Summary: Miss B says the Council failed to act to prevent her becoming homeless and wrongly referred her case to another local authority when she could not return there due to experiencing abuse. The concerns about the referral to another local authority are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Council dealt with the initial homeless application properly but did not provide Miss B with accommodation as it should have done. An apology, payment to Miss B and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss B, complained the Council:
• failed to act to prevent her becoming homeless despite receiving a homeless referral from various agencies; and
• wrongly referred her case to another local authority when she had made clear she could not return there as she had experienced abuse.
2. Miss B says the Council’s actions had a significant impact on her mental health and led to her rough sleeping.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Miss B’s concerns about how the Council dealt with her homeless application, with the exception of its decision to refer her case to another local authority. I explain my reasons for that later in this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Miss B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Miss B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The homelessness code of guidance (code of guidance)

9. The following paragraphs set out the relevant sections of the code of guidance. Where those paragraphs refer to specific sections of the legislation they refer to the Housing Act 1996.
10. Paragraph 23.25 says housing authorities may receive applications from people leaving custody who do not have a local connection to their district but do have a connection to another local authority area. If the applicant is eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness the housing authority taking the application will have a section 195 prevention duty, whether or not the applicant has a local connection. Detention in prison (whether convicted or not) does not establish residency of choice in the district the prison is in, and so will not create a local connection with that district.
11. Paragraph 23.26 says if the applicant is homeless the receiving authority may, if it is satisfied that the conditions are met, make a referral to another district where the applicant has a local connection. If the notified authority accepts that the conditions for referral are met they will take on the section 189B relief duty, as well as a duty to provide accommodation if there is reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need.
12. Paragraph 10.39 says when the notifying authority intends to refer or have referred a case to another housing authority, there are two points at which applicants must be notified:
1. when the notifying authority has decided that the conditions for referral are met and intend to notify, or have notified, another local authority of that opinion;
2. when, following referral, it has been decided that the conditions for referral are or are not met. The notification must provide notice of the decision and the reasons for it.
13. Paragraph 10.40 of the code of guidance says from the date the first notice is issued the authority will not be subject to the relief duty and will cease to be subject to the section 188 (interim accommodation) duty. However if they have reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need they will have a section 199A(2) duty to provide interim accommodation to the applicant whilst a decision is made on whether the conditions for referral are met.

What happened

14. Miss B has mental health issues and PTSD. Miss B was discharged from prison into probation accommodation which was due to expire on 11 July 2024. Before going into prison Miss B had a tenancy in another local authority’s area but part of her bail conditions meant she could not return there.
15. The Council received a referral for Miss B from the probation service. The Council wrote to Miss B on 11 June to tell her it accepted she was eligible for help and homeless. The Council made enquiries with Miss B’s landlord who said she would likely be evicted from the property. The Council also spoke to the probation service which said Miss B could not go back to the property for which she had a tenancy due to her licence conditions.
16. The Council told Miss B as she had only lived in its area for a short time while living in the probation accommodation she did not have a local connection. The Council suggested Miss B liaise with her landlord to seek a move to alternative accommodation outside the area. The Council told Miss B if she wanted to stay in Milton Keynes she could look for accommodation in the private sector. The Council explained it could refer her to the other local authority where she had a local connection.
17. On 11 July, which was the day Miss B became homeless, the Council wrote to her to explain it did not consider she had a local connection and it intended to refer her case to the local authority where she had a local connection. That letter told Miss B once the Council had decided whether the conditions for the referral were met it would write to her again and she could ask for a review of that decision. The Council then wrote to the other local authority to tell it of its view that the conditions for the referral were met and to ask it for the local authority’s view. At that point Miss B was sleeping rough.
18. On 18 July Miss B sought a review of the decision to refer her case to another local authority. Miss B said she was fleeing abuse and harassment and could not return to her tenancy. She also asked for a tenancy transfer. The Council accepted the review request and noted a completion date of 13 September.
19. The local authority the Council had contacted responded on 26 July to say it accepted the conditions for referral had been met.
20. On 14 August the Council closed the case and wrote to Miss B to explain its decision and offer her a review.
21. The Council wrote to Miss B again on 6 September, following its completion of the review. The Council upheld the original decision that Miss B did not have a local connection and it did now owe her homeless duties. The letter told Miss B about her right to appeal.

Analysis

22. Miss B says the Council failed to act to prevent her becoming homeless, despite receiving a homeless referral from various agencies.
23. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council knew by at least June 2024 Miss B would become homeless from her probation accommodation on 11 July. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council took a homeless application and accepted a prevention duty given it wrote to Miss B about that. I am also satisfied the Council asked Miss B’s landlord whether she had a tenancy in another Council’s area and provided her with advice. It is clear from the Council’s communications with both probation and the landlord that Miss B would have to move out of probation accommodation on 11 July and could not go back to her original tenancy. It is also clear the Council then moved the case onto the relief duty given it made a referral to another local authority and it can only do that once the relief duty has begun. I have therefore found no evidence of fault in how the Council handled the case before 11 July.
24. I am concerned though with how the Council dealt with Miss B when she became homeless on 11 July. It is clear from the Council’s communications with Miss B that it believed she had a local connection with another local authority area. The Council acted in accordance with the code of guidance by contacting the other local authority to seek an agreement for a referral to that area. However, as I say in paragraph 13, while the Council was seeking to confirm whether the local authority would accept the referral it should have considered whether Miss B was in priority need. The code of guidance is clear when a homeless applicant is in priority need the Council must provide that applicant with accommodation until another local authority accepts the referral and the Council confirms that in writing to the applicant.
25. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council accepted Miss B was in priority need as that is what it recorded on the assessment paperwork. The Council should therefore have provided Miss B with accommodation between 11 July and 14 August, when it wrote to her to confirm the other local authority had accepted the referral. Failure to do that is fault. That meant Miss B had to sleep rough, which is a serious injustice. As remedy for that I recommended the Council apologise to Miss B and pay her £350, which reflects what the Ombudsman would normally recommend. I further recommended the Council carry out a training session for officers dealing with decisions on homeless applications. That training session should cover the Council’s responsibilities for housing a homeless applicant who it is satisfied is in priority need when it seeks to refer that applicant to another local authority area. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
26. I also have some concerns with how the Council dealt with Miss B’s request for a review of its decision to refer her to another local authority area where she had a local connection. It is clear from the Council’s decision following that review request in September 2024 that it dealt with that as a section 202 review. However, a section 202 review only comes into play once the Council has sent the second letter to Miss B, confirming the other local authority has accepted the referral. What that means is the section 202 review only came into play when the Council wrote to Miss B on 14 August.
27. Despite that, it is clear the Council accepted a review following the first letter it issued on 11 July. That letter though did not carry a right of review and therefore accepting a section 202 review at that point is fault. I do not consider that caused Miss B a specific injustice. That is because accepting the review at the wrong point meant Miss B received a review decision earlier than she otherwise would have. I recommended the Council include in the training session referred to in the previous paragraph the circumstances in which a section 202 review comes into play for applicants that are being referred to another local authority. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
28. Once the Council issued its decision on 14 August 2024 it had discretion whether to provide Miss B with accommodation pending the outcome of the review. I could not reach a safe conclusion about whether the Council would have provided Miss B with accommodation up to 6 September given it did not have to do so. However, I consider Miss B has suffered an injustice as she is left with some uncertainty about what would have happened if the Council had properly followed the code of guidance. As remedy for that and for Miss B’s distress I recommended the Council pay her an extra £300. I also recommended the Council include in its training session details of what the code of guidance says about the Council’s discretionary power to provide accommodation while a review is underway. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
29. Miss B says the Council should not have referred her case to the other local authority when she had made clear she could not return there due to abuse she had experienced. I am satisfied the Council considered those concerns when dealing with Miss B’s request for a review of its decision. As Miss B then had a right of appeal if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the review I do not consider this is a complaint the Ombudsman can now consider.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Miss B for the distress and uncertainty she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet; and
• pay Miss B £650.
31. Within three months of my decision the Council should carry out a training session for officers making decisions on homeless applications to cover:
• the point at which a review right applies when a referral is being considered to another local authority;
• the Council’s requirement to provide accommodation until the conditions for referral are agreed where an applicant is considered to have a priority need;
• the Council’s discretionary power to provide accommodation while considering a review request.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman