Summary: When Ms X fled domestic abuse, the Council delayed offering Ms X interim accommodation, significantly delayed reviewing its decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless and failed to send Ms X a letter confirming its duties and a personalised housing plan. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, carry out the statutory review within one month, pay Ms X £675 and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
1. failed to support her properly when she fled domestic abuse;
2. wrongly refused to provide housing support to her and her child following its decision that she was intentionally homeless;
3. failed to provide her with financial assistance to move into a private-rented property when it should have; and
4. breached data protection legislation by sharing her personal information and medical records with other Council staff members.
2. Ms X said as a result of the Council’s actions, she and her child had to either sofa-surf or live in hotels. Ms X seeks compensation, an offer of long-term accommodation and wants the Council to be found in breach of data protection laws.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I have investigated complaints 1a – 1c.
10. I have not investigated complaint 1d, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 5-6 of this decision, which is that the ICO is the body best placed to consider these types of complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information provided by Ms X and the Council.
12. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
13. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
14. I considered all comments made by Ms X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

15. 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.
16. If someone contacts a council seeking 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Relief duty

17. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person.
18. 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)

Interim accommodation

19. 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. Applicants in priority need include, but are not limited to, people with dependent children and people who are homeless due to domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Intentional homelessness

20. An applicant will be intentionally homeless if they do, or fail to do, something which results in them losing accommodation they would otherwise have been able to continue to live in. (Housing Act 1996, section 191(1))
21. Regardless of whether a person is intentionally homeless, a council must make inquiries into their homelessness. It must also secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
22. However if the Council makes further enquiries and decides they are intentionally homeless, councils only need to provide advice and secure accommodation for a period of time that will provide a reasonable opportunity for them to find their own accommodation. This may be for a period of a few weeks or may be longer depending on their circumstances. This is a lesser duty of support than applicants generally receive when they are unintentionally homeless. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 15)

Challenging intentionally homeless decisions

23. People are entitled to a statutory review of a council’s decision that they are intentionally homeless, provided they request this within 21 days of being notified of the decision. A council must complete a review of its decision that someone is intentionally homeless within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
24. Once the council has reviewed the decision, it must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Accommodation pending review

25. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))
26. Where an applicant is refused accommodation pending a review, they may seek to challenge the decision through judicial review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 15.27)

What happened

27. Ms X made a homeless application to the Council. She told the Council she left her last accommodation several months before due to being at risk of domestic abuse and had been homeless with her child since then.
28. Ms X and her domestic abuse worker chased the Council several times in the two weeks afterwards to seek interim accommodation but this was not provided and the application was not progressed.
29. After two weeks, the Council carried out a homelessness assessment, recorded that Ms X was homeless, eligible and in priority need and placed her in interim accommodation. It noted she had been found intentionally homeless by the last council that accommodated her.
30. The Council did not send Ms X a letter accepting any housing duty to her at this time. It also did not send her a personalised housing plan.
31. The Council made enquiries to two other councils regarding Ms X’s intentional homelessness, to her domestic abuse support worker and to her GP. It received all responses to its enquiries around six weeks later.
32. The Council wrote to Ms X not long after this, to say it had decided she was intentionally homeless. It set out the reasons for its decision and told Ms X of her right to request a statutory review of the decision if she disagreed. It also told her it was cancelling her interim accommodation in the next few weeks.
33. Ms X requested a review of the intentional homelessness decision within the given timeframe. Ms X also requested that the Council consider providing her with interim accommodation pending the outcome of its review.
34. The Council had eight weeks to issue its review decision from the date of Ms X’s request, but almost eight months later, this still has not been completed.
35. Regarding Ms X’s request for interim accommodation pending review, the Council responded more promptly. It said it had informed children’s services in the council area she was currently based of its decision and that service could consider the child’s housing needs. It said it had decided not to use its discretion to provide accommodation pending the review. The Council informed Ms X of her right to seek a judicial review of the decision if she disagreed on a point of law. Ms X did not apply for judicial review.
36. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
37. Several months later, the Council issued a relief duty letter and personalised housing plan for Ms X following her initial homeless application that it received the year before. It has also recently placed Ms X into interim accommodation again.

My findings

The Council’s intentionally homeless decision

38. The Council still has not carried out its statutory review into its decision that Ms X was intentionally homeless. The Council had eight weeks to carry out the review and almost ten months later, this is still not complete. The Council is at fault.
39. This fault has significantly delayed any resolution to this issue, either with a decision in Ms X’s favour, or if the decision is adverse, with an opportunity for Ms X to exercise her right of appeal to the county court. I have recommended the Council pay a financial remedy in recognition of the frustration and uncertainty caused by this delay.
40. Due to the delay, Ms X can approach the county court and ask it to consider the case now, if she wishes. Alternatively, I have recommended in this decision that the Council issue the review outcome within one month of my final decision and inform Ms X, following that decision, of her appeal rights if she disagrees. Ms X may wish to wait until she has received this and then use her county court appeal right.
41. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. I consider it is reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal to the county court using either of the routes above. Therefore I have not investigated the Council’s decision about whether Ms X is intentionally homeless.

Complaint 1a) support provided to Ms X when she fled domestic abuse

42. Ms X told the Council when she first approached it that she was homeless due to domestic abuse and was sofa-surfing with her child. She provided all key documentation about her eligibility on the same day.
43. On the date of Ms X’s initial approach to the Council it had sufficient information to decide she may be homeless, eligible and in priority need. It was therefore under a legal duty from this point to offer her interim accommodation.
44. The Council did not offer Ms X interim accommodation for two weeks following her initial application and this was fault. This fault caused Ms X and her child to be sofa surfing for two weeks longer than necessary.

Complaint 1b) decision not to provide housing support to Ms X due to intentional homelessness

45. The Council’s decision that it would not provide Ms X with accommodation pending review carried a right of appeal on a point of law through judicial review. I do not consider it was reasonable for Ms X to use this court appeal right due to issues obtaining legal representation for these types of cases and so I have considered the complaint here.
46. The Council had a power, not a duty, to provide Ms X with this type of accommodation. The Council considered whether to do this and within a few days, issued its decision. It explained its decision, including with reference to Ms X’s child and how it considered their housing needs, and informed her of right to appeal the decision to court. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision, so we cannot question the outcome. The Council was not at fault.

Complaint 1c) provision of financial assistance and support to move into a private-rented property

47. The Council provided Ms X with interim accommodation. However it did not formally accept a relief duty by issuing her with a letter and a personalised housing plan. This was fault.
48. Ms X said during this period the Council told her she would be provided with financial support for a deposit and first month’s rent if she found a private-rented property, but this did not happen. She said the Council also should have assisted her to find a property in the private-rented sector and failed to do this.
49. Due to the failure to issue a duty letter and personalised housing plan, there is no record of what support was provided to Ms X to find private-rented properties. This fault caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty about what support she should have accessed during this time.

Back to top

Agreed action

50. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
2. Carry out a statutory review of its decision that Ms X is intentionally homeless, and inform Ms X of her right to appeal to the county court if she disagrees, including the timeframe to appeal;
3. Pay Ms X £200 to reflect the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in carrying out a statutory review of its intentionally homeless decision;
4. Pay Ms X £325 to reflect the two weeks she and her child spent sofa-surfing due to the Council’s two-week delay in offering her interim accommodation; and
5. Pay Ms X £150 to reflect the uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s failure to issue her with a relief duty letter and a personalised housing plan in a timely way when she was homeless.
51. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Remind homelessness staff that once they become aware that a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, it is under a duty to provide them with interim accommodation from that point and we would be critical of any delay;
2. Outline what action it has taken to improve its timeliness in carrying out statutory reviews of homelessness decisions; and
3. Remind homelessness staff of the importance of sending out duty letters and personalised housing plans so that applicants have a record of the steps the Council is taking, and they can take, to relieve their homelessness.
52. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

54. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and recommended an apology, a financial remedy and service improvements.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman