Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed assessing his homelessness application, failed to provide timely support to relieve his homelessness and failed to respond properly to his complaint through the complaints’ process. The Council was at fault for delay, for not considering whether to offer interim accommodation earlier and for delays in its complaints process. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused and to review its procedures to ensure it communicates effectively with those without computer literacy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed assessing his homelessness application, failed to provide timely support to relieve his homelessness and failed to respond properly to his complaint through the complaints’ process. He says this has caused him significant distress and frustration.

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 considered the information provided by Mr Y, Mr X’s representative, and have discussed the complaint with him on the telephone. I have considered the Council’s response to our enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
5. I gave Mr X, through his representative, and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Duty to make inquiries

6. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make inquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184) 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)

Relief duty

7. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the relief duty. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help them to secure suitable accommodation. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.

Interim accommodation

8. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, it has an immediate duty under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 to provide interim accommodation, whilst it makes its enquiries. Examples of those in priority need includes those who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age, have a dependent child or (from July 2021) are fleeing domestic abuse.
9. The code of guidance states that it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord. It says housing authorities should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce possession.

Main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Review rights

11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. If the decision is upheld at review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
12. The code of guidance says where a decision is against the applicant’s interests the notification must explain clearly and fully the reasons for the decision.

What happened

13. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to this complaint.
14. Mr X is in his late sixties. He has no computer literacy and does not have an email address. In mid September 2023 Mr X says he approached the Council as his landlord was looking to evict him. In November 2024 Mr X’s landlord got an order of possession requiring Mr X to give vacant possession by late January 2024.
15. The Council arranged an appointment with Mr X for late December 2023 but Mr X says he was not contacted. He chased this up and was told he would be called that day or the next. He did not get a call.
16. Mr X approached a charity to support him who contacted the Council in late January. Mr X’s representative, Mr Y, sent the Council a copy of Mr X’s authority for them to act on his behalf, Mr X’s medical records from his GP and a copy of the order for possession.
17. The Council responded and told Mr Y that Mr X needed to complete an on-line self-help tool to generate an appointment. Mr Y responded that the Council was aware of Mr X and complained about the Council’s failure to assess Mr X’s homelessness application or consider whether it owed him interim accommodation.
18. Mr Y chased the Council’s response to his complaint in February and March 2024.
19. The Council’s records show it contacted Mr X in late March 2024 to request that he provide documents. The Council noted Mr X said he did not have documents and did not have email and was unwilling to attend the main office to scan the documents he has. The Council noted it had closed Mr X’s case due to insufficient documents and as he was uncooperative.
20. The Council wrote a letter to Mr X in April 2024 confirming it had closed the case. The letter said that ‘the Council’s duty to prevent you from becoming homeless under section 195 has ended’. The letter set out Mr X’s right of review. The Council did not post the letter to Mr X or send it to his representative. It said it kept the letter on file. I have seen no evidence the Council had sent Mr X any previous letter setting out that it owed him the prevention duty.
21. In late May the Council says it called Mr X about his homelessness. Its notes say it completed an assessment with limited information and a PHP and prevention letters were stored on file.
22. In late May 2024 Mr Y received two complaint responses from the Council from two different officers. One upheld the complaint as it accepted there was a six-month delay in assessing Mr X’s application and the other partially upheld it. Both said the Council had assessed Mr X’s homelessness and decided it could not progress the application due to Mr X’s refusal to cooperate.
23. Mr Y asked to go to the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure. He said neither he or Mr X had received a decision on Mr X’s homeless application, there was a significant delay in assessing Mr X’s homelessness and he had received two different complaint responses to the same complaint. Mr Y said he was acting on Mr X’s behalf and had not been contacted by the Council about the application.
24. In early June 2024 the Council agreed to reopen Mr X’s case and requested some documents. Mr Y provided these to the Council the following week.
25. A week later the Council asked Mr Y for evidence of Mr X’s health conditions. Mr Y told the Council he had already sent Mr X’s medical records to the Council in January and to let him know if it had not received them as it was showing as sent from his system.
26. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the second stage of its complaints procedure in late July 2024. It said an officer had spoken to Mr X in April to reiterate the document request and advised Mr X his case would be closed and a letter would be kept of file. I have seen no evidence of this call. It said the case was closed as Mr X had not cooperated with the Council. It said the case had been reopened to assess if the Council owed Mr X any housing duty. It offered Mr X £450 to remedy the impact of the three-month delay in assessing his homelessness application, the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and for the distress caused.
27. In July 2024 Mr X received a warrant of eviction with a date set for mid-August 2024. The Council sent Mr Y details of properties available to view. Mr Y responded asking the Council how Mr X could arrange a viewing as he has no email.
28. In early August the Council assigned the case to an officer to complete a vulnerability assessment and to complete a PHP. It told Mr Y it was making inquiries on Mr X’s homelessness. It said it had not got Mr X’s GP details and it needed to contact the GP for medical information. Mr Y again confirmed he had already provided this.
29. The Council provided me with a copy of a letter dated early August setting out it owed Mr X the relief duty as Mr X was eligible and homeless and a copy of a PHP. These were not sent to Mr X’s address. Mr Y’s representative, Mr Y says he has not received a copy. The PHP says the Council has offered Mr X emergency accommodation as he was homeless that day and had no alternative accommodation.
30. Mr X was evicted in mid August and attended the Council. It agreed to provide him with interim accommodation.

Findings

31. Mr X first approached the Council in September 2023. There is no evidence the Council assessed Mr X’s homelessness at this stage or made a decision about what if any duty it owed him. It failed to contact Mr X as agreed in December 2023. This was fault.
32. Mr X’s representative contacted the Council in late January 2024 and submitted a complaint on Mr X’s behalf. He included authority to act on Mr X’s behalf and included Mr X’s medical records and a copy of the order of possession. The code of guidance sets out that it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy a property beyond the date of a possession order. Mr X was in effect homeless from January 2024 when the date to vacate his property passed. Yet, even after receipt of a complaint, the Council failed to consider whether it owed him the relief duty or consider whether it needed to offer him interim accommodation whilst it made inquiries into his circumstances. This was fault. This meant Mr X remained in a property it was no longer reasonable for him to occupy for longer than he should have which caused him distress and uncertainty.
33. The Council spoke to Mr X in March 2024 and closed his case as it considered he refused to cooperate. Mr Y says Mr X did attend the Council offices to provide documents, but I have seen no evidence of this or when exactly it occurred. However, Mr Y was Mr X’s representative, and the Council had Mr X’s authority for Mr Y to act on his behalf. Although the Council wrote a letter ending its duty it failed to post this to Mr X, who continued to live at the same address until evicted by the bailiffs, or email a copy to Mr Y who was acting on his behalf. This was fault and meant Mr X was not aware his case was closed. He also missed out on his right of review.
34. When the Council agreed to reopen Mr X’s case it twice asked for Mr X’s medical details which was information Mr Y had already provided in January 2024. This was fault and added to the delay in assessing Mr X’s homelessness.
35. The Council significantly delayed responding to Mr X’s complaints. It also sent two separate complaint responses to his stage one complaint which added to his frustration.
36. The Council has sent me a PHP and relief duty letter but neither Mr X or Mr Y have received a copy of these. This is fault and has added to Mr X’s frustration.
37. Given the date of the relief duty letter the Council should have ended the relief duty by early October 2024 and reached a decision on whether it owes Mr X the main homelessness duty. I have seen no evidence it has done this. This is fault and leaves Mr X with a sense of uncertainty and frustration over his housing situation.
38. In its stage two complaint response the Council offered Mr X £450 to acknowledge the impact of the three month delay in assessing his homelessness application, the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and for the distress caused. I am not satisfied this is sufficient to recognise the injustice caused.
39. In a separate investigation against this Council which we reached a decision on in September 2024, we recommended the Council review its procedures to ensure it responds to complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. I have therefore not made any further recommendations to address the delays in the complaints process. We will, however, continue to monitor this through our casework.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X and pay him £550 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by Council’s faults. This is in addition to the £450 the Council has offered through its complaints process.
2. make a decision on whether it owes Mr X the main housing duty and writes to him and copies in his representative on the outcome.
3. review its procedures to ensure that homeless applicants who are not computer literate, are communicated with effectively either by using a postal address, or where the applicant has a representative, by sharing key decision letters with them.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman