The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council failed to deal properly with Ms B’s homelessness application and left her and her child in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months longer than necessary causing them distress and anxiety. The Council also failed to communicate with Ms B and keep her updated. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and make a payment to her.
The complaint
Ms B complains that the Council failed to deal properly with her homelessness application and left her and her child in unsuitable accommodation causing them both distress and anxiety.
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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 have considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Legal and administrative background Homelessness A person is considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they have a legal right to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 places duties on councils to intervene at an early stage and take reasonable steps to prevent and relieve homelessness for all eligible applicants.
The Homelessness Code of Guidance (‘the Guidance’) says councils must properly consider all applications for housing assistance and, if they have reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they must make enquiries to see whether they owe them any duty.
A council must take a homeless application from a person if it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.
The Guidance says that, 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 complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
They should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help them 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.
Where a council is satisfied an applicant is already homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take ‘reasonable steps’ to help ensure the applicant secures accommodation which is available for at least six months. This is called the relief duty.
Suitability of accommodation The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.
When deciding if accommodation is suitable, the law says councils must consider several factors, including: the size of the property and whether it is legally overcrowded; affordability for the applicant; the location of the accommodation; the Council’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any children living in the accommodation and their rights to an education; the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities; and any relevant parts of the Council’s homelessness strategy.
The duty to ensure accommodation is suitable is an ongoing duty. The Guidance says Councils must keep the suitability of accommodation under review and respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is brought to an end.
Right to request a review The 1996 Housing Act gives homeless applicants rights to request a review of various decisions made by councils on their case. This includes the suitability of accommodation offered to discharge the full housing duty. If a person is unhappy with the outcome of the review decision, they may appeal to the County Court on a point of law.
The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy The Council has a policy which sets out how it decides which homeless households to place within its area and which to place outside its area. The Council adopted the policy because there is a severe shortage of temporary accommodation in its own area. The policy sets out which households will be prioritised for temporary accommodation in: ‘the local area’ which is defined as “the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and the surrounding local areas”; the Greater London area; and outside London.
Housing allocations Each council has its own allocations scheme (or ‘housing register’) for social housing in its area. An allocations scheme sets out the rules used to decide who to house.
An allocations scheme will typically set out: who can apply for housing from within the area; who can apply from outside the area; and who gets priority for housing.
The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application if it is carried out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
Key facts Ms B contacted the Council in July 2021 saying she and her child, C, were living with her mother but she had asked them to leave. C was diagnosed with anxiety which was being exacerbated by friction between his mother and grandmother.
On 2 August 2021 a housing officer tried to telephone Ms B to speak to her about her housing situation. She sent an email to Ms B enclosing a pre-assessment pack and asked Ms B to complete this and return it. On 5 August 2021 the officer tried to telephone Ms B again to carry out an assessment. She asked Ms B to respond with her availability.
Ms B was offered private rented accommodation but could not afford it. She contacted the Council again and it accepted a homelessness application from her on 9 September 2021. The Council says an officer completed an assessment and accepted a duty to prevent Ms B’s homelessness.
On 17 September 2021 Ms B’s case was allocated to another officer, Officer X. He made a referral to the housing and employment team and the procurement team to try and source suitable accommodation for Ms B and her child. He also made a referral to the housing health and disability team in October 2021 for a medical assessment to make a recommendation on whether Ms B required local accommodation in the Council’s area because of C’s medical needs.
On 26 November 2021 Officer X spoke to Ms B’s solicitors and provided an update. He said he would notify them of the outcome of the medical assessment once he received it.
Later that day a medical assessor provided advice to Officer X. She concluded there was no compelling medical evidence to suggest a critical need for Ms B to remain living in the borough.
Ms B’s solicitors contacted Officer X for an update on 3, 7 and 13 December 2021. Having received no response, they complained to the Council on 17 January 2022.
The Council responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 4 February 2022. It apologised for the failure to contact Ms B or her solicitors “for a sustained period in November 2021” despite several attempts by the solicitors. It also accepted there was “a significant delay in processing her application since initial duties were accepted” and that this had left Ms B “in a difficult situation, not knowing what was going to happen with her housing application”. The Council explained Officer X had left in December 2021 and there had been a delay in re-allocating Ms B’s case. It confirmed the case had now been allocated to another officer, Officer Y.
On 9 March 2022 Ms B’s solicitors submitted a stage 2 complaint saying they had received no communication from Officer Y despite the solicitors sending emails and attempting to contact her by telephone on several occasions.
The Council again apologised for the lack of communication. It said, “despite allocating a new officer, your client still did not receive any contact or feedback about her housing application and this is not the level of service we expect to be provided”. It explained the case was reallocated to Officer Y on 1 February 2022 but she then took unplanned leave and was not able to progress it. Because of staffing issues, Ms B’s case was not re-allocated immediately. The Council said the service had now undergone a recruitment campaign and new officers had been recruited. It confirmed Ms B’s case had been re-allocated to Officer Z. .
On 20 April Officer Z contacted the housing health and disability team. She referred to Officer X’s request for a medical assessment in October 2021 and the advice given at the time and requested the result of the medical assessment.
Officer Z spoke to Ms B’s mother to request additional time whilst waiting for the outcome of the medical assessment and trying to find temporary accommodation for Ms B.
On 10 May 2022 a housing Occupational Therapist completed assessments for Ms B and C. The OT concluded there was no medical evidence that Ms B or C required specialist medical treatments that were only available in the Council’s area or that C’s educational needs could not be met in different schools. Officer Z sent a copy of the assessment to Ms B’s solicitors.
On 16 May 2022 Ms B complained to the Ombudsman. A few days later her solicitors wrote to Officer Z saying some of the documents they had provided had not been taken into account in the medical assessment and asked for the decision to be reconsidered.
On 30 May 2022 the Council accepted a relief duty to Ms B requiring it to take reasonable steps to help her secure suitable accommodation which was available for at least six months. Officer Z completed a personalised housing plan with Ms B which set out actions to be taken by Ms B and the Council. Ms B said she did not want temporary accommodation outside the borough. Officer Z explained the outcome of the medical assessment was that there were no medical needs to support a placement in the borough but said she would ask the medical team to reassess.
On 27 July 2022 the Council sent a letter to Ms B explaining that the relief duty had ended because 56 days had expired. It explained that Ms B had a right to request a review of this decision within 21 days. She had not yet been provided with temporary accommodation because no properties were available.
On 28 July 2022 the Council accepted a main duty to Ms B and wrote to her confirming this.
Ms B’s application was placed on the housing register. The Council wrote to her on 5 August 2022 confirming this. It explained she had been awarded 100 points because of her homelessness and her application had been backdated to September 2021. She was entitled to bid for two bedroom properties. Ms B was placed in temporary accommodation in August 2022.
Analysis Did the Council take sufficient steps to prevent Ms B’s homelessness?
If a council is satisfied someone is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to prevent them becoming homeless. This is called the prevention duty. ‘Reasonable steps’ are based on the Council’s assessment of the case.
When Ms B contacted the Council in September 2021 after her mother gave her notice to leave her home she was threatened with homelessness. So the prevention duty applied.
I am satisfied the Council took some steps to prevent Ms B’s homelessness. It negotiated a later date with her mother and made referrals to the housing and employment team and the procurement team for assistance with private rented accommodation and arranged viewings.
However, the Council did not write to Ms B formally accepting a prevention duty and I have seen no evidence that it produced a personalised housing plan (PHP). This was fault. Councils should complete a PHP as soon as possible after assessing applicants. This enables people to quickly understand what they, and the council, should do to resolve their housing problem.
Councils must tell applicants in writing when the prevention duty ends, explaining the reasons for ending the duty and the right to ask for a review of the decision. I have seen no evidence that the Council did so in this case. This was further fault.
Did the Council take sufficient steps to relieve Ms B’s homelessness?
Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible, it must take ‘reasonable steps’ to help ensure the applicant secures accommodation which is available for at least six months. This is called the relief duty.
The Council did not accept a relief duty to Ms B until 30 May 2022. This was a significant delay and meant Ms B and C were forced to live with Ms B’s mother in what was a difficult situation for longer than necessary causing them both additional distress and anxiety. It is common for councils to try and prevent homelessness by negotiating. However, it was clear that, although Ms B’s mother agreed to allow her to stay a while longer in September 2021, she wanted her to leave. So, the Council should have accepted the relief duty and provided interim accommodation to Ms B. I consider it could have done this in October 2021.
Interim accommodation If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in ‘priority need’, it has a duty to provide interim accommodation until the applicant receives a suitable offer of permanent housing or its duty to them is otherwise discharged. An adult with a dependent child has a priority need for accommodation.
The Council therefore had a duty to provide interim accommodation for Ms B as soon as it had reason to believe she may be homeless, eligible and in priority need. This is a low threshold. Ms B telling the Council her mother required her and her child to leave the property was enough to trigger the duty to provide interim accommodation. The Council did not do so until August 2022. This was a significant delay.
Delay in accepting the main housing duty The Council accepted it owed Ms B the full housing duty on 28 July 2022, nearly 11 months after she made a homelessness application. That was an unacceptable delay.
The Council has apologised for the delay in progressing Ms B’s homelessness application.
It says the delay was caused by the fact that the first two officers dealing with her case moved departments, then left the Council and the third officer went on unplanned leave for several weeks. The Council says it completed a recruitment drive in late 2021 to address the acute shortage of trained staff. New staff have been recruited and started in March 2022.
I find the Council should have reached a decision on Ms B’s homelessness application by October 2021. It should have made timely enquiries to consider whether it owed her a main housing duty. As a result of the delay, Ms B and C were left living with her mother in a difficult situation for far longer than necessary.
In addition, I find there was inadequate communication with Ms B and her solicitor between October 2021 and March 2022. The solicitors had to complain twice to obtain an update. The lack of communication was unacceptable and caused Ms B uncertainty about outcome of her application and added to her already significant stress and anxiety.
Conclusion
I find the Council was at fault in: failing to formally accept a prevention duty and issue a PHP in September 2021; failing to inform Ms B in writing when the prevention duty ended; delaying in accepting the homelessness relief duty and issuing a PHP; delaying in accepting the main housing duty; delaying in providing Ms B with interim accommodation; and failing to communicate with Ms B and keep her updated between October 2021 and March 2022.
These faults caused Ms B significant stress, anxiety and uncertainty and meant that she and her child spent an additional 10 months living in unsuitable accommodation with her mother. This exacerbated C’s already significant anxiety.
The delay in accepting a main duty also meant that Ms B’s application was not added to the housing register until September 2022 and she was denied the opportunity to bid on permanent housing. However, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that she did not miss out on suitable permanent housing as a result because it is unlikely she would have successfully bid for a property during that timeframe.
Agreed action
The Council has agreed that, within one month it will: apologise to Ms B for the faults identified and the injustice caused; pay Ms B £2000 in recognition of the fact that she and her child were forced to live in unsuitable accommodation for 10 months longer than necessary; and pay Ms B £250 for the additional uncertainty and anxiety caused by lack of communication over a period of six months.
The Council has also agreed that, within three months it will issue a reminder to staff of their duties in relation to issuing PHP’s and reaching decisions on homelessness applications in a timely manner.
Final decision
I uphold Ms B’s complaint.
I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman