The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. We have found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to process her case and gave her incorrect advice. To remedy the injustice to Miss X, the Council has agreed to increase the payment it already offered to her to take account of avoidable court costs she had to pay. We have not found fault with how the Council dealt with her request for an additional bedroom.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. In particular, she complains about the following matters: Inaccurate advice.
Delay.
Poor communication.
The Council’s decision on bedroom entitlement.
She says this caused significant distress and uncertainty at a difficult time when she was about to be made homeless. While the Council fully upheld her complaint, she says the Council’s remedy was inadequate and did not reflect the impact on her mental health or expenses related to her eviction.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 spoke to Miss X and reviewed the information she provided.
I made enquiries of the Council, considered its response and reviewed the relevant law.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law 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.
When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, a number of duties arise, including: to make enquiries; to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries; to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.
There are no statutory time limits for completing enquiries, however the Homelessness Code of Guidance, issued by the Government in 2006, recommends councils aim to complete their enquiries within 33 working days.
Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking from assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4)) 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. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195) What happened I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
In June 2021, Miss X was given notice by her landlord that she needed to vacate the property. She contacted the Council for help to finding alternative accommodation. The Council asked her to provide information about her circumstances. Miss X did so immediately. Two weeks later she was told the Council would consider her case under its homelessness procedure. She was told the relevant forms would be sent out by post.
Miss X waited a month for the forms to arrive. When they did not, she contacted the Council again. She received the forms on 20 July 2021. The information from the Council was an application to join the housing register. The letter said she should contact the Council if she was served with an eviction notice. As she had been served, Miss X was unclear whether she should complete the forms and so asked the Council for clarification. She says she was told, “I don’t know, but fill them in anyway”. Miss X did so straight away. She says she heard nothing further from the Council. In September 2021, Miss X complained about this lack of response and uncertainty about what, if any duty, was owed to her.
In response, the Council apologised for the unclear advice she was given. It confirmed a homelessness prevention duty was owed and she would be contacted by her caseworker to discuss the next steps. This did not happen until Miss X contacted the Council three weeks later when her eviction notice was due to expire.
Miss X was contacted ten days later, and the assessment process started. She told the Council she needed a three bedroom property. One of her two children is profoundly deaf. She explained the differing sensory needs of her two children meant it would be difficult for them to share a bedroom.
She was provided with a homelessness prevention plan on 4 November 2021. She was also accepted onto the Council’s housing register. She was told she would be eligible for two bedroom properties. Miss X explained her need for an extra bedroom. She was asked to complete a medical form in support of this request.
Soon afterwards, the Council offered to rehouse Miss X in a two bedroom property. On request by Miss X this offer was withdrawn pending a decision on her bedroom entitlement.
An occupational therapist (OT) carried out an assessment. She decided, based on the available evidence, the additional bedroom was a preference, rather than a need. Miss X says this was not what she had been told verbally by the OT. Miss X was invited to submit further evidence if she wanted to contest this assessment. Miss X submitted a letter from her child’s school. Having considered this, the OT remained of the view a third bedroom was not essential.
Miss X was offered a two bedroom property in January 2022. The Council explained this offer would discharge its homelessness prevention duty. The OT accompanied Miss X to the viewing and made suggestions as to how the property could be used to optimise the available space. Miss X explained her reluctance to accept this property, when she intended to submit more medical evidence. The Council explained it would be unlikely she would be offered another house and would forgo additional homelessness priority on the housing register.
Miss X says she reluctantly accepted the property. She was unable to take the risk of being placed in emergency hostel type accommodation. Miss X submitted a request for the Council to carry out a review of the suitability of the property she had been offered. She also made a further formal complaint.
This review determined the property was suitable.
In response to her complaint the Council concluded it initially took too long to process her homelessness application. The Council apologised and offered Miss X £300 to acknowledge the impact of this delay. The Council did not uphold her complaints about poor customer service since her first complaint and the OT assessment.
Miss X refused the offer of £300 and instead asked the Council to carry out an investigation under its third and final stage of its complaints procedure. This determined: there were inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the communications with Miss X; and the Council did not handle her case with due care and attention.
It endorsed the findings and conclusions of the stage two investigation, but changed its overall finding to “fully upheld”. The Council agreed to restart Miss X’s housing application and provided a single point of contact. The Council offered a further apology.
Miss X was disappointed with this outcome. The Council did not increase the remedy payment at stage three despite the Council fully upholding her complaint. On this basis she complained to the Ombudsman.
Analysis Initial advice, delay, poor communication and inadequate remedy The Council has already accepted there was fault with its case handling. My own analysis of the case records confirms there was fault. The summary of events above clearly shows there was delay and confusion when processing her original application, she was given incorrect advice and overall communication with Miss X was poor. The service provided to Miss X was poor. I have made a recommendation below to address this with a view to improving the service to others in future, Miss X says the Council’s remedy is inadequate because it does not properly reflect the distress she suffered and the impact on her mental health.
The Council’s payment of £300 is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for distress and frustration, so I will not increase this.
But this was not the only injustice claimed by Miss X.
Miss X explained she would not have incurred court costs had her case been handled in a timely fashion from the outset. Miss X was served with an eviction notice in June 2021. This should have immediately triggered an assessment of Miss X’s homelessness situation. This, in turn would have led to a confirmation of the prevention duty being owed to her. This should have taken no longer that 33 days. Instead, it took five months for the Council to reach this point.
This was clearly a significant delay. While I welcome the Council’s acceptance of fault, I do not consider the Council’s remedy to be adequate because it did not take account of Miss X’s quantifiable loss. She has explained she only had to pay court fees because of uncertainty about her housing situation.
On balance, due to the length of time it took to process her application, it is highly likely that Miss X would have been offered alternative accommodation sooner and she would not have incurred the court costs incurred as a result of her landlord having to continue with legal proceedings.
Miss X only incurred this expense because of fault by the Council. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
Bedroom entitlement Miss X is also dissatisfied with the Council’s decision on her bedroom entitlement.
I am satisfied the Council followed the correct procedure here. It promptly arranged an assessment by at OT when Miss X told the Council she needed a three-bedroom property. The OT made recommendations based on her own observations, as well as evidence provided by Miss X. Miss X exercised her right to request a review of this decision. I am satisfied this review was carried out correctly.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to interfere with this type of professional assessment, so long as the correct procedure has been followed. I cannot call the merits of a properly made decision into question, however strongly Miss X may disagree.
Agreed action
The Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks from the date of my final decision: Apologise in writing to Miss X.
Pay Miss X £550. This is made up of the £300 already offered to Miss X, plus an additional £250 to acknowledge the avoidable court costs incurred by Miss X as a direct result of Council delay.
At a senior level, review the facts of this case, and take action to improve the quality and timeliness of its initial response to homelessness applications. It should provide the Ombudsman with a summary of the outcome of this review and service improvements that have been made.
Final decision
I have found the Council to be at fault and made recommendations to remedy the injustice to Miss X
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman