Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing applications, his succession application, and Notice to Quit. Based on the evidence seen so far, the Ombudsmen propose finding fault by the Council, causing injustice. The Council should remedy this injustice by apologising, making payments to reflect the distress caused, and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about:
1. the way the Council dealt with his homelessness and housing applications; and
2. the Council’s response to Mr X’s concerns about his succession application and its handling of its Notice to Quit (NTQ).
2. Mr X wants the Council to review and improve its procedures and staffing levels and make an appropriate payment for the impact of its failures on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, we have used the word fault to refer to these.

4. The LGSCO must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. Injustice may include distress, inconvenience, or being put to avoidable time and trouble. 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)
5. The LGSCO investigates complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation, or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The HOS considers the evidence and establishes if there has been any ‘maladministration’, including circumstances where a landlord behaved unreasonably, treated the complainant in an inappropriate manner, or failed to comply with its obligations. (Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)
7. The HOS Dispute Resolution Principles are ‘be fair’, ‘put things right’, and ‘learn from outcomes’ – we will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
8. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
9. If the LGSCO is 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)
10. Following an investigation, the HOS may order a member landlord to take steps to put things right. (Paragraphs 54-55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme)

Back to top

How we considered this complaint

11. Mr X’s complaint covers matters that fall into the jurisdiction of both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).
12. Each Ombudsman has therefore investigated the parts of the complaint which are within its jurisdiction and jointly considered the parts of the complaint that fell within both jurisdictions. This decision statement covers both investigations.
13. The LGSCO investigated complaint a) in paragraph one. The HOS investigated complaint b).
14. We spoke to Mr X, considered the complaint, and the information he provided. We made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
15. The LGSCO considered our Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
16. Mr X and the Council can now comment on this draft decision. We will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What we found

What happened

17. We have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on our review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

18. Mr X lived with his father, the tenancy holder of the property, who had been a secure tenant of the Council since September 1997. Mr X’s father passed away in February 2023.
19. Following his father’s death, Mr X made an application to the Council for succession of his father’s tenancy.

April 2023: Mr X’s succession application

20. In April 2023, the Council provided Mr X with relevant information about the succession application process and the need for evidence of residency for the 12 months prior to the tenancy holder’s death.

April/May 2023: Mr X’s homelessness application

21. Mr X’s GP provided a letter confirming Mr X suffered from significant depression and anxiety and would be homeless if evicted from his father’s flat. On 24 April 2023, Mr X contacted the Council’s housing needs team to make a homelessness application. He was told he would get a call back within 48 hours and be asked to attend an assessment appointment.
22. Mr X heard nothing further. He called the Council on 11 May 2023. It said it was now sending his application on for action.
23. Mr X contacted the Council again on 24 May 2023. It told him his homelessness application was not being treated as a priority because of his succession application. Mr X said the failure to update him about the progress of his application was causing him huge anxiety.

June 2023: First Notice to Quit

24. On 1 June 2023, the Council served Mr X with notice requiring him to leave his father’s property by 3 July 2023.
25. Following further contact from Mr X about his homelessness application, the Council arranged an appointment on 8 June 2023 to assess his circumstances. Mr X had been diagnosed, around this time, with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and prescribed medication for his condition. He explained his situation and why he was vulnerable.
26. Mr X returned the completed forms and information for his application on 15 June 2023. He tried to contact his caseworker and left messages but did not receive a response.
27. He told a team manager on 21 June 2023 that he was very anxious because he had not heard about his homelessness application, and the NTQ expired shortly.
28. The caseworker called Mr X on 30 June 2023. They said he would not actually be evicted on 3 July 2023. They were now going on leave and would update him on their return.

June 2023: Succession application

29. Following his ADHD diagnosis, Mr X asked the Council on 25 June 2023 if he was eligible for a discretionary tenancy because of his vulnerability. It is not evident that the Council addressed this query at this time.
30. On 27 June 2023, the Council rejected Mr. X’s succession application (its decision was dated 13 June 2023). It noted it did not have evidence that Mr X had resided in the property for 12 months prior to his father’s death. It further noted that Mr X’s father had been registered as a single occupant, and it had evidence Mr X had resided at another property between 1 June 2019 and 1 March 2023.
31. The Council subsequently advised that Mr X should now seek to make a homelessness application. It also noted that it had served an NTQ on 1 June 2023, which was due to expire on 3 July 2023.

July/August 2023: Mr X’s homelessness application

32. On 3 July 2023, the Council sent the information Mr X had provided about his medical conditions to its district medical officer for assessment. It asked for advice on whether Mr X would be more vulnerable than an ordinary person if made homeless.
33. Its records say it considered whether it owed Mr X the prevention duty. It decided that it did not owe the duty at this stage because it did not yet know if he was going to be homeless within the next 56 days.
34. The Council told Mr X on 11 July 2023, after he had chased for an update, that it was waiting to hear about the outcome of his succession application. It said it required an eviction notice to confirm he was homeless.
35. Mr X asked the Council for further updates on 31 July, 8 August, and 12 August 2023.

September 2023: Further NTQ

36. The Council served a further NTQ on 5 September 2023, which was due to expire on 16 October 2023. It says this was done to allow Mr X extra time to complete his homelessness application.
37. Mr X complained to the Council about its lack of communication and progress with his homelessness application.
38. After further chasing, the Council told Mr X it would check the position regarding its discretionary tenancy policy. It also confirmed the district medical officer had completed their assessment and advised they did not consider the specific medical issues rendered Mr X sufficiently vulnerable as now defined.
39. It sent Mr X a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) on 28 September 2023. This confirmed the outcome of the medical assessment and that the caseworker would check the position regarding the further NTQ and refer Mr X to the Council’s Single Homeless Persons Service (SHPS).

September 2023: Mr X’s complaint to the Council

40. On 29 September 2023, Mr X made a formal complaint about the communication relating to his homelessness application. On 4 October 2023, he added concerns about the outcome of his succession application to his complaint. In particular, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the level of communication from his Housing Officer after being served an NTQ. He also noted that he was yet to receive any response to his query about a discretionary tenancy.
41. In its stage one response on 5 October 2023, the Council:
1. reiterated the outcome of the succession application and noted it had provided advice about how to proceed with a homelessness application;
2. noted it had served a new NTQ with an extended deadline to give Mr X extra time to make a homelessness application;
3. apologised for delays with communication about his homelessness application. It explained this was due to staff shortages; and
4. noted a new caseworker had been assigned to his homelessness application.
42. The response did not address Mr X’s concerns about a lack of updates to his query about a discretionary tenancy. It also did not provide any position in relation to whether he was eligible.
43. On the same date, Mr X again queried if he was eligible for a discretionary tenancy. It is evident that the parties discussed this further on 6 October 2023 and that the Council explained that Mr X would not be eligible for a discretionary tenancy.
44. On 25 October 2023, the Council provided a further stage one response in relation to Mr X’s complaint about his homelessness application. It apologised again for the communication failures and offered a payment of £100 in recognition of the distress this had caused.

October/November 2023: Council accepts the prevention duty

45. On 10 October 2023, the Council notified Mr X that it was satisfied he was eligible for help and threatened with homelessness and that it owed him the prevention duty.
46. It also sent Mr X an updated PHP and referred him to the SHPS team.
47. SHPS contacted Mr X. It explained that it provided help to homeless applicants to find private sector accommodation and made an appointment to discuss this with him on 2 November 2023.
48. On 27 October 2023, Mr X asked for a review of the PHP – he was unhappy this said he was not in priority need.
49. On 31 October 2023, the Council notified Mr X that it had placed him on its housing register because of his homeless status.

November 2023: Outcome of Mr X’s homelessness application

50. Mr X asked, at his appointment with SHPS, why he had not been considered as being in priority need. The officer explained the Council did not consider his condition (ADHD) met the definition of priority need. Mr X asked it to confirm this in writing.
51. SHPS issued a further PHP. This said it would look for accommodation for Mr X in the private sector, which, based on his income, would be a room within shared accommodation. It set out details of his health and wellbeing needs.
52. Mr X complained about his SHPS caseworker on 6 November 2023.
53. On 16 November 2023, the Council told Mr X it:
1. would allocate another caseworker to his application; and
2. had completed a full assessment of his homelessness application on 28 September 2023 and had decided he was eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness but not in priority need.
54. On 20 November 2023, the Council notified Mr X it:
1. had ended the prevention duty;
2. accepted it owed him the relief duty because it was satisfied he was eligible for help and homeless; and
3. was satisfied he was eligible for assistance and homeless but did not have a priority need for housing. It told him he could request a review of this decision within 21 days.
55. Mr X found somewhere else to live in January 2024, and the Council closed his case.

The Council’s final complaint response

56. On 16 November 2023, the Council issued its final, stage two, response to Mr X’s complaints about the way it had dealt with his homelessness application and application to succeed to his late father’s tenancy.
57. The Council apologised for its delays and errors in relation to both the homelessness application and possession action.
58. In response to the complaint about its handling of the homelessness application, it said:
1. a new PHP had been issued on 9 November 2023. This superseded the PHP of 10 October 2023, which he had asked be reviewed. If he was unhappy with the latest PHP, he should raise this with the SHPS team; and
2. it had taken action to address the staffing issues that contributed to the initial delay in progressing his homelessness application.
59. And In response to the complaint about the succession application and NTQ, it said:
1. if Mr X had any concerns about the outcome of the succession application, he had the opportunity to raise them as part of any possession proceedings;
2. its Housing Officer had now provided a response about Mr X’s query regarding a discretionary tenancy;
3. much of the communication between Mr X and the Housing Officer had been over the phone. It did not have phone records of these conversations and so could not provide a detailed response on this point; and
4. the NTQ dated 1 June 2023 had not been addressed correctly and therefore was not valid. It apologised for the confusion this had caused.
60. The Council also apologised for the impact its failings had had on Mr X and increased its overall offer of compensation to £200.

Analysis and proposed findings

Homelessness and housing applications: law and guidance

61. 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.

Duty to provide advisory services: S179 of the Housing Act 1996

62. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on a number of issues, including preventing homelessness, the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness, and the duties of the authority.

Assessments and PHP

63. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says that 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.
64. 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, follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their PHP. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

65. 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)

The relief duty

66. 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

67. 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.

Priority need

68. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
1. people with dependent children;
2. pregnant women;
3. people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability, or old age;
4. care leavers; and
5. victims of domestic abuse.

Review rights

69. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions, including:
1. what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
2. the steps they are to take in their PHP at the prevention duty stage; and
3. the steps they are to take in their PHP at the relief duty stage.

Housing register application

70. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises housing applicants, and its procedures for allocating properties.  All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
71. The Council’s allocations scheme says it will place, in Band C of its housing register, those eligible applicants where it:
1. owes Prevention and Relief duties under the Housing Act, pending a decision as to whether the main housing duty is owed; and
2. has reached a section 184 decision which specifies the applicant does not have a priority need (subject to residency criteria and exceptions).

Homelessness and housing applications – findings

72. We have identified the following failures by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application:
1. It failed to give Mr X general advice when he first approached it in March/April 2023. I consider it was clear he would most likely be homeless if his succession application was rejected, and it should have given him advice about his position and options in this situation;
2. There was a delay of some six weeks progressing Mr X’s application between April 2023, when he first asked for help and made his application, and June 2023, when the Council arranged the assessment appointment. Although I note what the Council has said about staffing shortages, I consider this delay was unreasonable;
3. It failed to properly consider whether, rather than waiting until Mr X’s homelessness was more imminent, it should accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent his homelessness;
4. It failed to properly consider whether, following the rejection of Mr X’s succession application on 27 June 2023, it was still reasonable for him to continue to occupy the property. At this point it was inevitable Mr X would have to leave his father’s property in the near future, but the Council appears to have focused only on waiting for the issue of the formal eviction notice;
5. It allowed Mr X’s homelessness application to drift from April to October before making any decision about his homelessness application;
6. It failed to act on Mr X’s request for a statutory review of the PHP issued on 10 October 2023; and
7. It failed to communicate with Mr X clearly or promptly about his homelessness and housing applications.
73. These failures were fault by the Council.

Impact of these failures

74. Had the Council provided Mr X with general housing advice at the outset, he would have understood his options if his succession application was rejected. The housing register process could also have been properly explained at this stage. Mr X’s housing register account for his succession application was removed when this application was rejected. It was reinstated when the Council accepted the prevention duty in October. The failure to explain the process caused Mr X avoidable confusion and upset.
75. The failure to properly consider whether to accept the prevention duty sooner was a missed opportunity to advise Mr X about his housing options and support him with finding suitable alternative accommodation at an earlier stage. It was clear Mr X was extremely anxious about his situation and the possibility of being evicted with nowhere to live. This failure, together with the lack of communication and clear updates, caused significant additional uncertainty, frustration, and distress at an already difficult time for Mr X.
76. The failure to act on Mr X’s request for a review of the PHP precluded his exercise of this important statutory right.

Succession applications and NTQs

77. Where a tenancy was created prior to 1 April 2012, the Council’s succession policy requires that an applicant for succession must have lived continuously at the property for 12 months prior to the tenancy holder’s death.
78. The Council requires proof of residency for the 12 months prior to the tenancy holder’s death. This can include bank statements, wage slips, benefit/welfare records, or an affidavit.
79. The policy notes that the Council will serve an NTQ upon confirmation of the tenancy holder’s death.
80. The Council’s discretionary tenancy policy requires that an applicant must have lived continuously at the property for 10 years prior to their application to be eligible for a discretionary tenancy.

Succession application and NTQ – findings

81. Following Mr X’s father’s death and enquiries relating to a succession application, the council appropriately provided information about the process and the evidence it required. It subsequently informed Mr X of the outcome of its decision within a reasonable timeframe and provided the reasons for its decision. It also provided appropriate advice about his options regarding a homelessness application.
82. In addition to his succession application, Mr X also queried his eligibility for a discretionary tenancy. He initially did this in June 2023, prior to the council’s communication regarding the outcome of his succession application. Where a resident makes such a query, the Housing Ombudsman would expect the council to respond within a reasonable timeframe. However, in this case, the council missed the opportunity to address this query in its succession application outcome communication, and it also failed to address it in any other communication within a reasonable timeframe.
83. Mr X raised the query about a discretionary tenancy again as part of his formal complaint in October 2023. However, once again, the council failed to provide a position on this query in its stage one response. It is evident that the council only addressed this query on 6 October 2023, some two and a half months after his initial query. It is not disputed that Mr X was not eligible for a discretionary tenancy as he did not meet the criteria in the council’s policy. But the delay to this advice would have caused him distress and inconvenience, especially given the impending NTQ expiration dates and in consideration of his expressed vulnerabilities.
84. Following the death of Mr X’s father, the council initially attempted to issue an NTQ on 1 June 2023. This action was in accordance with its policy and was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it later transpired this NTQ had been incorrectly addressed. The council subsequently issued a further NTQ, which ultimately extended the period Mr X could reside in the property. While the council initially incorrectly advised that it had issued a second NTQ to assist Mr X, it remains the case that it was reasonable to issue the first NTQ. While it may have caused confusion, it is not evident that the council did so maliciously. The council also appropriately apologised for this confusion.
85. Throughout the period of the complaint, it is not disputed that Mr X attempted to contact the council and his Housing Officer to discuss all of his concerns. The council has acknowledged that it has not kept sufficient phone records to be able to comment on these communications. The Housing Ombudsman expects councils to have robust record-keeping processes in place so it can satisfy itself that its actions were reasonable. In this case, the council has acknowledged that its communication throughout this period was below the acceptable standard, for which it has apologised.
86. The council has also advised that its staff turnover impacted its Housing Officer’s response times. As with record keeping, the Housing Ombudsman expects a council to have clear processes in place for the handover of cases to new staff which minimise disruption. Councils should also clearly communicate where there is disruption in order to measure a resident’s expectations. This did not happen in this case, which caused Mr X distress and inconvenience.
87. In its stage two response, the council offered £200 compensation for the overall impact its failings had caused Mr X. The communication issues span all the elements of Mr X’s complaint, including those addressed by the LGSCO, which are considered elsewhere in this report.
88. In the Housing Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. the council’s offer was proportional to reflect the impact caused in relation to the poor communication regarding the discretionary tenancy and NTQ; and
2. its offer was in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident but where there has been no permanent impact, and the council has made an attempt to acknowledge its failings and put things right.
89. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made for this element of the complaint.

Conclusion

90. The LGSCO proposes finding fault with the Council, as set out in paragraphs 72 and 73, in the way it dealt with Mr X’s homelessness and housing applications, causing Mr X avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration.
91. We consider the Council should pay Mr X £350 to reflect the distress caused. This is in addition to the redress referred to in paragraph 87.
92. In HOS’s proposed opinion, and in accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Council’s offer of £200 was reasonable redress for its service failure in respect of its response to Mr X’s succession application and its handling of its NTQ.

Back to top

Action required

HOS recommendations

93. Within two weeks from the date of the final decision, the Council should reiterate its offer of £200 compensation made in its stage two response if this is yet to have been accepted.

LGSCO recommended action

94. Within two weeks of the date of the final decision, the Council should:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failures dealing with his homelessness and housing applications (as set out in paragraphs 72 and 73). This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology: and
2. pay Mr X £350 to reflect the avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies
95. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council should:
1. confirm the action it has taken since April 2023 to improve staffing levels in its Homelessness Services; and
2. remind officers of their duty to:

• provide an advisory service, including on preventing homelessness;
• properly consider, in accordance with the Code of Guidance, whether to accept a prevention duty at an earlier stage and whether it is reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation; and
• act promptly on requests by homeless applicants for statutory reviews of decisions within the required timescales.
• share the learning from this decision with the relevant housing and homelessness teams.

96. The Council should provide both Ombudsmen with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Draft decision

97. Subject to further comments by Mr X and the Council, we propose finding fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council should take the recommended action as a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman