without response.
34. In February 2024 the Council issued a preliminary decision letter to Ms X. It explained the Council would decide she was not in priority need unless she provided outstanding information by early March 2024.
35. In mid-March 2024 the Council noted Ms X had failed to provide further information. It therefore issued a ‘Not in Priority Need’ decision letter to Ms X explaining its reasoning in detail and ended its homelessness relief duty.
36. Ms X sought a further review of the Council’s decision with supporting information which included detailed submissions about her housing and medical history.
37. In mid-April 2024, the Council overturned its earlier decision and accepted Ms X was in priority need. It therefore accepted a full housing duty and agreed to provide Ms X with temporary accommodation.
38. Ms X was referred to the Council’s housing allocations team, for an offer of temporary accommodation.

Was there fault and did it cause injustice?

i) Ms X says the Council failed to properly assess her homelessness and offer her emergency accommodation.

39. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. It is not our role to decide whether the Councill should have provided Ms X with emergency accommodation, that is the Council’s job. Our role is to check if the Council followed the correct steps in its decision making and considered all the available information. If we do not find fault in the procedural steps followed by the Council, we cannot question the merits of its final decision.
40. The Council assessed Ms X’s homelessness in August 2023. The initial assessment was by telephone followed by a face-to-face appointment to progress its enquiries. This was in line with the law which says the Council must make such enquiries to establish whether the person is homeless and in need of assistance. The Council accepted Ms X was homeless, but she failed to provide evidence confirming her identity resulting in the Council decision that it could not offer further assistance. It therefore sent Ms X a decision outcome letter explaining its reasons. I do not find fault in the Council’s initial steps to process Ms X’s homelessness application.
41. Ms X later requested the Council review its decision. She provided her outstanding identity information and further medical evidence from her GP. The Council then progressed the review in line with the law. The Council accepted its housing relief duty and provided Ms X with a PHP setting out how it would help her to try and secure accommodation. Ms X said the Council should have provided her with emergency accommodation at this point. However, the records including Ms X’s initial PHP, say Ms X advised the Council she was staying with a friend at the time. I also note the Council’s review outcome letter which explained it considered Ms X may have a priority need due to medical vulnerability issues she had mentioned, but this would be contingent on her sending further supporting information. The the Council later considered the medical information but decided Ms X’s medical issues did not meet the criteria for being in priority need. The Council therefore decided not to offer Ms X emergency accommodation. I do not find fault in the steps taken by the Council in its consideration of whether to offer Ms X emergency accommodation and therefore cannot question the merits of its final decision.
42. I note the Council later changed course in April 2024 and decided Ms X was in priority need and accepted a main housing duty. However, this was following a further review request by Ms X, in which she provided outstanding financial information previously requested by the Council between December 2023 and early March 2024 without success. The Council considered this new information and decided Ms X was now eligible for temporary accommodation. It then wrote to Ms X to confirm the outcome of her review and referred Ms X to its allocations team. I do not find fault in relation to this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.

ii) Ms X says the Council noted incorrect information in her personalised housing plan.

43. The Council did not correctly record Ms X’s address in her initial PHP in early November 2023. The Council has admitted this error in its complaint responses and apologised. I note the Council also clarified it amended the error in Ms X’s further PHP in December 2023. I appreciate Ms X was unhappy with the Council for not recording her address correctly. However, I also consider the Council made multiple attempts to reach Ms X by telephone and email in this period to discuss the plan, but she did not respond. The Council’s failure to record Ms X’s address correctly is fault but I do not consider it to have caused Ms X significant injustice.

iii) Ms X says the Council did not properly consider her medical information and personal circumstances in reaching its decision about her homelessness priority.

44. The Council considered Ms X’s medical circumstances both during its initial homelessness assessment and after Ms X provided evidence during its review process in late October 2023. The Council sought expert advice from its independent medical assessor in November 2023 to better understand Ms X’s medical vulnerabilities and potential housing needs. The medical assessor confirmed to the Council that Ms X’s medical issues did not require her to be provided with any specific form of housing. The Council therefore wrote to Ms X to explain that it did not believe she met the criteria as set out in law to be considered in priority need. I do not find fault in the steps taken by the Council in its initial consideration of Ms X’s medical circumstances and whether she was in priority need. I therefore cannot question the merits of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I do not find fault in the steps taken by the Council in assessing Ms X’s homelessness and in the process it followed in reaching its decision not to provide her with interim accommodation, Ms X’s housing priority need and consideration of her medical evidence. I therefore cannot question the merits of its final decision. I find the Council failed to correctly record Ms X’s address on her initial PHP, but this did not cause Ms X significant injustice.
46. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman