Summary: Mr S complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application. He said the Council failed to provide him with advice and support. He also complained the Council caused him to miss out on obtaining a property through its administrative error. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to provide Mr S with a personal remedy and carry out service improvements to avoid a repeat of what has happened here.

The complaint

1. Mr S is complaining about the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness application. He says the Council failed to appropriately advise and assist him. Mr S also complains the Council has caused him to miss out on securing a property by failing to verify that he was eligible to bid.
2. Mr S wants the Council to offer him a suitable one bed property.

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. 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. 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

6. I have considered information provided by the Council and Mr S, alongside the relevant law and guidance.
7. Mr S and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision before this final decision was made.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. 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.
9. 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)
10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

11. 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)
12. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
• preventing homelessness;

• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

13. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to ensure 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). This is the Prevention Duty.
14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure 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). This is the Relief Duty.
15. 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). This is the Main Housing Duty.
16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;
• whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority;
• the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

17. 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 18.30)

What happened

18. Mr S approached the Council in August 2023, to ask for advice and support as he had been asked to leave his accommodation. He explained he had been asked to leave by friends he was staying with at the time and would have nowhere to live as of 30 September 2023.
19. The Council asked Mr S to provide evidence that he had been asked to leave his current accommodation within 14 days. Mr S provided this on 11 October.
20. The Council carried out an assessment in mid-November, but did not issue a decision letter, a personal housing plan or provide Mr S with any meaningful advice or support.
21. During the assessment, Mr S explained to the Council that he was homeless and had been staying wherever he could for the nights since 30 September. He also said he had spent a night on the streets.
22. The Council did not contact Mr S further until he complained that his housing officer had been ignoring his calls for several months. He told the Council he was now street homeless.
23. In response to Mr S’s complaint, the Council reallocated his matter to another housing officer.
24. The Council sent Mr S paperwork to complete, which amounted to a new application. This new application was completed in April 2024.
25. The Council sent an email to Mr S accepting it had relief duty, but he did not have a priority need for accommodation. This email does not include any information about Mr S’s right to request a review of the Council’s decision. No personal housing plan was provided.
26. Mr S was told he could bid for properties as he was on the housing register, although the Council did not consider he had a priority need to be placed before those already on the register.
27. Mr S applied to be validated on the Council’s system for bidding on 12 April 2024.
28. The Council wrote to Mr S on 14 June confirming he had been accepted for its main homelessness duty and had been given a band D priority for allocations.
29. Mr S bid on a suitable one bedroom property on 26 June 2024 and was offered the property. He was then told the offer was withdrawn as the Council had closed his case on its bidding system. He therefore missed out on securing this accommodation.
30. Mr S has been homeless since 30 September 2023 and remains so at the time of writing this decision.

Analysis and findings

31. When Mr S contacted the Council in August 2023, it was entitled to make enquiries in order to decide if it owed a duty to Mr S. I have seen the Council told Mr S what he needed to provide to allow the Council to make its decision.
32. Once Mr S provided evidence of his eviction on 11 October, the Council should have assessed Mr S and provided him with a written decision as to whether it accepted a duty was owed to him. The Council should have made a personalised housing plan providing Mr S with tailored advice and support. This was not done, which is fault.
33. Mr S did not provide the information the Council needed to provide him with support to prevent his homelessness. By the time he provided evidence of his eviction, he was already homeless.
34. This was still the case when the Council considered Mr S’s application again in April 2024. At that point, the Council added Mr S to its housing register.
35. If the Council had followed the correct process, this would have happened in November 2023. This is a delay of five months. This is fault which has caused Mr S to remain homeless without any support from the Council. This is an injustice which should be recognised and is reflected in the remedy agreed.
36. If the process had been followed Mr S would have been added to the housing register five months sooner than he was in April 2024.
37. Further, once the Council added Mr S to the housing register, it failed to correctly validate Mr S on its system, so he missed out on successfully acquiring a property in June 2024. The Council is at fault for its administration here and has caused Mr S a very significant injustice.
38. Mr S has remained homeless since that time, which is now a period of eight months. This is an injustice to Mr S and the degree of the impact is recognised in the remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

39. Within one month of the decision, the Council will:

• apologise to Mr S in accordance with our guidance on apologies;

• make a payment of £350 for every month since June 2024 when his bid was unsuccessful due to the Council’s error. This amounts to eight months of homelessness since June 2024.
• recognise the distress it has caused to Mr S by repeatedly ignoring his pleas for help and guidance between October 2023 and March 2024, and make a recognition payment of £1000.

40. The payment to be made to Mr S is therefore £3,800.
41. If it were not for the Council’s administrative error, Mr S should have been in a one bedroom property since June 2024. The Council will now make an offer of suitable accommodation to Mr S immediately in recognition of this injustice. For each month this is not done, the Council should pay an additional £350 to Mr S.
42. Within three months of the decision, the Council will provide training to all relevant staff on the processes and timescales of dealing with homelessness applications, sending decision letters including appeal rights and ensuring that all relevant applicants are correctly set up on its systems to allow their housing bids to be successfully administered.
43. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

44. The Council is at fault and has caused an injustice. It has agreed to provide a personal remedy and to make service improvements.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman