Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s poor handling of her brother's homelessness application. There was delay and poor communication by the Council. It has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly consider her brother Mr T’s homelessness prevention application. She says Mr T is disabled and vulnerable. Mrs X complains the Council did not provide advice and support and it delayed and lied about trying to contact him. This led to frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered the documents it provided. Mrs X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

5. 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.
6. 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)
7. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant 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)
8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. 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)
10. 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)
11. 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).
12. The code of guidance recommends that housing authorities have procedures in place for dealing with applications that are withdrawn or where someone fails to maintain contact with the housing authority after making an application. The Secretary of State considers that it would be reasonable to consider an application closed where the applicant has not responded to any form of contact for 56 days or longer. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.14.)

What happened

13. What follows is a brief summary of the key events. It is not necessary for me to detail everything that happened here.
14. On 8 September 2023 Mr T approached the Council as homeless. He said he was living at his sister’s home in the living room. Mrs X provided a statement that Mr T could not continue to live in the flat because the flat was overcrowded and her tenancy agreement did not allow it.
15. On 18 September Mr T sent in various required documents such as identity documents, medical information, bank statements and benefits information.
16. On 25 September 2023 the Council assigned Mr T’s case to an officer. It said the officer would contact him shortly to complete a full housing assessment. It said the officer would assist and support him in resolving any issues he may encounter and would provide information and guidance when needed. It also said that it “is essential that you proactively look for accommodation yourself and keep a record of the landlords and agents you have contacted. Financial assistance may be available in order to secure accommodation, subject to affordability.”
17. On 28 September 2023 the officer requested Mr T complete a medical assessment form, a 10 year address form and a homelessness declaration form. It also asked for evidence of his income, bank statements and medical information. Mr T had already provided that evidence.
18. On 3 October 2023 the Council said the housing officer tried to call Mr T but there was no reply. The case notes show the officer recorded “Several calls to client – VM [voicemail], case will be close by end of the week if no response from client.”
19. Mr T says the Council did not call him or leave a voicemail.
20. The Council closed Mr T’s case a few days later. It did not inform him of this.
21. On 11 October 2023 Mr T sent in the requested forms. The Council did not reply.
22. On 8 November Mr T complained he was about to be made homeless. He said he had provided the information and had then missed a call from the Council due to ill health. He said he had called the officer, but had no response.
23. The Council replied on 22 November it had closed his application because the officer had made several attempts to contact him without success. The Council reopened Mr T’s case and asked him to make sure he responded to telephone calls.
24. The Council arranged to call Mr T on 23 November, but Mr T did not answer. He later rearranged a call the day after. But Mr T did not answer the call. The Council emailed Mr T to advise it would close his application if he did not respond.
25. Mr T replied that he was unable to answer one call, but he had answered another. He said he had been unwell. He said he had called the housing officer back but had no response.
26. Mr T complained the Council said it made several calls but his phone record did not show any calls on 3 October. He asked the Council for evidence of its calls. He said the Council was causing him distress. He said he had a bereavement recently and had been ill.
27. The Council arranged for the housing officer to contact Mr T and carry out an assessment on 2 December 2023. The Council decided Mr T was homeless and eligible for assistance. It confirmed that it owed him the relief duty. The Council completed a Personal Housing Plan with Mr T. This stated that:
• The Council had a duty to take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help him to secure accommodation.
• It was not the Council’s responsibility to secure accommodation for him, but it would offer to help him through various measures, including personalised advice, and where possible by providing a rent deposit or bond guarantee.
• The Council agreed it would provide advice to Mr T, refer him to external organisations where possible, assist him financially with a deposit or rent in advice where possible.
• Mr T agreed to seek private rented accommodation by registering with estate agents, searching property websites online every day, and putting aside £5-£10 every week towards moving costs.
• The Council would end the relief duty if Mr T found suitable accommodation, or refused an offer of suitable accommodation, or after 56 days from the issue of its notification letter. The Council set out Mr T’s right of review according to the Housing Act section 202.
28. The Council requested that Mr T provide medical reports so that it could assess his vulnerability. It also asked Mr T to confirm information regarding his sister's residence so that it could determine his local connection.
29. On 13 December 2023 Mr T provided documents and a response. The Council passed Mr T’s information to its medical advisor. The medical advisor responded within two days but did not make any recommendations regarding Mr T’s housing priority.
30. On 15 December Mr T contacted the Council for an update. However, the Council did not respond.
31. On 18 January 2024 Mr T called and spoke to the housing officer. The Council sent Mr T a vulnerability form to complete. He returned this on 29 January.
32. On 9 February the Council noted that it considered Mr T did not have a priority need. Its file note stated it would issue a decision.
33. Mr T chased a response on 12 February and said he needed guidance about where to seek accommodation.
34. Mrs X complained on Mr T’s behalf in late February. She said the Council was not supporting Mr T. In her view the Council had lied about calling Mr T and it did not respond when Mr T contacted it.
35. On 7 March in its response to Mr T, the Council set out the contacts between Mr T and the housing officer. It said it would now consider the vulnerability form Mr T had returned.
36. Mrs X complained further that the Council had not called Mr T on 3 October 2023. She sent a screen shot of his phone. Mr T had called the officer back but had no response. The documents the Council had requested were already provided in September. Mrs X said the Council’s handling of the application had led to distrust.
37. On 26 March 2024 the Council says it notified Mr T it considered he was not in priority need. The Council says it also confirmed that its duty to assist Mr T in accordance with its relief duty had come to an end. This was because 56 days had passed since it notified him it owed a duty and the Council had complied with the duty. The Council has not provided a copy of its priority need decision or evidence it was sent. Mr T said he did not receive a copy of the letter.
38. On 4 April 2024 the Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint. It said that it was satisfied the version of events it had previously set out was accurate.
39. The Council sent a further copy of its letter of 26 March 2024 to Mr T in May because Mrs X said he had not received it. I understand that Mr T has not requested a review of the Council’s decision.

Analysis

40. I am satisfied the Council provided assistance in response to Mr T’s homelessness approach. It accepted the relief duty in December, produced a PHP, offered Mr T a deposit and gave general advice about securing alternative private sector accommodation. I do not find fault by the Council in respect of these actions.
41. However, there was fault in the Council’s communications and in the way it closed his application.
• The Council asked for documents it had already received in September 2023. This was fault and caused frustration. However, I note that the Council also needed Mr T to complete some forms which were required. So, this did not cause delay.
• The Council does not have recordings of the calls it made on 3 October 2023. However, the officer made a file note regarding the calls he made. I consider there is sufficient evidence the Council called Mr T. However, the Council did not follow its call up with an email confirming it would close the application or that it had closed the application. This is fault.
• The Code of Guidance says that it is reasonable for a Council to consider an application withdrawn if an applicant has not responded to any form of contact for 56 days or more. In this case the Council treated Mr T’s application as withdrawn in a much shorter timeframe. This is fault and caused Mr T distress.
• Mr T sent in the requested information on 11 October 2023, but the Council did not respond to this either to advise that it had closed the application or that it would consider whether to reopen his case. This was fault.
42. I consider there were further delays by the Council and communication failures:
• The Council took no action when it received the medical adviser’s response on 15 December.
• The Council sent a vulnerability form to Mr T on 22 January, but it could have sent this earlier as it noted Mr T’s vulnerability was a potential issue on 6 December 2023.
• The Council appears to have made a decision about Mr T’s priority need on 9 February 2024, but did not write to him. It then said it wrote to him with the decision on 26 March 2024. However, the Council does not have sufficient evidence it sent a decision letter.
• The Council did not reply to Mr T’s 12 February email until 7 March 2024.
43. I consider the Council’s delays and lack of response caused Mr T frustration and anxiety.
44. The eventual outcome was the Council decided it did not owe the main duty to Mr T because he was not in priority need. However, on the balance of probability I consider the Council did not properly inform Mr T of this decision because the Council does not have evidence of sending a notification letter with review rights. This is fault, because Mr T did not know the outcome and was unable to request a review of the Council’s decision. The Council has agreed a remedy for the frustration and uncertainty caused by this fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. Within one month of my decision the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr T for the anxiety and distress caused by its delays in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr T £150 as a symbolic payment to recognise the avoidable distress and anxiety that it caused.
• Send Mr T its decision that he has no priority needs. This should set out his right of review. If Mr T requests a review the Council should consider it in accordance with the review process.
46. Within three months of my decision the Council agreed to:
• review its procedures to ensure it has a procedure in place which reflects the timescale in the Code of Guidance when applicants do not maintain contact.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by its faults. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman