Summary: Mr X complained the Council provided him with interim accommodation on the hospital scheme that was not suitable for his needs when he was discharged from hospital. Mr X further complained the Council removed him from the hospital scheme without telling him and delayed in deciding if he was in priority need for housing. There was fault in how the Council recorded its decisions about the suitability of the accommodation and how it discussed the hospital scheme with Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £100 to recognise the uncertainty this caused him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council provided him with interim accommodation on the hospital scheme that was not suitable for his needs when he was discharged from hospital. Mr X further complained the Council removed him from the hospital scheme without telling him and delayed in deciding if he was in priority need for housing. Mr X stated this caused him distress, impacted his physical recovery and caused financial loss as he had to pay a standing charge once removed from the hospital scheme.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the complaint with Mr X on the telephone and considered the documents he provided.
6. I have read the documents provided by the Council in response to my enquiries and discussed the complaint with it on the telephone.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The legislation

8. Councils have duties towards homeless people under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities 2018 is the statutory guidance which councils must have regard to when carrying out their functions in relation to homeless people.
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. A priority need includes someone who is vulnerable due to a serious health problem. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. The Council must assess the person’s needs and draw up a 'personalised housing plan’ (PHP). This lists steps to prevent or relieve the person’s homelessness. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A, as inserted by s.3(1), Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)
11. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant is already 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 relief duty lasts for 56 days unless ended in another way sooner. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B, as substituted by s.4(2) Homelessness Reduction Act 2017)
12. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. Generally, a council carries out this duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Out-of-Hospital model

14. In 2020 the Department of Health and Social Care awarded a grant to support the local hospital discharge model. The model’s aim was to provide short term intensive homelessness support to people being discharged from hospital who would otherwise become street homeless. The grant funded:
• two self-contained, one-bedroom units (and the costs associated with them) to provide temporary accommodation;
• two full time council officers, split between two local council’s, to provide people extra support in finding and securing suitable accommodation and moving on within six weeks; and
• four visits a day, seven days a week from reablement care workers to provide community rehabilitation for the person discharged from hospital.
15. For the purposes of this decision property 1 was a self-contained unit funded by the grant. The Council received funding for, and was responsible for, one council officer. The other elements of the discharge model were provided by other Council's and the reablement care by the NHS.

What happened

16. Mr X was admitted to hospital in 2021. He was very unwell and remained in hospital for some time. In October 2021 Mr X’s brother contacted the Council and told it Mr X was in hospital and when discharged he would likely be homeless.
17. The Council visited Mr X in hospital and discussed the out-of-hospital scheme with him. There is no record of this conversation. Mr X says the Council offered a fully adapted disabled flat, free of charge.
18. The hospital staff completed a homeless referral form for Mr X at the beginning of November 2021. It said Mr X could walk short distances with a frame and could wash in a sitting position. It said it would assess and order specialist equipment for Mr X once it received an update on the property he would be living in.
19. The Council decided Mr X was eligible for the out-of-hospital scheme. It offered him property 1 as interim accommodation. Mr X moved in in November 2021. There is no record of what information the Council considered or how it decided the property was suitable to meet Mr X’s needs.
20. An occupational therapy assessment of the property was completed in September 2021. It recorded any tenant would need to be able to stand in the shower independently. It was not suitable for a shower stool and the property owner would not allow grab rails to be added. It stated there was space in the bathroom for a perching stool to allow a strip wash.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X in November and said it owed him a relief duty as he was eligible for assistance and homeless. It said it had provided him with accommodation while it established if he was in priority need. The Council has since told us this was an administrative error.
22. The Council wrote a personalised housing plan for Mr X. It recorded Mr X was receiving four visits a day from the reablement team which was arranged and provided by a different Council. Mr X was also receiving physiotherapy from the NHS. It recorded the Council would help Mr X to make a claim for housing benefit and look at privately rented properties.
23. The reablement team contacted the Council three weeks after Mr X had moved to property 1. It said it had discharged Mr X from the service as he could wash and dress himself and meet his own needs. It said that Mr X could shower. The reablement team stated Mr X strip washed while sitting.
24. The records show Mr X spoke to the Council at the beginning of December. He said the Council promised him a fully adapted disabled flat without charge. Mr X also told the Council he could not shower in the property.
25. The Council officer explained the out-of-hospital scheme was to help people who would otherwise be homeless, to find accommodation and provide accommodation while they do so. The officer explained interim accommodation was not free and Mr X’s personal housing plan stated he would need to make a claim for housing benefit to cover costs of accommodation.
26. The Council offered Mr X property 2 in January 2022 as it had a level access shower. Mr X discussed the property with the Council on the phone. The record shows Mr X asked about the service charge on property 2. The Council explained the service charge covered items such as water and power. Mr X told us he did not discuss the service charge with the Council in that call.
27. Mr X moved to property 2 at the end of January 2022. He signed the licence agreement for the property which sets out the amount of service charge he had to pay. The Council recorded that Mr X had left the out-of-hospital scheme and would be housed under a homelessness application.
28. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2022. He said:
• the housing officer told him the property 1 would be a fully adapted disabled flat;
• he could not shower in property 1;
• the furniture in property 1 was unsuitable for his needs as it was too low or uncomfortable; and
• he would like compensation for the conditions he had been living in.
29. The Council responded to Mr X. It said:
• the reablement team stated he could shower without aids and had discharged him as he had no personal care needs; and
• it had offered him property 2 due to his concerns about property 1.
30. Mr X complained to the Council at stage two and said the information it relied on was wrong.
31. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint. It said there was no evidence property 1 was unsuitable. It stated it had already addressed Mr X’s complaint by moving him to property 2. It directed Mr X to us.
32. The Council recorded it had finished the homeless eligibility investigations at the end of February 2022. It produced a new personalised housing plan for Mr X and wrote to him. It told him it owed him a homelessness relief duty and it had provided accommodation while it enquired about his priority need.
33. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response Mr X complained to us in March 2022.
34. The Council wrote to Mr X and accepted it owed a main housing duty in June 2022. It said it had provided him temporary accommodation at property 2 and it was satisfied it was suitable. It told Mr X he could seek a review of that suitability if he wished.
35. In response to my enquiries the Council stated Mr X was the first person to access the out-of-hospital scheme. It said it had recognised there were some omissions in its record keeping and it had reminded relevant staff members to record decisions about the suitability of accommodation in every case.

My findings

Was property 1 suitable for Mr X’s needs?

36. The Council provided Property 1 under section 188 of the Housing Act. There is no right of review about the suitability of interim accommodation. We are not a review body. We consider if there is any fault in the way the Council made its decision. The Council is reliant on information provided from medical professionals about people’s medical needs in deciding if a property is suitable to meet those needs.
37. There is no record of what information the Council considered when it decided property 1 was suitable for Mr X’s needs. That was fault. It leaves uncertainty about whether the flat was suitable for Mr X’s needs between when he moved in and when the Council considering its suitability in December – four weeks.
38. In December 2021 the Council made further enquiries with the reablement team about Mr X’s needs. By that time Mr X had received further reablement care, to the point the reablement team considered he no longer needed that support. Based on information provided by the medical professionals and the OT assessment of the property, the Council considered property 1 to be suitable for Mr X’s needs then. Although Mr X stated the information provided to the Council about his needs was incorrect, there was no fault in the way the Council made that decision. When Mr X continued to raise his concerns about property 1 the Council offered Mr X alternative interim accommodation which he accepted.

Did the Council remove Mr X from the out-of-hospital scheme without telling him?

39. There are no contemporaneous records that show how the out-of-hospital scheme was explained to Mr X before he entered it, or what benefits he could have expected to receive because of the scheme. The Council did explain the scheme briefly to Mr X in December 2021. However, there is no evidence the Council discussed leaving the out-of-hospital scheme with Mr X. Due to the lack of records I cannot say what was discussed with Mr X. The lack of clear communication and record keeping is fault and caused Mr X some uncertainty.
40. Mr X said he had to pay a standing charge at property 2 that he did not pay at property 1. However, the contemporaneous records shows Mr X was informed about the charge before he moved into property 2 and had the option to decline it.

Did the Council delay in making a decision on his priority need?

41. The Council recorded that it owed Mr X the relief duty twice, once in November 2021 when Mr X left hospital, and once in February 2022 when Mr X left the out-of-hospital scheme. The legislation says that within 56 days of deciding it owed him a relief duty the Council should have decided whether Mr X had a priority need, and therefore whether it owed him the main housing duty. The Council did not do so and that was fault. However, I do not find that caused Mr X an injustice. This is because the Council provided him with interim accommodation continuously and there was no fault in the way the Council considered its suitability, other than that identified in paragraph 37.

Back to top

Agreed action

42. Within one month the Council will:
• write to Mr X and apologise and pay £100 to recognise the avoidable uncertainty he was caused about the initial suitability of property 1 by its poor record keeping, and lack of communication about the out-of-hospital scheme; and
• review how it shares information about the out-of-hospital scheme’s benefits and expectations with people, and how it accurately records those conversations.
43. The Council will provide us with evidence it has completed the above recommendations. It should also provide evidence it has reminded staff to accurately record decisions about the suitability of accommodation as it identified in paragraph 35.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I have completed my investigation. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman