The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her homeless application, causing distress to her family. We find fault with the Council for not following the correct process and for delay. We have recommended remedies to ensure this does not happen again.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council failed to respond to her homeless application, causing distress to her family. Ms X would like compensation and new policies put in place to ensure this does not happen again.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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 considered information provided by Ms X and discussed the complaint with her. I also considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided.
I considered the relevant parts of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation and statutory guidance 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.
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) Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018: he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice (Recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)) If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the Prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195) 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 (PHP). PHPs should be kept under review. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 11).
Most housing decisions should be confirmed in writing, and applicants have the right to ask for a review of the decision. If the person is unhappy with the outcome of a review, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.
What happened Ms X made a homeless application in July 2021 after receipt of a Section 21 Notice. She also filed supporting medical evidence.
Ms X has multiple health conditions and lives with her son who also has mental health conditions.
The Council did not respond to Ms X until September.
Ms X did not receive a PHP and she says the lack of contact by the Council made her very distressed, leading to her and her son contemplating a suicide pact.
Ms X complained to the Council about the delay.
In the first complaint response to Ms X, the Council apologised for the delay and said they would transfer Ms X’s case to a Specialist Adviser.
Ms X then made a stage two complaint. The Council put a chronology in the response to Ms X showing that Ms X had sent medical evidence for her case. It also showed her GP and Support Worker had chased the Council for a response.
The Specialist Advisor was only instructed after the stage two complaint was submitted. The Council thanked Ms X for bringing the lack of contact to their attention, saying it was unacceptable and fell below expected standards. The Council apologised and offered Ms X £50.
Ms X says the offer of £50 is an insult. She would like to ensure this does not happen again to other, more vulnerable people.
After our enquiries the Council would like to offer Ms X £150 in recognition of the distress caused.
Analysis The Council website says: “The Housing Needs Team will take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness for any eligible person, at risk of homelessness within 56 days, regardless of priority need. This means they will help stay in your current home, or assist you to find a new place to live. You will also be required to take steps to resolve your threat of homelessness.”
The Council failed to act under the Prevention Duty detailed in paragraph ten above. Ms X had no written notification of what was happening with her application. The Council failed to carry out a Housing Options Assessment and no PHP was put in place. This is fault by the Council, leading to distress and uncertainty for Ms X.
This is exacerbated due to Ms X’s mental health conditions of which the Council were aware, but did not act on until Ms X submitted a stage two complaint.
In the stage two complaint response, the Council signposted Ms X to the wrong Ombudsman. I have recommended a service improvement to ensure this does not happen again.
The Council said in the enquiry response that it has restructured the Housing Needs Team to have more experienced officers taking applications from the start. This is a welcome improvement.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision the Council should: Write a personalized apology to Ms X for the delay in response, and for failure to issue any decision letters or PHP; Pay £250 to Ms X for the distress caused as a result of the faults identified above; Pay £100 to Ms X for the time and trouble taken to get a response from the Council.
Provide guidance to relevant staff about which Ombudsman to refer complaints to. Amend any letter and email templates as necessary.
By February 2023, the Council should conduct an audit of homeless applications received since the restructure to ensure they are being dealt with within the statutory time limits; failing which, identify further changes which need to be made.
The Council should provide us with evidence of its actions.
Final decision
I find fault with the Council for not following the correct process in dealing with Ms X’s homeless application. I have recommended remedies for the injustice Ms X suffered as a result.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman