Council at fault for handling of homelessness application and causing resident to miss out on suitable permanent accommodation two years later

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has found that Cornwall Council was at fault for failing to correctly administer the homelessness application of a resident and neglecting to appropriately assess her housing circumstances between 2021 and 2023.

Mrs X complained the council failed to correctly assess her housing circumstances in 2021. She said Cornwall did not provide the relief or main housing duties to her household when it should have done.

The complainant said the council incorrectly assessed her household’s needs and priority between 2021 and 2023 because of these faults. She said she lost opportunities to secure more suitable accommodation and had to stay in an unsafe property for longer than she otherwise would have. This caused Mrs X and her family avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Mrs X initially approached Cornwall as homeless following an attack and threats made by a neighbour against her and her child in 2021. Mrs X said she obtained a restraining order against her neighbour, though she continued to fear the possibility of further violence.

At this point, Cornwall accepted the prevention duty towards Mrs X. It placed Mrs X in priority Band C on its choice-based lettings scheme. This was because Mrs X could show she was homeless or threatened with homelessness, but the council did not owe a main housing duty.

Mrs X was on the prevention duty for just 56 days before the duty was rescinded by the council as:

• Mrs X did not wish to leave her home for emergency accommodation.
• Mrs X’s landlord had not served a valid Notice to Quit, and
• Mrs X’s landlord had agreed to explore a managed move for her.

Mrs X was informed of the decision and the reasoning at the time. She was left in Band C on the priority list.

Then, in January 2023, Mrs X bid on a property. While reviewing the case, Cornwall noted its decision to end the prevention duty in September 2021. It had decided Mrs X was not homeless, or at risk of homelessness, and so did not qualify for priority Band C.

The council reduced Mrs X’s priority to Band E, removing her from consideration of the properties it would allocate. When informed of this decision, Mrs X sought advice to challenge this. In doing this, she came to understand that the council may have owed her the relief and main housing duties in 2021, because of her housing circumstances.

Mrs X then submitted a new homelessness application to the council, explaining her circumstances had not changed and applied for an assessment by the council’s Welfare Panel.

In February 2023, Mrs X also requested that Cornwall review its decision to end the prevention duty in 2021. She detailed the risk of threats and violence from her neighbour. She cited the council's decision to consider accommodation in Wales and the potential loss of support networks, job, and school. She also pointed to potential disruption to medical assessments that were being carried out for her child, and her caring responsibilities for other family members.

Mrs X said she believed Cornwall should have accepted the housing duty in 2021, as it was not reasonable for her to occupy the property due to the risk of violence. The council refused to review the decision because of the time that had passed.

In March 2023, the council’s Welfare Panel completed an assessment of Mrs X’s recent application and awarded priority Band B, on welfare priority grounds. It applied this priority from January 2023, the point at which Mrs X had applied to the Welfare Panel for an assessment.

In April 2023, the council accepted the main housing duty towards Mrs X, deciding she was effectively homeless. After Mrs X asked the council to review her latest complaint, it reiterated its reasoning behind the 2021 decision and said its decision to end the prevention duty was compliant with the Homelessness Code of Guidance.

At this point, Mrs X referred her complaint to the LGSCO.

The Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about something a council did more than 12 months ago, unless there are good reasons to do so. In this case, Mrs X did not suspect the council had acted with fault until 2023, after she sought independent advice.

The Ombudsman ruled that the events from 2021 were directly relevant to Mrs X’s claimed injustice, and exercised discretion to consider the council’s actions from that time.

Cornwall accepted it handled Mrs X’s 2021 homelessness application incorrectly. It also agreed it should not have closed the 2021 homelessness case.

When it accepted the relief duty towards Mrs X in 2023, the council awarded Band C priority – the same priority she had in 2021 – and backdated this to August 2021. In doing so, Mrs X’s 2023 application essentially became a continuation of her 2021 application.

The Ombudsman reviewed the decision not to award Mrs X interim accommodation in 2021. The council said in its complaint responses that Mrs X not wanting to leave her home was key in its decision to end the prevention duty.

A reluctance or refusal to leave the home and move into interim accommodation is not a valid reason not to accept the relief duty, the LGSCO said. “Mrs X was homeless, and owed the relief duty, in 2021 because it was not reasonable for her to continue living in her property.”

The council said:

• when Mrs X first approached, it would have been feeling accommodation pressures arising from the impact of the summer months and tourist season.
• It would have told Mrs X that it would be difficult to provide accommodation in the local area, and it would need to place Mrs X outside of the area because of this.
• It provides individuals with this information to help manage expectations and to be clear about the pressures the council faces. It says it only places households outside of the area for a short time, until the council finds suitable accommodation.

The Ombudsman’s report said it was understood that these discussions took place once Cornwall had accepted the prevention duty. “That the Council suggests it offered interim accommodation during the prevention stage further indicates it misapplied this duty. The duty to secure interim accommodation arises during the relief stage, once an authority has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need.”

The LGSCO found the local authority at fault for its inadequate record-keeping, something which hindered investigation and caused uncertainty.

The Ombudsman concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Cornwall told Mrs X that any interim accommodation it was likely to offer would be so far away, it might be unsuitable for her household’s needs. “This was key in Mrs X’s view that she could not leave her home. The Council then erroneously relied on Mrs X's reluctance to leave her home as justification for ending the prevention duty.”

The report said the council could manage applicants’ expectations, which might include being open about accommodation pressures in its area. “However, it should not seek to dissuade applicants in genuine need of interim accommodation, by telling them it will be unlikely to find suitable accommodation, before it has searched for that accommodation.”

The LGSCO considered Cornwall’s approach in this case amounted to gatekeeping access to homelessness services and interim accommodation. The council was at fault for this and that fault had caused Mrs X an injustice.

In relation to opportunities for permanent accommodation, the Ombudsman said Cornwall should have accepted the main housing duty to Mrs X in 2021. She would, therefore, have been awarded Band B when the council changed its scheme in June 2022.

Mrs X was shortlisted for a property in Band C in January 2023. Therefore, it is likely that had she been in Band B from June 2022, she would have bid successfully for a property by January 2023 at the latest. The council accepted this.

“Missing out on an offer of suitable accommodation from the Council is an injustice to Mrs X. The Council had not provided a remedy for this injustice,” the LGSCO said.

The Ombudsman, however, said it could not, even on the balance of probabilities, decide whether the council incorrectly persuaded Mrs X not to apply to its Welfare Panel. It therefore did not find the council at fault for doing so.

In terms of remedy, within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the council has agreed to:

• Provide a written apology to Mrs X.
• In line with its proposal, increase Mrs X’s priority to Band A and backdate this to January 2023, the point at which Mrs X missed an offer of suitable accommodation.
• Remind officers of the importance of keeping proper, suitable records, and ask officers to review the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice guidance.
• Remind officers the council may engage the relief housing duty immediately, if it believes an applicant cannot reasonably remain in occupation in their current accommodation.
• Review, at senior officer level, the faults and injustice identified in this investigation, to identify any wider points of learning.
• Pay Mrs X £1,575 in recognition of the injustice caused.

Cornwall has also agreed, within 12 weeks of the final decision being issued, to update the published housing allocations scheme document to reflect the change in priority banding it introduced in 2022 for applicants owed the main housing duty. This is to bring the scheme into line with information published on its website.

Harry Rodd