The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: there was fault in the way the Council considered Ms X’s homelessness and Housing Register applications. The delay in making key decisions, and the failure to make a review decision, caused Ms X significant anxiety and uncertainty over a prolonged period. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by these faults.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council took too long to process the homelessness application she made in late December 2021 and to make decisions about what duties it owed her. In particular, there was a long delay between it accepting the relief duty in July 2022 and ending the relief duty in March 2023.
She also complained that the Council has not made a decision on her application to join the Housing Register to allow her to bid for social housing.
Ms X lives in a room in a hostel which she says is unsuitable for her needs. The landlord has served two Notices to Quit and the County Court made a Possession Order in late September 2023. She says the stress caused by the Council’s delay and poor handling of her case has adversely affected her health and wellbeing.
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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).
We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
What I have and have not investigated I have not investigated the merits of the following decisions: to end the prevention duty in July 2022; to end the relief duty in March 2023; not to accept the main housing duty in March 2023 because the Council did not consider Ms X was in priority need.
Ms X was informed of her right to request a review of these decisions if she wished to challenge them. The Ombudsman generally expects homeless applicants to challenge decisions by using the statutory review and appeal process. In April 2023 an adviser acting for Ms X requested a review of the decision not to accept the main housing duty.
I have investigated the following matters: the delay in processing her homelessness application and making decisions; the failure to make a decision after she requested a review of the March 2023 decision not to accept the main housing duty because she was not in priority need; the delay in accepting Ms X’s application to join the Housing Register and in awarding priority.
How I considered this complaint
I have spoken to Ms X and considered all the information she provided. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant housing records.
Ms X and the council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant legal background 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.
Threatened with homelessness Someone is threatened with homelessness if they: are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or are an assured shorthold tenant who has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5 The prevention duty If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195) This duty applies to all eligible applicants (not just those in priority need), but it does not extend to the authority actually having to secure accommodation for them.
Ending the prevention duty The prevention duty will come to an end in any of the following circumstances.
The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months; 56 days have passed since the authority became subject to this duty, unless the applicant has been served with a Section 21 notice, in which case the duty continues for as long as they continue to occupy the property subject to the notice; The applicant has become homeless; The applicant has refused a suitable offer of accommodation that would have been available for at least six months; The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section; The applicant is no longer eligible for assistance; The applicant has withdrawn the application.
The duty can also be brought to an end where the applicant is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
Any decision to end the prevention duty must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.
The relief duty Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any homeless person who is eligible for assistance. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B).
Ending the relief duty When the Council is satisfied an applicant is in priority need and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days. The Council must then complete inquiries promptly to decide what further duty is owed (the main housing duty).
In other cases the Council may give notice to bring the relief duty to an end in any of the following circumstances: The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months; The Council has complied with the relief duty for at least 56 days (whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation); The applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months; The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section; The applicant is no longer eligible for assistance; The applicant has withdrawn the application.
The applicant is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
The Code of Guidance says: “Housing authorities should not have a blanket policy of ending the prevention and relief duties after 56 days where they have the discretion to continue it; instead they should in each case take the applicant’s circumstances into account” (paragraph 14.16) The Council must notify the applicant in writing of a decision that a duty has come to an end. It must give reasons for ending the duty and explain the applicant’s right to request a review of that decision.
The main housing duty 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).
Review rights Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including: what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness; giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end; giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end; The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of receiving the review request: not owed the main housing duty/not in priority need; the decision to end the relief or prevention duty.
These periods can be extended with the applicant’s written agreement.
Key events Ms X has lived in a hostel in the borough for many years. According to the Council’s records, Ms X’s landlord served a Notice to Quit requiring her to leave the hostel by early January 2022 because she had refused offers of move-on accommodation in the private rented sector. Ms X approached the Council for housing assistance in late December 2021.
An officer in the Housing Solutions team, “Officer A”, completed the initial housing assessment in late December 2021. She noted the service of the Notice and contacted Ms X’s landlord who said Ms X had refused three offers of private rented accommodation. She noted Ms X had to move out by early January 2022.
Officer A noted Ms X was threatened with homelessness at this point. She said Ms X would need support to find private rented accommodation. She also noted Ms X’s medical conditions and some issues affecting her mobility.
On the same day, the officer referred Ms X to a Council team (HOPE) which helps people who are threatened with homelessness to find affordable private rented accommodation.
On 23 February Officer A informed Ms X that the Council had accepted the prevention duty. This was almost two months after Ms X approached the Council for homelessness assistance. She also sent Ms X a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP). The PHP said: Ms X would: look for suitable and affordable private rented accommodation; and engage with the HOPE team.
The Council would: provide advice about looking for private rented accommodation (a list of websites was included in the PHP); refer Ms X to the HOPE team who could help her find private rented accommodation and help negotiate with landlords; provide financial assistance with a deposit and rent in advance if she found suitable private rented accommodation.
The Council said the PHP should have been sent to Ms X within five working days of her approach to the Council.
The Council’s records show that between mid-January 2022 and late October 2022 an officer in the HOPE team made several attempts to telephone and text Ms X. The officer spoke to the hostel manager and Ms X’s support worker to try to arrange a convenient time to speak to Ms X. The officer found it difficult to contact Ms X because she was not available to take calls.
The landlord did not start Court proceedings to recover possession and Ms X remained in the hostel.
The PHP was not reviewed until 20 July 2022. Officer A then wrote to Ms X to say the prevention duty had ended and the Council accepted the relief duty because she was homeless. Ms X was still in the hostel and had stayed beyond the date she was required to leave by the Notice to Quit.
Officer A created a new PHP at this point. She said Ms X needed a studio, a one bedroom flat or a room in a shared house. She included information about the Local Housing Allowance rate for the area and signposted Ms X to a website where she could check her benefit entitlement. In addition to the steps Ms X had to take in the prevention PHP, it said she should also: clarify with her landlord whether they intended to issue another Notice to Quit; register with a housing organisation that helps homeless households by finding vacancies in social housing.
There were no new steps for the Council to take.
The Council says the relief duty PHP should have been reviewed four weeks after it was issued. In this case, there was no review until Ms X complained to the Council about the way it had handled her case and the delay in making a decision. She also contacted her MP. Ms X said the assessment of her housing needs had been rushed and inadequate and her medical needs had not been assessed.
A team manager investigated Ms X’s complaint. He instructed Officer A to review the case to decide if a medical assessment was required. He told her Ms X had new medical evidence. The manager asked the case officer to keep him updated on progress of the case.
When the manager replied to Ms X’s complaint, he told her to expect a decision on her application by January 2023. According to the case records, Ms X sent Officer A details of her prescribed medication in late October. Officer A then contacted Ms X’s GP to ask them to complete a medical questionnaire. In late November Officer A told Ms X’s legal adviser she was still waiting for the GP’s response.
Officer A spoke to Ms X in mid-December 2022. According to her notes, the Notice to Quit had expired by then. Ms X asked for a one bedroom social housing property. The officer said she would not achieve that by making a homelessness application. In her notes she said she had called Ms X to give her a final opportunity to engage with HOPE and to advise her she was likely to make a “not homeless” decision as the Notice to Quit had expired. There is no evidence that Officer A had kept the team manager informed of progress as he had requested.
In its final response to Ms X’s complaint in December 2022, the Council accepted there had been delay in making a decision on her application and offered to pay her £100.
Events in 2023 Ms X’s landlord served a new Notice to Quit in late January 2023 requiring her to move out by early April. The Council received the new Notice in early February.
Ms X delivered additional medical evidence in late January. Officer A asked a manager to advise her on how to manage the case in light of the new Notice being issued. She said she had been about to make a “not homeless” decision because the previous Notice had expired and Ms X was still in the hostel.
In mid-February Ms X’s GP’s surgery replied to the request Officer A made in October 2022 (paragraph 30) and asked her to resubmit the request if she still needed this information.
Ms X called Housing Solutions twice in mid-March to find out what was happening with her application. Officer A had been redeployed and Ms X’s case was held in a backlog. It was reassigned to a new case officer, whom I shall call Officer B, on 16 March and she spoke to Ms X on the same day.
On 20 March Officer B contacted Ms X’s GP surgery to request a summary of Ms X’s medical conditions and treatment. On 21 March she contacted Ms X’s landlord to acknowledge the new Notice to Quit and to ask if possession proceedings had started.
The Council received a medical summary from the GP on 21 March and advice from its medical advisers the next day.
In late March Officer B informed Ms X that the relief duty had ended because more than 56 days had passed since the duty was accepted in July 2022. She explained she had considered evidence from Ms X’s GP, and advice from the Council’s medical adviser, and decided Ms X was eligible for assistance, homeless but not “significantly vulnerable” and therefore not in priority need. She summarised the evidence and the reasons for her decision that Ms X was not vulnerable.
As the Council had decided Ms X was not in priority need, it did not owe her the main housing duty. The letter explained her right to request a section 202 review of the decisions to end the relief duty and that she was not owed the main housing duty.
On 8 April an adviser acting on Ms X’s behalf contacted the Housing Solutions service to request a review of the decision that Ms X was not in priority need and not owed the main housing duty. Ten days later she sent a letter with detailed submissions and new medical evidence. She said Ms X is vulnerable due to mental illness, physical disabilities, and chronic pain and these conditions had a significant impact on her daily life and limited her ability to carry out basic tasks.
In August and September 2023 a mental health support worker corresponded with the Review Officer and sent more medical evidence. The Review Officer spoke to Ms X in August.
When the Council responded to my enquiries in February 2024, it said no review decision had been made. So Ms X does not know whether the Council would have confirmed, or overturned, the decision on priority need if the review had been completed.
Ms X’s landlord obtained a Possession Order in late September 2023. The Court ordered Ms X to leave the accommodation on, or before, 5 October 2023.
Ms X made a new request for homelessness assistance in early October 2023 and informed the Council about the Possession Order. She also made a complaint to us around the same time.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said Ms X’s case was reassigned to an experienced senior case officer to handle the new application. She accepted the relief duty on 26 February 2024. The new case officer would contact Ms X to update her PHP and explore her housing options. It said future decisions would be made in a timely way.
The Council said it is likely to end the relief duty by making Ms X an offer of suitable accommodation in the private rented sector.
Ms X’s Housing Register application Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14)) An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories: homeless people; people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing; people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others; (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3)) The Council’s published housing allocations scheme awards priority to applicants in these reasonable preference groups. Applicants who are homeless, but not owed the main housing duty, are awarded 10 points. This includes homeless applicants who are owed the relief duty. Homeless applicants who are owed the main housing duty are awarded 100 points.
When Officer A did the initial housing assessment in late December 2021, she did not answer a question on the form about whether Ms X had an existing Housing Register application. There was nothing in the prevention or relief PHP about her Housing Register application.
Ms X would have been entitled to 10 points on the Housing Register from 20 July 2022 when the Council first accepted the relief duty.
The Council has since accepted Ms X on the Housing Register and backdated her application to 20 July 2022.
The Council understands Ms X would prefer to move to social housing but, with this low level of priority, it is highly unlikely she will be made an offer. It says it intends to end the relief duty by making an offer of suitable accommodation in the private rented sector.
The Council’s comments The Council told us it wishes to apologise to Ms X for its delay in notifying her of the outcome of her Housing Register application, and in accepting the relief duty. It accepts it took far too long to process and make decisions on her homelessness application and this delayed Ms X’s access to the review procedure.
The Head of Service has started a comprehensive review of processes and procedures in the Housing Solutions service to ensure other applicants do not experience similar issues in future. This will identify poor practices in case-handling.
The Director of Housing has also commissioned training from an independent specialist housing advice charity to ensure officers are adequately trained. This training is almost complete for current officers and will be repeated when new staff are recruited.
Analysis Homelessness There were significant delays in making key decisions on Ms X’s two requests for homelessness assistance. This was fault.
The Council took almost two months to accept the prevention duty and issue a Personalised Housing Plan after Ms X first requested housing assistance in December 2021. The Council quickly established Ms X was eligible for assistance and her landlord had confirmed service of the Notice to Quit. So there was no good reason for the Council’s delay in accepting the prevention duty or issuing the PHP.
After it accepted the prevention duty in late February 2022, the Council allowed it to run on for longer than 56 days. During this period, the HOPE team was trying to engage with Ms X to find suitable private rented accommodation for her. However, as the Code of Guidance makes clear, once the date has passed when someone is required to leave a hostel, they are an unauthorised occupier and, in legal terms, are homeless. So the Council should have accepted the relief duty earlier.
There was further drift and delay after the Council accepted the relief duty in July 2022. The Code says councils have flexibility to continue the relief duty for longer than 56 days if the applicant is unlikely to be in priority need and owed the main housing duty. But there is nothing to indicate there was a considered decision to extend the relief duty in this case. Instead the case seems to have drifted and there was no effective oversight or review until Ms X complained to the Council in October 2022. The team manager’s response to Ms X’s complaint told her to expect a decision by January 2023 about whether she was owed the main housing duty. But that decision was not made until late March 2023.
There was also a failure to carry out timely reviews of the PHP at the relief duty stage.
The Council decided it did not owe Ms X the main housing duty in March 2023 and her adviser requested a review in mid-April 2023. The review decision should have been made within eight weeks (by mid-June). Although there was contact between the Review Officer and Ms X’s support worker over the summer, the review was never completed and no decision was made. This is a serious failing which means Ms X still does not know whether the original decision on priority need would have been confirmed or overturned on review.
There was further significant delay in accepting the relief duty after Ms X made a new homelessness application in October 2023. The Court had already made a Possession Order by the time Ms X made this application but the relief duty was not accepted until late February 2024. This further delay is fault and Ms X felt her case was being neglected.
The cumulative effect of these delays caused Ms X considerable stress and uncertainty. She had to use both stages of the complaints procedure and seek help from her MP to find out what was happening with her application. The failure to make timely decisions delayed her right to use the review procedure. When she challenged the decision she was not owed the main housing duty, no review decision was made. The Council has not explained what went wrong at the review stage and the reasons for this failure. There was also inadequate communication with Ms X which left her feeling unsupported during a very difficult time in her life.
Fortunately Ms X was not evicted and stayed on in the hostel throughout this period. But she was under pressure to leave which caused her significant worry and stress. The Council’s delay in processing her application and making key decisions caused avoidable anxiety and uncertainty for a prolonged period.
Housing Register It was fault not to award Ms X the 10 points she was entitled to on the Housing Register when the Council first accepted the relief duty in July 2022. This seems to have been completely overlooked at the time. The Council has now put this right by awarding the points and backdating priority to July 2022.
I am likely to find this is a suitable remedy for this part of the complaint. Ms X’s points are too low for her to be considered for offers of social housing so she has not missed out due to this delay.
Agreed action
To its credit, the Council accepts it was at fault. It has already arranged staff training and has committed to making service improvements.
Within one month of my final decision, the Council will: Arrange for a senior manager to send a written apology to Ms X following the guidance set out in paragraph 6; Pay Ms X £600 to recognise the significant distress, anxiety and uncertainty caused by its prolonged delays in making decisions, its failure to make a review decision, and the overall poor management of her case; Decide whether Ms X is in priority need and owed the main housing duty based on her current circumstances. It should consider the review submissions Ms X’s adviser made in April 2023 and the medical evidence already submitted. It should give Ms X the opportunity to send any new supporting evidence. If the Council should decide Ms X is in priority need and not intentionally homeless, and accepts the main housing duty, it should backdate acceptance of the duty and the 100 points this entitles her to on the Housing Register.
Circulate our final decision statement to relevant officers in the Housing Solutions service as part of a team briefing to share key learning points; Send us information about its current performance in making homelessness review decisions and its processes for tracking review requests to ensure decisions are made within the statutory timescales.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed the investigation and found the Council was at fault and this caused injustice to Ms X. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman