Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. We found fault with the Council’s delay in preparing a Personal Housing Plan for Mr X and in the way it carried out its prevention duty for him. We also found fault in the way the Council communicated with Mr X. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, to review Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan and to issue a decision ending its prevention duty for Mr X. It has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to recognise Mr X’s distress and to review the Council’s prevention duty process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. He says the Council was wrong to withdraw the offer of supported accommodation, it delayed its actions and failed to progress his application.
2. Because of the Council’s failings Mr X had to continue living with his mother, which was meant to be a short-term arrangement. He also continued to pay for the storage of his possessions.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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.
7. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
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 not considered anything that happened after the beginning of June 2024, when the Council provided its stage two response to Mr X’s complaint. As explained in paragraph five of this decision the Council should have an opportunity to respond to any concerns before we can investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council 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

Legislative and administrative framework

Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities

12. In 2018 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government issued the statutory guidance “Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities” with a summary of the homelessness powers and obligations for people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. Housing authorities have a duty to carry out an assessment where an eligible applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Following this assessment, the housing authority must work with the person to develop a personalised housing plan which will include actions (or ‘reasonable steps’) to be taken by the authority and the applicant to try and prevent or relieve homelessness.
14. Housing authorities should tell applicants of the assessments they have made and provide written personalised housing plans. In practice, these two notifications might be combined to provide a clearer response to applicants.
15. When the housing authority decides the applicant is both threatened with homelessness and eligible for help, it must take reasonable steps to help the applicant either to remain in their existing accommodation or to secure alternative accommodation.
16. Housing authorities have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means either helping them to stay in their current accommodation or helping them to find a new place to live before they actually become homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless it is brought to an end by an event such as accommodation being secured for the person, or by their becoming homeless.
17. Any decision that the prevention duty has come to an end must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.

Equality Act 2010

18. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to anybody which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
19. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

Supported Housing Policy and Procedures

20. The Housing adviser should discuss the supported housing options with the applicant during the Personal Housing Plan interview as one of the housing options at either prevention or relief stage.
21. The Housing adviser issues the prevention or relief letter and completes the supported housing referral form if there is reason to believe the applicant meets the criteria for supported housing, based on presenting support needs. Any potential referrals should be discussed with the team leader.
22. A Housing adviser is encouraged to have a conversation with the Supported Housing team before making a referral to ensure it is the appropriate route to meet the applicant’s housing needs.
23. The Supported Housing adviser will arrange an interview appointment for the applicant within two to three working days of receipt of the referral to assess their suitability for Supported Housing. The assessment will consider the individual circumstances of each applicant to ensure that supported housing is the most suitable option to meet an applicant’s housing needs.
24. Each referral will be considered on its individual merits but will consider:
• the level of support required;
• affordability of supported housing via an assessment of their income and expenditure;
• presenting issues regarding mental and physical health;
• drug or alcohol misuse;
• disability, age, gender and other vulnerabilities.
25. Following the Supported Housing adviser’s assessment of the application and later interview, they will decide to accept or reject the Supported Housing referral.
26. If the case is not accepted for Supported Housing, it will remain with the Housing adviser to seek a resolution to the applicant’s housing needs. The Supported Housing adviser will explain why the applicant did not meet the criteria for Supported Housing or the reasons the referral was not accepted.

Equality, diversity and inclusion policy

27. Employees should help disabled staff and service users by making reasonable adjustments to overcome barriers to accessing and using services. The duty to make reasonable adjustments includes the removal, adaptation, or change of physical features, if the physical features make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to make use of services.

What happened

28. At the end of November 2023 Mr X told the Council he had lost his home because of a relationship breakdown. Mr X was staying with his mother but this was a short-term solution due to lack of space and to his mother’s needs. Mr X said he had recently struggled with his mental health and could not work for a few months.
29. In the second week of February 2024 the Council recognised its prevention duty towards Mr X. After carrying out its enquiries the Council decided Mr X was threatened with homelessness and eligible for help. The Council told Mr X it would carry out an assessment of his case to find out the steps needed to ensure that he could continue to occupy his accommodation.
30. Mr X’s Housing adviser (Officer 1) referred him to the Supported Housing team. The Supported Housing adviser (Officer 2) contacted Mr X in mid-February 2024. Following their telephone conversation Mr X sent Officer 2 his payslips and an employment contract. He said he was interested in Supported Housing and expected Officer 2 to contact him three days later to make final arrangements for his supported accommodation. Mr X mentioned his worsening mental health.
31. Officer 2 carried out an early assessment and contacted Mr X with a provisional calculation of the benefits he could get with Supported Housing. For the calculation Officer 2 used the weekly rent of a Supported Housing with a vacancy at the time. She stressed the calculation was an estimate and did not include Mr X’s pay for overtime and his outgoings such as debts or credit card payments.
32. Two days later Mr X sent Officer 2 his three most recent bank statements and a list of outgoings. He asked Officer 2 to provide him with a viewing date for the proposed Supported Housing. A further exchange of emails about Mr X’s financial circumstances took place between him and Officer 2.
33. Based on the most recent evidence of Mr X’s income and his outgoings Officer 2 provided an amended calculation of the affordability of Supported Housing. With the higher income due to overtime Mr X would not be eligible for any council tax support and his housing benefit would be significantly reduced.
34. At the beginning of March 2024 Officer 2 told Officer 1 that Mr X could not afford Supported Housing. She said she had called Mr X and had explained the situation.
35. In mid-March 2024 Mr X contacted Officer 2. He was upset as he said he had not received the Council’s response about his Supported Housing. Officer 2 apologised but stated that she had sent Mr X his affordability calculations which, after deduction of Mr X’s outgoings, did not leave enough to live on. Mr X, she said, had not queried this calculation. Based on this Officer 2 decided Supported Housing was not affordable for Mr X. Officer 2 also attached a floating referral in case Mr X needed support in the community with his finances, appointments or any other support. Officer 2 confirmed she had passed all the information to Officer 1 to explore other housing choices.
36. Mr X complained at the beginning of April 2024. He said the Council had offered him supported accommodation but then had withdrawn it without proper explanation. The Council failed to respond to his requests for a breakdown of the decision-making process and for guidance on the financial thresholds for Supported Housing. Mr X said he did not receive a Personal Housing Plan and there was a delay in dealing with his application.
37. The Council said Officer 2 on several occasions engaged with Mr X by phone and email to explain the processes and to provide reasons for her decisions. She also advised on further steps to seek alternative resolution to Mr X’s housing need.
38. A month after Mr X’s request to take his complaint to stage two the Council provided its final response. It confirmed its stage one position and advised Mr X to contact Officer 1 to get a Personal Housing Plan.
39. Mr X brought his complaint to us at the end of August 2024. In mid-October 2024 we told the Council we would investigate Mr X’s complaint. Ten days later the Council assigned a new Housing adviser (Officer 3) for Mr X’s homelessness application. During a telephone conversation Mr X told Officer 3 he had mental health difficulties and dyslexia. Mr X completed a vulnerability form, responding well to all the questions. Officer 3 prepared Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan and asked him to provide further documents.

Analysis

40. After accepting its prevention duty towards Mr X in early February 2024 the Council should have:
1. taken steps to help Mr X either to ensure he could continue living at his mother’s property or to find a new place to live;
2. prepared a Personal Housing Plan for him;
3. issued a decision on ending prevention duty, advising Mr X of his review rights.
41. After deciding Mr X could not afford Supported Housing the Council failed to complete the actions listed in the paragraph above. Although the Council sent a floating support referral form to Mr X, it failed to prepare a Personal Housing Plan and to discuss other housing options with him.
42. This is fault. It caused Mr X injustice as, up to the end of October 2024 when Officer 3 prepared a Personal Housing Plan for him, he did not have any support in resolving his homelessness and ensuring he could stay at his mother’s property. He could not challenge the Council’s position as he did not receive a decision on ending the Council’s prevention duty.
43. I do not criticise the Council for deciding that Mr X could not afford Supported Housing as when reaching this decision the Council followed the process set up in its Supported Housing Policies and Procedures. The Council’s communication with Mr X during his assessment for Supported Housing was not, however, what we would expect.
44. Mr X was disappointed and could not fully understand why the Council had changed its position on Supported Housing for him. During the assessment for Supported Housing and after the first calculation sent to him by Officer 2, Mr X was convinced he would be eligible for this type of accommodation and was expecting to view the property. Based on the correspondence between him and Officer 2 I found his expectations were justified. Officer 2 should not have made an early calculation without having information on Mr X’s most recent income and outgoings. Aware of Mr X’s disappointment and lack of understanding Officer 2 failed to engage with him after it had sent the amended calculation and had told him he could not afford Supported Housing.
45. The Council failed by not explaining the Supported Housing eligibility and affordability criteria before carrying out calculations and when deciding Mr X could not afford this type of accommodation. In the correspondence with Officer 2 Mr X expressed both his expectations and disappointment with the Council’s decision. The Council’s failing is fault.
46. In our guidance “Principles of Good Administrative Practice” we explain how we would expect councils to act when providing public services. We expect them to be citizen-focused by dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances. This did not happen for Mr X when the Council considered Supported Housing option for him. This meant Mr X remained upset and did not understand the circumstances in which Supported Housing would be considered as affordable for him.
47. Mr X has been paying for the storage of his possessions. Even on the balance of probabilities we cannot say whether, if not for the Council’s failings, Mr X would have been given a property to live in which would have allowed him to stop paying storage fees. Therefore we would not ask the Council to refund Mr X’s storage fees.
48. There is no evidence that when discussing his homelessness application with the Council Mr X mentioned his special needs, including dyslexia or asked for any adjustments. Records of the communication between Mr X and the Council do not suggest there were any specific reasons to suspect Mr X had extra needs which might need communication adjustments, so we would not criticise the Council for not considering them in line with its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy. The Council should, however, consider Mr X’s communication needs in the future.

Back to top

Action

49. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• review Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan, providing information about all available options for housing for Mr X and the applicable criteria. I accept the Council might need some documents from Mr X before the review. If Mr X fails to provide them, the Council will make it clear in the notes of the meeting or telephone call. During the review of Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan the Council will consider any adjustments Mr X might need in his communication with the Council. The Council will send us a copy of Mr X’s reviewed Personal Housing Plan as evidence that this has happened;
• after the Personal Housing Plan review the Council will send Mr X its decision on the Council’s prevention duty with its reasons and advising on his right to ask for a review. The Council will send us a copy of this decision;
• pay Mr X £250 to recognise the distress caused to him by the Council’s failings.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

50. We also recommend the Council within three months of the final decision review its process for ending the prevention duty to ensure it always sends a decision with the advice on the right to ask for a review.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman