The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness application. The Council has admitted fault as there were some delays and has already offered Ms X £150. This is satisfactory to remedy the injustice it caused Ms X.
The complaint
Ms X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness application. In particular, she complained the Council: shared her information with another council without her permission; was rude to her and terminated calls; did not answer her emails and phone calls in a timely manner; delayed in arranging appointments with her caseworker; and delayed in processing her homelessness application.
Ms X said that as a result, she was caused distress and inconvenience and she has been left homeless 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) Ms X complained to us in August 2021. This is slightly more than 12 months from when she first complained to the Council and when she first became aware of the matters she is unhappy about. However, I have decided to exercise my discretion and investigate these events. This is because in the intervening period Ms X’s living arrangements changed a number of times, she has been disproportionately affected by COVID-19 because she is homeless and because she did not receive the Council’s final response until October 2020, less than a year from when she complained to us.
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) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (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 considered Ms X’s view of her complaint and the information she submitted.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
I referred to our Guidance on Remedies.
I wrote to Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance Housing duties 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 is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) This duty does not mean the council must secure accommodation (although it may choose to do so). To meet their relief duty, councils should work with the person to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the person to take to help them keep or find suitable accommodation. These steps must be tailored to the person and provided to them in a personalised housing plan (PHP). The PHP must be kept under review and updated as circumstances change. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18) Referral to a different council area A council will look at whether an applicant has a local connection to the area. This means it will consider whether or how long they have lived or worked in the area or have close family there.
If the council would be subject to the relief duty but considers the conditions are met for referral of the case to another council (for example it believes the applicant has a local connection to another council area), it may notify that council of its decision (Housing Act 1996 s198(2)).
Decisions and rights of review Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions, including decisions about: what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness; and referrals to a different council area.
What happened On 6 December 2019, Ms X completed an online homeless self-assessment form which she submitted to the Council. She also informed the Council she was currently in a hostel but had to leave the following day, at which point she would be homeless. Ms X said she had been living in various hostels in Westminster since October 2019.
Ms X submitted documentation to show she was employed full-time with a business based in another Council area (Council Z). She also signed a form which agreed that her information could be shared with third parties if necessary.
The Council arranged a 28 night referral to another hostel starting that day.
The Council scheduled an appointment with Ms X for 20 December to carry out an assessment. This was cancelled. Ms X called the Council several times to try to make a new appointment and then to complain about the lack of progress. During this period there were some attempts by the Council to contact Ms X.
On 10 February, Ms X’s caseworker sent her an email scheduling an appointment for 19 February. This took place. At that meeting it transpired the Council did not have copies of the documentation Ms X had already submitted which meant she had to resubmit it.
The Council issued a letter the following day, accepting the housing relief duty to help Ms X secure accommodation. This informed Ms X of her review rights if she was dissatisfied with the Council’s decision. It also sent her a personalised housing plan (PHP).
On 16 March, the Council decided Ms X did not have a local connection to Westminster. This is because she had not lived in the borough for more than six months and did not meet any of the other criteria for a local connection.
However, because she had a permanent job in another council area (Council Z), the Council referred her case to Council Z. The Council informed Ms X that it had done this on 16 March 2020.
On 20 March, Council Z accepted the referral.
On 21 March Ms Z contacted the Council to say she did not wish it to share her information with Council Z and that she did not want to be referred across to this different council area.
The Council sent Ms X a decision letter on 21 April to inform her that Council Z had accepted Ms X’s case and the relief duty. The letter contained details of Ms X’s rights of review if she was unhappy with this decision.
On 31 May Ms X asked for a review of the decision to refer her case to Council Z. The Council refused this request because it was late.
Ms X complained to the Council. Her complaints are listed at paragraph 1 of this decision statement.
The Council apologised for the delays in dealing with Ms X’s homeless application, the lack of response she received and the delays in arranging her appointment which took place in February, two months after she submitted her homelessness application. It also acknowledged and apologised for the fact she had tried to call the service on several occasions but had been unable to get through. The Council said, however, that it could find no evidence staff had been rude to her or terminated the calls.
In relation to passing her information to Council Z, the Council informed Ms X that she had given consent on a form she submitted in December 2019. The Council also informed her that under s198 of the Housing Act 1996, it was legally allowed to inform another council of her details because it believed she had a local connection there.
Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
My findings
The Council shared her information without her permission The Council has provided evidence that Ms X signed an agreement which said the Council could share her information with third parties, including other councils, on a ‘need to know basis’ if necessary. Under the Housing Act, the Council had a right to make a referral to another Council area under certain conditions which were met. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.
Council officers were rude to Ms X Ms X said Council officers were rude to her on the phone and terminated calls. There is one reference in the case notes to a call being terminated because Ms X became angry, but I cannot confirm the accuracy of that comment, or the tone and content of any of the other calls because no recordings exist. Because I can achieve nothing meaningful, I will not investigate this matter further.
The Council did not communicate in a timely manner, delayed in arranging appointments and delayed in processing her homelessness application The Council took around two months to accept Ms X was owed a relief duty under the Housing Act. A month later, it decided she did not have a local connection and that Council Z had accepted the relief duty. The Council informed Ms X of this decision and her right to a review.
I cannot know what would have happened if the Council had progressed Ms X’s case more quickly. However, Ms X remained in accommodation throughout that period, firstly in a hostel and when the pandemic started, in a second hostel and then a hotel. If her referral to Council Z had occurred earlier, it is likely Ms X would still have been placed in a similar type of accommodation in Council Z.
The Council has already admitted it acted with delay when it did not return Ms X’s calls in a timely manner or progress her case as quickly as it should have done. It has offered her £150. This is suitable to remedy the frustration the Council’s delays caused her
Final decision
The Council has already admitted it was at fault and offered a suitable remedy. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman