Summary: Ms X complained about the service she received during the COVID-19 pandemic from a homelessness charity (the Charity) acting on behalf of the Council. The Charity has already upheld, or partially upheld some of Ms X’s complaints and apologised for the injustice this caused her. It has also explained to her what it will do to prevent a similar reoccurrence. These were appropriate actions to take and further investigation would achieve nothing further.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the service she received during the COVID-19 pandemic from a homelessness charity (the Charity) acting on behalf of the Council. Specifically, she complained:
• there were delays in allocating her a caseworker and then the caseworkers kept changing;
• caseworkers set deadlines for information, argued with her and expected her to take time off from her job to attend appointments relating to her applications for housing;
• caseworkers failed to properly read her emails which resulted in her receiving a notice of eviction because she was unable to provide payslips;
• staff were rude, would sleep on duty and involve her in arguments that were of no concern to her;
• she did not receive the food and toiletries she was entitled to;
• she was not given help to open a bank account, the Charity failed to update her over when the emergency COVID-19 project would end, it challenged her exemption to wearing a mask, provided the wrong translator and wanted her to provide sensitive information;
• she was given no notice of when she had to move rooms and was then moved to one with poor mobile reception; and
• she was not referred to a Housing Association (HA), staff failed to explain her options and how her changing personal circumstances affected her choices and then offered unsuitable accommodation.
2. Ms X says that as a result, she has lost out on social housing. She also says she was caused unnecessary distress and anxiety because of the actions of the Charity.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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

7. I considered the information provided by Ms X.
8. I made enquiries of the Charity and considered the information it provided. This included the daily electronic records kept by the Charity and the complaints correspondence.
9. I wrote to Ms X, the Charity and the Greater London Authority (GLA) with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Everyone In initiative

10. On 26 March 2020, the government asked councils to “help make sure we get everyone in”, including those who would not normally be entitled to assistance under homelessness legislation.
11. In response, councils took steps to ensure that people sleeping rough and in accommodation where it was difficult to self-isolate (such as shelters and assessment centres) were accommodated to protect them, and the wider public, from the risks of COVID-19. This was achieved by block-booking hotel rooms, securing other en-suite accommodation, such as bed and breakfasts and student accommodation and ensuring that those accommodated had food and support.

Next steps accommodation programme

12. On 2 May 2020, the government announced the next phase of support for rough sleepers. The aim of this was to help find longer-term accommodation for those people accommodated under the Everyone In initiative. Councils were asked to carry out individual assessments and consider the range of options to ensure housing, health and care needs were met.
13. In June 2020, the government announced funding for councils to provide immediate accommodation for rough sleepers. Eligible accommodation and schemes included supported or social housing and access to the private rented sector through guaranteed rent schemes and mediation and reconnections with families, including those living abroad, and immigration advice.

Background

14. At the time lockdown started, Ms X was receiving support from a charity. It referred her to the Charity involved in these events at the start of the pandemic to provide her with accommodation under the Everyone In initiative. This was overseen by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
15. The Charity accommodated Ms X in a local hotel and she was supported by the Charity’s caseworkers based there.
16. A few months later, Ms X moved to another location run by the Charity. The following complaints all involve events at this second location.

Ms X’s first complaints

17. In September 2020, Ms X made a number of complaints to the Charity. Because Ms X appealed at each stage, and the Charity decided to look at some of her complaints again, she received responses in November 2020 and January 2021. Ms X’s complaints and the responses are summarised below.

Delays and number of caseworkers allocated to her on arrival

18. Ms X said the Charity told her she would be assigned a caseworker within three days of arriving at Location 2. This did not happen for three weeks, and she was then assigned three caseworkers in short succession which she found unsettling.
19. The Charity partially upheld this part of her complaint and apologised for the distress caused. It said staff availability was limited at the time and Ms X’s working hours made it difficult to coordinate a meeting.
20. The Charity also partly upheld Ms X’s complaint about the number of caseworkers assigned to her and apologised again for the inconvenience. It said the reason for this was because of staff turnaround.

Caseworkers set unrealistic deadlines, did not know the details of her case because they kept changing, threatened her with eviction and were inadequately trained and incompetent

21. The Charity said it had spoken to Ms X about this and she felt that important information had been missed because her case had been passed to several different caseworkers. Caseworkers had also requested she provide payslips before a tight deadline even though Ms X had explained she was unable to access her bank account. As a result, Ms X said she was threatened with eviction from the project.
22. The Charity explained it was important for it to set deadlines in order to work towards ending a client’s homelessness as quickly as possible. It again explained this was particularly important because the Everyone In initiative was an emergency project with time limited funding. However, it partially upheld this complaint because it accepted Ms X was allocated several different caseworkers which caused her some confusion and distress, although it did not agree any were incompetent or had mismanaged her case. It said as soon as Ms X raised the difficulties she was having with obtaining her payslips, the Charity removed the deadline and eviction notice and continued to work to support her.

Staff were rude, in particular staff member P, they would sleep on duty and Ms X sometimes found herself involved in arguments between staff and other clients

23. The Charity spoke to Ms X on the phone about these complaints.
24. Ms X said a case worker was rude and argued with her when she told them she would only take time off for viewings but would not answer calls from her caseworker when she was at work.
25. The Charity explained it shared its expectations with clients during induction which made it clear it expected clients to prioritise ending their homelessness and keep in communication with the Charity as required. The Charity said it therefore found it reasonable for the caseworker to be open and honest with Ms X about these issues and to ask her to make time to complete the paperwork required to help find accommodation. The Charity explained caseworkers were available from 8am – 8pm daily to provide flexibility.
26. With regard to staff member P, the Charity said after speaking to Ms X in detail about this aspect of her complaint as well as the staff member, it did not uphold her complaint. It said P and other staff had behaved reasonably in relation to the issues where Ms X had found them to be rude (being asked to wear a mask, requesting proof she had exemption from doing so and asking for her name when she telephoned).
27. In relation to staff sleeping on duty, Ms X explained that on one night she had gone downstairs during the nightshift for help, but the security guard had said the support worker was asleep.
28. The Charity explained support workers worked 12 hour shifts and were legally entitled to an hour’s break. Nightshift staff often used this as an opportunity to get some sleep. During that time security staff would take questions from clients and wake the support staff if there was an emergency. The Charity did not uphold this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.
29. It said Ms X was unable to give any specific details of when she had been caught in the middle of staff arguing with other clients and so would not investigate the matter further.

Receipt of food and toiletries

30. Ms X complained that because she worked, she was unable to access the free evening meal that was available at the accommodation. This is because any food left over was thrown away shortly after it had been delivered.
31. The Charity explained to Ms X that free food was only available for clients who had no income. Because Ms X worked, she was not entitled to free meals. However, if any was left when she was at the accommodation, she was allowed to access it.
32. Because the food was fresh, the Charity said it was unable to keep it for long. This was why any leftovers were thrown away shortly after they had finished serving it.

Outcome from Ms X’s complaints

33. As a result of Ms X’s complaints, the Charity said it would allocate her a new caseworker, and she would receive three meals and day and access to toiletry donations during periods when she had no income. It also said it would raise the issues she had with staff member P so she was aware Ms X found her rude.

Ms X’s second complaints

34. Whilst investigations and responses were underway with Ms X’s first set of complaints, she raised additional ones in October 2020. Details of her complaints and the Charity’s responses are outlined below:

Opening a bank account, information about when the emergency project was ending, exemption from wearing a mask, wrong translator at a meeting and provision of sensitive information

35. The Charity either upheld, or partially upheld, these complaints because:
• there had been delays in how it worked with banks to open accounts for clients. However, once the new processes were in place, Ms X’s caseworkers had assisted Ms X in opening a bank account without undue delay;
• it did not have information about what would happen when the Everyone In initiative ended and so was unable to update Ms X;
• Ms X was informed she could be evicted if she did not wear a mask. She was medically exempt but had refused provide evidence of this in the past. Her exemption had now been added to her notes, so all staff were aware and the problem had since resolved itself;
• it had arranged for the wrong translator to be present at one meeting; and
• Ms X was correct that there was a requirement for sensitive information to be provided, but this was an important part of casework. However, the Charity had not provided assistance relating to Ms X’s eligibility criteria which is why it had partially upheld her complaint.

No notice given when Ms X had to move rooms and poor mobile reception

36. The Charity explained the move had taken place because Ms X’s room was needed for returning students. The Charity had only been given five days’ notice hence the lack of warning to Ms X. The Charity acknowledged it had initially given Ms X some incorrect moving details, but caseworkers had offered to help her move, if she agreed to do so during the day (Ms X wanted to move during the night). The Charity did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
37. The Charity partially upheld issues around mobile reception because it said reception at the accommodation generally was minimal. However, there was some reception in Ms X’s room, evidenced by the fact they had received a number of calls with her whilst she was in her room. The Charity said all clients were offered free Wi-Fi and the use of PCs to help them seek work.

The ‘move on’ accommodation offer was unfair

38. Ms X complained she was forced to sign a document which meant the Charity could refer her to an agency which sourced private sector accommodation which she did not want and which she felt would make her situation worse. Ms X also complained her caseworker had not provided her with information about how searching for and finding housing worked in the UK which had hindered her chances of finding accommodation herself.
39. The Charity did not uphold Ms X’s complaints. It said:
• the agency was best placed for Ms X’s specific situation because she did not qualify for other types of accommodation. This was because she was unemployed and her entitlement to universal credit was limited to six months;
• shared accommodation was most appropriate because of her age and her entitlement to the shared rate of the local housing allowance. Self-contained accommodation rents were very high, and it was unlikely that when Ms X obtained work, she would be able to afford to pay them.

Outcome of Ms X’s second complaints

40. The Charity said that as a result of Ms X’s complaint it would ensure more regular case management supervision for complex cases, clients would be informed in writing of staffing changes and it would provide information about accommodation options in writing.
41. Ms X was unhappy with the response she received and asked for it to be reconsidered. A more senior Charity staff member reviewed the response and determined it had not answered Ms X's complaints fully in two areas:
• the extent to which Ms X’s caseworker had explained the move on options available to her; and
• whether it took Ms X’s personal circumstances into account as they changed and whether it explained the effect of these changes to her in relation to her move on options.
42. The Charity provided a response to these outstanding issues around a month later. It did not uphold either complaint and made the following points:
• there was evidence in the case notes that move on offers were explained in person and by phone, text and email as well as why other options were not possible. Ms X was offered a Housing Association property but declined the offer. It was explained to her this was a one-off offer arranged by the Council; and;
• case records evidenced several conversations with various Charity staff around Ms X’s options as her circumstances changed. The response detailed when these took place.
43. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

44. In coming to my findings, I have considered the Charity’s complaint responses, Ms X’s case files and the assessments carried out by the Charity.
45. This documentation demonstrates the findings of the Charity to all of Ms X’s complaints were robust and evidence based. Where it found it had acted with fault, it apologised to Ms X. This was appropriate to remedy the injustice she experienced. The Charity also made appropriate service improvements. Further investigation is unlike to achieve anything further.

Back to top

Final decision

46. The Charity, acting on behalf of the Council, has already concluded there was some fault in how it handled Ms X’s case when she moved into accommodation it ran during the COVID-19 ‘Everyone In’ initiative. It has already taken appropriate steps to remedy any injustice this caused Ms X and made service improvements. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman