The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complains that the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation in 2019 and did not provide sufficient help when she could not occupy the property. We will not further investigate if the accommodation was suitable as Miss X had the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision to end its duty to her. The Council is at fault for not issuing a personalised housing plan to Miss X in 2019 but this did not cause significant injustice to her. The Council is not at fault in how it dealt with her homelessness application in 2021.
The complaint
Miss X complains that the Council: provided unsuitable accommodation in 2019 when she made a homelessness application; did not provide sufficient help when it was no longer reasonable for her to occupy the property when she had a baby in 2021 so she had to occupy unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) I have investigated events from 2019 as there are good reasons why Miss X did not make a complaint sooner.
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have: considered the complaint and the information provided by Miss X; discussed the issues with Miss X; made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided; invited Miss X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Summary of law and guidance If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 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) Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of the Council giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end.
What happened In 2019 Miss X made a homeless application to the Council with the help of a support worker who interpreted for her. The Council considered it owed Miss X the prevention duty. The Council should have drawn up a personalised housing plan setting out the steps it would take to prevent Miss X’s homelessness, but it failed to do so.
The Council provided details of private rented properties to Miss X and she accepted a studio flat in another borough. The Council wrote to Miss X to notify her that its prevention duty had ended and she could seek a review of this decision if she disagreed with it. Miss X did not seek a review.
In summer 2021 Miss X contacted the Council as she was pregnant and her flat would be too small when the baby was born. Miss X had initially approached the council in the borough, council B, where she lived but it had refused to take a homelessness application from her.
The Council carried out an assessment of Miss X’s homelessness application and arranged for an interpreter to assist Miss X during the assessment. The Council considered council B had a duty to take her homelessness application. This was because she had first approached council B and she had a local connection to the borough due to time she had lived there. The Council provided a letter to Miss X setting out its decision and advising she could request a review if she disagreed with it.
Council B subsequently accepted it had a duty to accommodate Miss X. Miss X has now moved to another property but she considers this to be unsuitable.
Analysis 2019 application Miss X considers the accommodation she accepted in 2019 was unsuitable as it was small and damp. The Council notified Miss X of its decision to end the prevention duty and her right to seek a review of this decision. The Council did not translate the letter for Miss X but she was assisted by a support worker at this time. On balance, I consider Miss X could have requested a review of the Council’s decision if she considered the accommodation was not suitable and not available for her occupation for at least six months. So, I will not investigate this matter further.
There is also no evidence that Miss X contacted the Council between 2019 and 2021 to report her concerns that the property was unsuitable.
The Council is at fault for not drawing up a personalised housing plan for Miss X when it accepted the prevention duty. But this did not cause significant injustice to Miss X as the Council took appropriate steps to secure accommodation for her.
2021 application There is no evidence of fault in how the Council considered Miss X’s homelessness application in 2021 and in how it reached its decision that it did not have a duty to assist her. The Council made its decision that council B had a duty to take an application from Miss X after interviewing her and considering her circumstances. I note council B then accepted it had a duty to take a homelessness application from Miss X.
Final decision
The Council is at fault for not issuing a personalised housing plan to Miss X in 2019 but this did not cause significant injustice to her. The Council is not at fault in how it dealt with her homelessness application in 2021. I have therefore completed my investigation.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate Miss X has also complained that her new accommodation is not suitable. This is a complaint about council B so I cannot consider this matter in this investigation. Miss X should make a complaint about this matter to council B in the first instance.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman