Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Housing : : Housing archive 2005-06 : : London Borough of Waltham Forest (03A15819)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

London Borough of Waltham Forest (03A15819)

Homelessness                             Maladministration causing injustice

09 November 2005

‘Mr Temtemie’ (not his real name for legal reasons) is a single man in his twenties who arrived in the UK as an asylum seeker in 2003. He was placed in a hostel by the National Asylum Support Service while the Home Office considered his application for asylum. He was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK on appeal. NASS could no longer fund his accommodation once he was granted this status. Mr Temtemie had no friends or relatives in the UK and he spoke very little English.

Mr Temtemie had been detained and tortured by soldiers in his country of origin, Eritrea. He had regularly been beaten on the head with a rifle. This caused him to suffer from epilepsy and he had daily seizures. He also suffers from clinical depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Shortly after his arrival in the UK, he began to receive medical treatment and therapy from medical staff at a charity which supports victims of torture.

His doctor wrote to the Homeless Persons Unit (HPU) of the Council for the area where Mr Temtemie had stayed in the NASS hostel. He explained that Mr Temtemie was vulnerable and that he was about to be made homeless. He gave a detailed medical history and explained that he was receiving long-term treatment and counselling from the centre.

A caseworker interviewed Mr Temtemie and completed homelessness forms and a medical assessment. She did not use an interpreter. She decided to refer Mr Temtemie’s case to the Council’s Vulnerability Panel – a joint housing and social services panel which decide if a homeless person is vulnerable and in priority need. She also booked Mr Temtemie temporary accommodation in a local hostel while his application was being considered.

Mr Temtemie stayed in the hostel for one night. But the hostel manager contacted the HPU the following day to say that staff could not meet Mr Temtemie’s support needs because of his serious and frequent epileptic seizures. The manager also told Mr Temtemie to return to the HPU to request more suitable accommodation. When Mr Temtemie returned to the HPU his caseworker was on leave and he was simply given a list of churches that operate winter night shelters. He returned to the HPU three times that week but the Council made no efforts to find him alternative temporary accommodation.

Mr Temtemie slept rough in bus stations and shelters. He also spent some time sleeping in church winter night shelters. He says he felt uncomfortable there because many people using the shelters had drug or alcohol problems.

By the time his caseworker returned to work the Vulnerability Panel was about to consider his case. Mr Temtemie’s doctor had asked to attend the Panel meeting and the Council’s procedure allowed for this. But the caseworker forgot to invite him to the meeting and so it went ahead in his absence.Despite strong written evidence from the doctor, the Panel decided that Mr Temtemie was not vulnerable. When Mr Temtemie received the written decision, his doctor referred him to a solicitor who immediately wrote to request a review. The Council’s Review Officer agreed to the solicitor’s request to provide Mr Temtemie with temporary accommodation while he considered the review.

Mr Temtemie was offered a six-month assured shorthold tenancy at a young person’s housing project while the Review Officer was considering his case and before he had reached a decision. So the review was abandoned because Mr Temtemie’s circumstances had changed and he was no longer homeless.

The Ombudsman decided that the degree of injustice suffered by Mr Temtemie, and the public interest, justified publishing a report. The Ombudsman identified the following faults in the Council’s handling of the case:

  • the failure to arrange alternative temporary accommodation when Mr Temtemie was asked to leave the hostel – this is a breach of a statutory duty;
  • the Panel did not explain why it decided to disregard the strong medical evidence;
  • the letter notifying Mr Temtemie of the decision was defective;
  • the failure to use interpreters in all the interviews with Mr Temtemie; and
  • the complaint made by Mr Temtemie’s solicitor was not properly handled.

Mr Temtemie had to sleep rough for a prolonged period due to the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable alternative temporary accommodation.To remedy this injustice, the Ombudsman recommends that:

  • the Council pays Mr Temtemie £7,200;
  • the Director of Housing sends him a letter of apology translated into Tigrinya;
  • the Council meets Mr Temtemie’s reasonable legal costs; and
  • the Council meets the cost of arranging for a member of staff from the charity to talk to staff in the HPU about the special needs of victims of torture.
     

Date Published: 20/03/09