The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed dealing with a homeless application. This led to over 4 months delay in Mr X getting an offer of interim accommodation. Making a payment to Mr X remedies the injustice from this and from the delay responding to his official complaint. The Council has also now decided that it owes a main housing duty to Mr X.
The complaint
The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains there were delays by the Council in dealing with his homeless application. Mr X says that he had to stay in a hostel or sleep rough. Mr X says the Council has not explained why he did not meet the criteria for emergency accommodation during telephone calls in August 2021.
Mr X also complains he has not received a response to his official complaint to a homeless charity which works in partnership with the Council to provide help and advice.
What I have investigated I have investigated that part of Mr X’s complaint up till 11 January 2022 when the Council sent him a decision letter saying that it was satisfied he was homeless and eligible for assistance (the relief duty). The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.
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) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
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) Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this relief duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39) Key facts Mr X telephoned the Council’s out of hours housing service on 17 and 18 August 2021 asking for emergency accommodation. The Council says it did not provide this as he did not meet the criteria to qualify. Mr X says the Council should have offered him emergency accommodation. The recordings of the telephone conversations are no longer available.
On 23 August 2021 the Council made a homelessness assessment of Mr X. The Council has said after this there were 18 weeks of delay in making a decision on whether Mr X was owed a relief duty.
The Council wrote to Mr X on 11 January 2022 to say that it was satisfied he was homeless and eligible for assistance (the relief duty). The Council sent Mr X a Personalised Housing Plan and the Council began to arrange interim accommodation on 12 January.
On 15 February 2022 the Council replied to Mr X’s stage 1 complaint. The Council offered Mr X £440 compensation made up of: £10 per week for 18 weeks – administrative delays in processing his homeless application £10 per week for 11 weeks – delay in responding to his stage 1 complaint.
£150 for any stress and inconvenience cause by the delays.
My analysis The Council has already investigated Mr X’s complaint and offered a remedy. So, my role is not to repeat that investigation but to look at the points Mr X disagrees with.
Mr X has explained that he wants a greater financial remedy than the Council has already offered. He wants: £420 per week for 18 weeks - administrative delays in processing his homeless application £420 per week for 11 weeks - delay in responding to his stage 1 complaint £15,000 for any stress and inconvenience caused to him by the delays.
Mr X also said he wants further investigation into his complaint, disciplinary action against Council officer and the Council to agree to the main housing duty to him.
The Ombudsman does not interfere with the Council’s role as an employer so we cannot recommend disciplinary action is taken against staff. We can recommend councils amend procedures for staff if needed.
Unfortunately, there are no call recordings so I cannot find out why Mr X did not receive emergency accommodation in August 2021. There is simply not enough evidence for me to reach a view on this point.
The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaint about delays and accepted it was at fault. I do not intend to reinvestigate every point Mr X has made about individual conversations and telephone conversations. This would not be proportionate when the Council has already agreed there were delays. The Council has also now accepted the main housing duty so this part of the complaint is resolved.
The Council has accepted there was 11 weeks delay responding to Mr X’s official complaint. I consider the £10 per week remedy already offered is a satisfactory one and cannot see any reason to increase this to the £420 a week Mr X requests.
The Council has accepted there was 18 weeks delay in processing Mr X’s homeless application. During this time Mr X did not receive interim accommodation, which the Council offered once it accepted the relief duty. During this time, Mr X says he was sleeping rough or in hostels.
The Council has offered a remedy of £10 per week, plus £150 towards Mr X’s stress and inconvenience. Our remedy guidance suggests a payment of between £100 to £300 for a complainant’s time and trouble. Plus, it says ‘where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 per month. If we are satisfied the complainant had no option but to sleep rough because of fault by a Council, we are likely to recommend financial redress at the top end of the range, with an extra payment to recognise distress’.
So, the remedy of £180 plus £150 offered by the Council is much lower than our guidance recommends. While we cannot agree to the amounts claimed by Mr X, without evidence to support that he incurred costs equalling those amounts, I do not think the remedy offered by the Council is enough.
I consider that a remedy of £350 per month, as Mr X was sleeping rough or in a hostel, for 4.5 months is reasonable and in line with our guidance. This totals £1575, with an additional £300 towards Mr X’s time and trouble, along with the £110 already offered by the Council.
Agreed action
The Council pays £1985 to Mr X (minus any amounts already paid as compensation for his official complaint) within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint.
The Council reviews its procedures to ensure the delays experienced by Mr X do not occur again within two months of the date of the decision on this complaint.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation of the complaint. This complaint is upheld as there has been delay by the Council. The remedy described above is a satisfactory remedy to the injustice caused to Mr X.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint after 11 January 2022. This is because Mr X made a new complaint to the Council about events that happened after this date. These events will be considered as a separate complaint, which Mr X has recently put in to the Ombudsman.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman