Ensure officers understand statutory responsibilities on homelessness, LGO tells council

The Local Government Ombudsman has recommended that a London borough review its procedures to ensure that officers dealing with homelessness cases are clear about their statutory responsibilities, particularly in relation to the provision of temporary accommodation.

The recommendation followed an LGO investigation which concluded that the London Borough of Hounslow had been guilty of a catalogue of failings in its dealings with a homeless woman who was fleeing domestic violence.

The case involved a woman who was forced – with her two small children – to leave her mother-in-law’s property because of domestic violence involving her partner.

The complainant moved to her mother’s home in east London, but continued to take her children to school in Hounslow – a four-hour round trip – and work three days a week in central London.

When she approached Hounslow as homeless, the council did not offer temporary accommodation. Instead it concluded she was not fleeing domestic violence and it was reasonable for her to return to her mother-in-law’s property.

This ‘not homeless’ decision was overturned by the council after a review request from the complainant’s solicitors. However, a new decision on her homelessness application was never reached.

Hounslow referred the woman to its rent deposit scheme. She then twice identified properties that might suit the scheme but both times the local authority failed to act, the LGO said. On the second occasion the woman borrowed money to pay the deposit herself so she could move in.

The Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, found that Hounslow had been guilty of maladministration in that it had:

• failed to offer temporary accommodation following the review decision on the homelessness application
• failed to reach a fresh decision on the application
• failed to take action to pursue a property identified that might have been suitable for the council’s rent deposit scheme
• failed to progress matters once a second property was identified, and/or take action when the case officer was on leave, and
• failed to respond adequately to the enquiries made by the Ombudsman’s investigator

In addition to recommending that the council ensure its officers are clear about their statutory responsiblities, the LGO said Hounslow should keep proper records of all significant contact with applicants or third parties and replies to reasonable enquiries.

The Ombudsman also called on the authority to make officers aware of the steps to take if contacts with letting agents do not result in appropriate information being provided. It also expects the council to provide the Ombudsman “with full and timely responses to enquiries on any future complaints”.

By way of remedy for the maladministration, the LGO recommended that the council refund the complainant with the amount it would have paid under the rent deposit scheme, and pay her £500 in recognition of her distress, additional costs and unnecessary time and trouble.

The LGO, Dr Jane Martin, said the period must have been extremely difficult for the complainant.

“She was staying in overcrowded conditions while making a four-hour round trip across London to get her children to school and continuing in employment,” the LGO said. “She has made clear the impact this had on her and her children and I am very pleased she does now have more suitable local accommodation.”