Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed and made errors in respect of his homelessness application impacting his position on the housing register and causing distress. The Council accepts fault in not accepting the main housing duty when it had already determined Mr X was homeless by accepting the relief duty. The Council has now agreed a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed and made errors in respect of his homelessness application.
2. Mr X says this has impacted his position on the housing register and caused distress.

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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness Legislation and statutory guidance

6. Part 7 of 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.
7. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

The relief duty

8. 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)

The main housing duty

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Key facts

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.

11. Mr X approached the Council in January 2023 saying he was experiencing domestic abuse and required housing assistance. The Council took a homelessness application and accepted the relief duty.
12. On 6 July the Council wrote to Mr X saying it had ended the relief duty because Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. Mr X was unhappy with this decision and so contacted the Council. It subsequently quashed this decision on 31 August. It said this was because by accepting the relief duty it had accepted he was homeless from his current address and so could not then make a different decision from the same address. The Council reinstated the relief duty.
13. Mr X had a telephone meeting with a housing officer on 2 October. He says this was a positive meeting and felt he had been listened to. Mr X says the officer indicated the main housing duty would be accepted.
14. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation on 6 November. This was a fully furnished self-contained single studio flat. Mr X declined to accept this offer. He had previously explained to the Council that his mental health issues, which are related to a previous trauma, prevented him from being in a property with second hand furniture. This position is supported by medical evidence subsequently provided to the Council.
15. Mr X made a formal complaint on 9 December. He complained about the lack of responses to emails, lack of compassion and understanding of someone experiencing domestic abuse, delays and errors. He said that after receiving no responses to several emails, the Council told him on 27 November that he should expect a written decision within 10 days. This did not happen which is why Mr X submitted the formal complaint.
16. On 13 December the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty and wrote to him. On 14 December, it offered Mr X a fully furnished self-contained studio flat. Again Mr X declined this as unsuitable for his needs.
17. The Council’s stage two complaint response dated 9 February 2024 accepted delay in making the main housing duty decision. It said this was regrettable and the relevant team had a high number of vacant posts. The Council also accepted it did not always adhere to Mr X’s preferred contact method and it wrongly contacted him about rent charges when he had declined the offer of temporary accommodation. It partially upheld Mr X’s complaint and offered a financial remedy of £500.
18. Dissatisfied Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. Once notified of the Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council wrote to us saying it wished to settle the complaint on the following basis:
• Backdating the main housing duty acceptance to 25 March 2023 which would be 56 days after the initial relief duty ended;
• Adjusting Mr X’s date of entry onto the housing register to reflect the above date; and
• Pay Mr X £1,000 for the errors it has acknowledged.
19. Mr X has since accepted an offer of accommodation and he tells me this meets his needs.

Analysis

20. Mr X complains about delays and errors in respect of his homelessness application. The Council has accepted fault in this case as part of the complaint process. The Ombudsman welcomes this and acknowledges the Council has made attempts to provide a satisfactory remedy. However, Mr X did not consider the offer made to be satisfactory.
21. The Council accepted the relief duty in January 2023. By accepting the relief duty the Council must have been satisfied Mr X was homeless, not just threatened with homelessness, and eligible for assistance. So it was fault for the Council to then end the relief duty and not accept the main housing duty on the basis Mr X was not homeless. The homeless decision had already been made.
22. The Council then reinstated the relief duty and considered whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. However, it did not make the decision in respect of the main housing duty until 13 December. This decision should have been made on day 57 after it accepted the relief duty or a maximum of 15 days after that if it needed more time to complete enquiries. I have not seen evidence to suggest the extra 15 days were required. The Council mentions staff vacancies and the suggestion is that Mr X’s case was allowed to drift. This was fault.
23. The Council also accepts it did not always respond to Mr X’s emails and that it did not contact him as he requested. I note that at times the Council contacted Mr X by text message and not email. As Mr X was in an abusive relationship it was important the Council only contacted Mr X using his preferred contact method. Fortunately there is nothing to suggest any harm was caused to Mr X in this case as a result of this fault.
24. I am pleased that after the Ombudsman notified the Council of our intention to investigate this complaint, it made a further offer to settle the complaint. This included backdating Mr X’s entry date onto the housing register and increasing the payment offered. I have now considered this offer and believe it is appropriate in this case.
25. I asked the Council for details of all properties offered to homeless applicants with a priority date later than 23 March 2023 so I could judge if Mr X had missed out on a suitable property. On the basis of the information provided, I am unable to say that Mr X did miss out on a property. In reaching this view, I have taken account of the fact Mr X’s preference in respect of areas within the borough changed. I acknowledge this was due to concerns about proximity to his abusive ex-partner and his safety. However, if the areas were not suitable then we have to assume that Mr X would have refused any offers in areas he considered unsafe. Mr X has now accepted a property in a suitable location.
26. The Ombudsman produces a document “Guidance on Remedies” which sets out the principles that guide our recommendations. All our remedies aim to try to put the person back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. So our remedies are restorative and not punitive. Where we identify there is still a significant unremedied injustice arising from the faults we can ask the organisation to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress and difficulties the person has been put through because of what the council did wrong. We would normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.
27. I note the Council has now offered Mr X a payment of £1,000. As this is higher than the amount the Ombudsman would normally recommend I consider this is a suitable amount. I do consider the Council should apologise to Mr X and I am also recommending some service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. The Council, within one month of my final decision, will make a written apology to Mr X.
29. I also recommend that it sends a reminder to all staff that if the relief duty is accepted that this means it has accepted the person is homeless, not just threatened with homelessness and this should be reflected in any decisions on the main housing duty.
30. It should also remind staff that in cases of domestic abuse, contact with the applicant should only be via methods agreed with the applicant to avoid the risk of harm.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended and has already offered Mr X a suitable payment. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman