The Investigation

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the information the Council gave her during her housing application caused her to become ineligible for social housing as she no longer met residence requirements. Miss X also complained about the Council’s delay in responding to her review request.

2. Miss X says she lives in a property which is unsuitable for her and her child and has been waiting to be housed since 2022.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Relevant law and guidance Homelessness

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. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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)

10. 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)

11. Examples of applicants with priority need include those with children, who are pregnant, or who are vulnerable due to age or disability.

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. 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)

13. 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)

14. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However, councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. We have criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity. (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, paragraphs 2.3 and 6.4)

Allocations

15. 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))

16. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;

• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;

• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;

• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance recommends council’s complete reviews within eight weeks. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

How we considered this complaint

18. We have produced this report following the examination of relevant files and documents. We also discussed the complaint with Miss X.

19. We gave the complainant and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

What happened

20. After her relationship with her parents broke down in March 2022, Miss X had nowhere to live and began sofa surfing, which involves temporarily staying with different family and friends.

21. In May 2022, Miss X completed a housing application, telling the Council she was pregnant, due in October 2022, and homeless.

22. Miss X says in July 2022, the Council advised her not to apply as homeless, as it would jeopardise her social housing application. It told her it would allocate a housing officer to contact her.

23. In August 2022, the Council contacted Miss X to gather more information for her application. Miss X says the Council told her she was on Band 0, eligible for a two-bedroom property, and would likely be housed in two years.

24. In September 2022, Miss X moved to a shared living property out of borough. Miss X says before accepting the property, she contacted the Council, which advised her that moving out of borough would not affect her housing application.

25. In January 2023, the Council told Miss X there was no Band 0, and she needed to send documents to support her request for a two-bedroom property, as this was not clear in her application.

26. In February 2023, Miss X called for an update on her application. She says the call handler told her they would raise her application in a meeting and contact her. After various calls and emails chasing, Miss X did not receive a response.

27. In May 2023, following a telephone call which Miss X found rude, she made a stage 1 complaint about her experience with the Council and detailed all the contacts and conflicting information she had received so far. Miss X explained that she wanted to know if her documents had been approved, and have an update on her applications status, as she was considering moving to another property while waiting for social housing.

28. The Council acknowledged her complaint two weeks later, advising that it would try to resolve the issue informally, with a manager contacting her the following week. After the manager failed to contact her, Miss X contacted the complaints team four times over the next month.

29. In July 2023, the Council responded to her complaint at stage 1. The Council upheld that it had not replied to her complaint in May 2023 and that its assessment of her housing application was outside its published timescales. It apologised for the service, explaining it had a significant backlog of housing applications. The Council confirmed her application’s effective date would reflect when it was submitted, ensuring the delay would not disadvantage her. It explained that call recordings were no longer available, but her concerns would be raised with the Housing Service Manager. The Council did not uphold her complaint about information provided on Band 0, explaining that Band 0 means the case has not yet been assessed. The Council invited Miss X to update her circumstances, as her complaint address did not match her housing application.

30. Dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, Miss X raised a stage 2 complaint in August 2023. She asked for staff retraining because of the misinformation she had received. Miss X reiterated she had been told not to apply as homeless because her housing application outcome would be the top Band. She also highlighted the conflicting information she had received about Band 0. Miss X said she had completed a questionnaire five times, each time being told she would be allocated a housing officer. Despite multiple follow-ups, she did not receive any callbacks, and her case was not highlighted as promised. She also said she was struggling to find a landlord willing to house her and remained in unsuitable one-bedroom shared accommodation with her child.

31. The Council acknowledged her stage 2 request and responded in full in September 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. The Council said the customer service team may not have detailed knowledge of the Housing Act 1996, but it has made changes to direct inquiries to experienced officers. It said she had made an informed decision not to make a homelessness application. And a change in circumstances leads to a reassessment of the housing application, resulting in the loss of previous waiting time on the housing register if a homelessness application is made. It told her it had considered her housing application and could not identify an exceptional reason to prioritise it over those who applied before her.

32. In January 2024, the Council assessed Miss X’s housing application and decided she was ineligible as she no longer met residence requirements since moving out of the borough. Miss X was told about her right to a review of the decision.

33. In the same month, Miss X sought a review on the grounds she had been advised not to make a homelessness application as it would impact her social housing application. She said several Council staff told her moving out of the area would not affect her application. She said she ultimately decided to move out of borough to secure a tenancy before she gave birth and asked for someone to listen to the calls to hear the wrong advice she had received.

34. In June 2024, the Council reviewed and upheld its original decision. It referred to evidence showing Miss X no longer lived in borough, including her child’s birth certificate which states an out of borough home address, and the child was born out of borough. The Council said Miss X did not provide evidence to support her claim she was led to believe moving out of the borough would not affect her application. It upheld that Miss X made an informed decision not to go through a homelessness application and advised frontline officers are trained to provide housing advice.

35. The Council has told us, since summer 2023, it has made significant changes within the Homelessness, Independence and Preventative Services. Telephone calls are now put through to experienced caseworkers from the outset instead of being triaged by customer service staff. It has implemented a new software system to improve case management of homelessness applications, with all customer contacts logged and specific processes ensured through built-in workflow maps.

Our findings

36. In May 2022, Miss X presented as homeless and pregnant to frontline staff and in a housing application. The Council did not consider her homelessness until August 2022, when Miss X sent another form to support her application. This delay was fault.

37. The Council did not assess Miss X’s housing application until January 2024. Although there is no statutory timescale for processing housing applications, we would usually expect a council to process a housing application within 8 weeks. In this case, there was a 77-week delay. This delay was fault.

38. Based on her application, the Council had reason to believe Miss X was eligible, homeless, and in priority need. It should have provided her with interim accommodation immediately, but it did not. This was fault. Additionally, the Council cannot provide records of the advice it gave Miss X because the form documenting this is not attached to the file. The Council’s failure to keep proper records is fault.

39. The Council should have made inquiries into Miss X’s homelessness. Based on the information given, it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, the Council would have accepted the relief duty at that point. The Council did not do this. This was fault. It also failed to issue her a formal decision on her homelessness, which would have given Miss X statutory review rights.

40. After 56 days, Miss X would have been owed the main housing duty and should have been placed in temporary accommodation. Temporary accommodation holds a right of review if Miss X felt the accommodation was unsuitable. To end the main housing duty, the Council should have provided Miss X with an offer of social or private housing. After Miss X gave birth in September 2022, this should have been a two-bedroom self-contained property. The property would have also held a right to review.

41. The Council says Miss X made an informed decision not to go through the homelessness route based on the advice given to her. This includes that interim and temporary accommodation might be out of borough and that she would not get a social housing tenancy through the homelessness route. She was also told going through the homelessness route would jeopardise her housing application and her chances of getting a social housing tenancy. Councils can suggest alternative solutions where suitable and acceptable, however must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries. This is gatekeeping and fault.

42. Although social housing is not guaranteed, it is a potential outcome when discharging the main housing duty. Also, former homeless applicants owed the full housing duty who accept a qualifying offer of housing outside the borough can still apply to the housing register in Hounslow. The Council has confirmed, as Miss X sent both her housing register application and told it of her homelessness in May 2022, a homelessness application would not have jeopardised her housing application. Therefore, the information given to Miss X was incorrect. This was fault.

43. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided details of the two-bedroom properties allocated to individuals in the last two years. From this evidence, we find that Miss X missed out on several properties, which the Council offered to applicants in Band 2 – homeless with a date into band later than July 2022. This is a significant injustice to Miss X.

44. The Council says that changes to its Homelessness, Independence and Preventative Services have improved the experience for people seeking support. These changes aim to ensure that processes are followed correctly and that individuals receive clear and accurate information and advice.

45. Since the Council does not have a record of the advice given to Miss X, and she has consistently reported receiving incorrect and conflicting information, we find, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely she was given incorrect advice about her housing application when she contacted the services before the significant changes were made. This was fault. The advice she received led her to move out of borough, causing her to become ineligible to apply to the housing register in Hounslow. She is also ineligible to apply to the housing register in her new borough as she has not lived there for five out of the last seven years. This is a significant injustice.

46. The advice also led Miss X to continue sofa surfing for an extra four months. And accept an out of the borough tenancy, for a one-bedroom shared property, which became unsuitable when her baby was born less than a week later. This is a significant injustice.

47. Miss X’s complaint and review requests asked the Council to reconsider her housing application because of the advice it gave her. The Council did not uphold her complaints or change its decision on her application, stating she no longer met residence requirements. The Council failed to properly consider the situation or identify the faults that occurred.

48. There were delays responding to Miss X at each stage of her complaint. There was also a three-month delay completing the review of her housing decision. The Council’s housing policy states it will decide the review within 56 days of the applicant’s request unless extended if further information is needed or a longer period is agreed with the applicant. This did not happen in Miss X’s case. These delays were fault. Miss X has continued to live in unsuitable accommodation while awaiting the outcome of her review. She has been living in the property for 22 months.

Conclusions

49. The Council’s handling of Miss X’s case had several faults which caused her significant injustice. It did not consider her homelessness until August 2022. It did not follow its duty to make inquiries despite the information provided triggering the threshold. And it delayed assessing her housing application until January 2024. This left Miss X without the necessary support she needed at an important time. The Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation, despite clear information that Miss X was eligible, homeless and in priority need, caused her to continue sofa surfing while pregnant. Later, the Council failed to provide temporary accommodation which would have given her the right to review its suitability.

50. Miss X received incorrect advice, which led her to make decisions with long-lasting negative impact. She moved out of the borough, leaving her ineligible for the housing register both in Hounslow and her new borough. This significantly limited her housing options and stability and led her to move into a one-bedroom shared property just before giving birth. Had Miss X stayed in Hounslow, evidence shows she would have been offered a two-bedroom property.

51. The Council also failed to properly address Miss X’s complaints and review requests, further delaying any resolution, and prolonging her stay in unsuitable accommodation.

Recommendations

52. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults we have identified, we recommend the Council should make Miss X a direct offer of the next available two-bedroom property that meets her needs, to recognise the missed opportunity to be allocated permanent housing. Our recommendation aims to put Miss X back in the position she would have been in had the fault not occurred. The Council has not agreed to this recommendation.

53. The evidence shows that Miss X was eligible, homeless, and in priority need. Had the Council properly assessed her homelessness in May 2022, on balance we believe it would have decided it owed her the main housing duty. And, given the availability of housing stock at the time, it is more likely than not this duty would have been discharged with an offer of social housing.

54. The Council has stated that it is not for an investigating body such as the Ombudsman to determine how it allocates its housing stock or how it discharges its statutory duties. However, this misinterprets our approach to remedying injustice. Our recommendation is based solely on putting Miss X back in the position she would have been in had the fault not occurred.

55. The Council also argues that it could have discharged its housing duty by offering private rented accommodation, and that while some applicants with a later priority date than Miss X received social housing, there was no guarantee she would have. However, the Council has not provided any evidence to support this claim or demonstrate that, without the fault, this would have been the outcome.

56. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

57. In addition to the requirements set out above, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;

• pay Miss X £1,000 to recognise the four months Miss X unnecessarily spent sofa surfing;

• pay Miss X £2,250 to recognise the 15 months she spent in unsuitable accommodation outside the borough. We considered the specific circumstances and calculated the amount as £150 a month for 15 months from May 2023 to the end of August 2024;

• pay Miss X £250 to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the significant delay dealing with her review; and

• pay Miss X £250 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the poor handling of her complaint.

58. The Council has accepted these recommendations to remedy the complaint.

59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

60. We have not recommended any action for the Council to take to improve its services. This is because we are satisfied with the Council’s explanation of the actions it has taken to address the backlog of applications, and provided assurance the assessment of a housing register application remains less than eight weeks.

61. The Council has also advised there has been significant changes within the housing teams since summer 2023. It says telephone calls go to experienced caseworkers from the outset instead of customer services staff. It has also implemented new systems which have improved managing applications.

Decision

62. We have completed our investigation into this complaint. There was fault by the Council causing significant injustice to Miss X. The Council should take the action identified in paragraphs 52 to 57 to remedy the injustice.

Print this page