The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: A woman complained that the Council had not dealt properly with her homelessness case after her landlord gave her notice to leave. But we will not investigate this matter as the Council has taken an application from the woman and is currently trying to prevent her from becoming homeless.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered what Miss B said in her complaint and her subsequent comments. I also took account of information the Council provided about its actions in Miss B’s case. In addition, I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
By law, someone is threatened with homelessness if they are likely to become homeless within 56 days, or if their landlord has given them a valid Housing Act 1988 Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days.
If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application. If a council is satisfied about the threat of homelessness and the person’s eligibility for assistance, it must then complete an assessment in their case and notify them of the result.
In those circumstances a council must also take reasonable steps to help the person secure that accommodation does not stop being available to them. This is called the ‘prevention duty’.
A council should work with an applicant to identify the reasonable steps each should take based on the assessment, and these steps must be confirmed to the person in writing in a Personal Housing Plan (PHP).
But having considered the information provided I am not convinced there is evidence the Council has failed to meet its legal obligations in Miss B’s case, or of any other substantive fault of fault on its part in the way it has dealt with her homelessness application so far.
In particular I note the Council took a homelessness application from Miss B soon after her landlord had served a Section 21 notice. It then carried out an assessment, drew up a PHP, and accepted it owed a prevention duty in her case.
In addition, in response to my recent enquiries the Council confirmed it is still working with Miss B to try and prevent her eviction. The Council also said if an eviction cannot be prevented it will work with Miss B to source alternative housing, as well as assessing any need to provide her with interim accommodation in line with the Housing Act 1996.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council had not dealt properly with her situation after her landlord had given her notice to leave. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s response to the threat of homelessness in Miss B’s case.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman