Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness applications. The Ombudsman has found the Council at fault. It took too long to deal with his applications, did not have proper regard to his mental health and twice failed to provide emergency accommodation. Because of this he was denied his right to a review of the Council’s homelessness decision and became “street homeless” for a number of months. The Council has agreed with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to apologise to Mr X and his mother, make a payment to Mr X, make a time and trouble payment to his mother and carry out a review of its practices. It has also agreed to take steps to take a fresh homelessness application from Mr X. It will also review its practices to ensure duties owed to applicants with mental health issues are met.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness applications.
2. In particular, he says the Council:
1. Avoided taking a homelessness application in 2016.
2. Took too long to make homelessness decisions in 2017 and 2018.
3. Failed to provide him with interim accommodation in 2017. This led to Mr X being “street homeless” for a number of months and staying with his parents against their express wishes.
4. Failed to take into account his mental health problems when making decisions about his homelessness.
3. Mr X is represented by his mother, Mrs Y in making this complaint.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. The restriction outlined in paragraph eight applies to this complaint because Mr X complains about events that took place over a year ago, as far back as 2016. The Ombudsman has discretion and can disapply this rule if there are good reasons. I have decided to exercise some discretion to investigate this complaint back to March 2017 for the following reason.
5. Mr X did not give consent for Mrs Y to represent him in his complaint until May 2018. He could have provided it earlier but chose not to. Apart from looking at his March 2017 request for housing assistance (which I consider directly relevant to later events), I do not consider I have good reason to investigate events other than those he became aware of 12 months prior to that consent being provided.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. 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

10. I discussed the complaint with Mrs Y and considered the written information she provided. I have not been able to discuss the complaint directly with Mr X which has limited the scope of my investigation, particularly in relation to personal injustice to Mr X. I made written enquiries of the Council. I took account of all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint which was sent to both parties for comment. Comments have been taken into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Homelessness duties

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, a number of duties arise, including:

• to make enquiries;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries;
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.

13. There are no statutory time limits for completing enquiries, however the Homelessness Code of Guidance, issued by the Government in 2006, recommends councils aim to complete their enquiries within 33 working days.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

14. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Decision letters

15. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)

Mental Health Act – section 117 after care

16. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 imposes a duty on health and social services to provide free aftercare services to patients who have been detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act.

Homelessness Code of Guidance (10.16 – 10.17) – Mental illness

17. “Housing authorities should have regard to any advice from medical professionals, social services and current providers of care and support…the final decision on the question of vulnerability will rest with the housing authority. People discharged from psychiatric hospitals and local authority hostels for people with mental health problems are likely to be vulnerable.”

The facts

Background events

18. Mr X had been living at Accommodation B since September 2015. This was a flat in a supported living unit, managed by a national mental health organisation. Mr X had previously been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and was subject to section 117 aftercare and the Care Programme Approach (CPA). This is a specifically tailored care program for people with mental health problems.
19. In October 2016, Mr X was served with a notice to quit Accommodation B. This was due to his anti-social behaviour. Mr X went to stay with his parents.

Events that are the subject of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The first application – March 2017

20. On 2 March 2017, Mr X’s father contacted the Council to say his son would be homeless the next day as he no longer had his permission to stay. The Council was aware this was going to happen because Mr X had been given notice to quit the previous month and had told the Council. He asked the Council to provide Mr X with emergency accommodation. The next day, Mr X attended the Council’s housing office to complete a homelessness application. The Council agreed to find temporary, emergency accommodation.
21. The Council was unable to source any accommodation because of Mr X’s poor record as a tenant. Mrs Y agreed Mr X could remain at home just over the weekend.
22. The Council was unable to find anywhere willing to accommodate Mr X. It advised Mrs Y he needed somewhere that could support his mental health needs. She was advised to contact the Council’s social services department who may be better placed to help than its housing department.
23. In May 2017, the Council arranged what it called a “minded to” meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the Council’s decision was about Mr X’s homelessness application. Mrs Y says she was shown a copy of the draft decision letter. According to Mrs Y, this letter rejected his homelessness application because Mr X had made himself intentionally homeless because of what happened at Accommodation B.
24. Mrs Y asked the Council to reconsider its position. She pointed out some errors in the Council’s rationale and provided evidence that Mr X was mentally unwell. This included a letter from his consultant psychiatrist that gave a diagnosis of “Psychosis with thought disorder” and his CPA care plan.
25. In June 2017, the Council then held a further “minded to” meeting and produced an amended draft decision letter which said the Council had decided Mr X was not homeless because he had somewhere to live at this parents’ house. Because he was not deemed “homeless”, the Council did not owe any duty to him under the Housing Act 1996, nor make any finding about whether he was intentionally homeless.
26. Mr X told the Council he accepted this decision. A formal s184 decision letter was not issued.
27. Later that week, the Council sourced accommodation for Mr X at a hostel for homeless people. As with Accommodation B, support was part of the accommodation package.
28. In July 2017, Mr X formally withdrew his homelessness application.

The second application – November 2017

29. In November 2017, Mr X was evicted from the hostel because of his behaviour. Mr X went to live “rough” at a quarry with his girlfriend.
30. Mrs Y asked the Council to help Mr X. She told the Council Mr X was mentally unwell and lacked insight into his circumstances. She said he did not have the mental capacity to make a homelessness application. She made her first formal complaint to the Council.
31. The Council decided to accept a homelessness application from Mr X, made on his behalf by his mother. The Council made enquiries about Mr X’s mental health. The Council was told Mr X’s mental health difficulties were primarily due to drug misuse and said there were no grounds to provide a support to him.
32. In December 2017, the police, having being alerted to Mr X living at the quarry, went to see him. While Mr X was advised of the risks of living where he was, the police did not take any action as Mr X was making a choice to live away from society.
33. In January 2018, Mental Health Services also went to see Mr X at the quarry. As a result of this visit Mr X was discharged from s117 aftercare.
34. In March 2018, Mrs Y says she took Mr X home because of the cold weather. He later went to live elsewhere and slept rough according to Mrs Y.
35. In April 2018, the Council made its decision about Mr X’s homelessness application. It determined no duty was owed because he was intentionally homeless. This was due to his previous conduct in other accommodation.

The third application – November 2018

36. In November 2018, Mrs Y submitted a further homelessness application on behalf of Mr X. This was rejected by the Council as Mr X’s circumstances had not changed since its previous decision earlier that year.
37. Mrs Y complained to the Council again. The Council did not uphold her complaint, so she brought the matter to the Ombudsman on behalf of Mr X.

The complaint

38. Mrs Y complained about the following specific matters:

• The Council took too long to make a decision about Mr X’s homelessness.
• The Council failed to provide interim accommodation for 105 days between March and June 2017.
• The Council placed him in unsuitable hostel accommodation that failed to provide any support for his mental health problems.
• The Council failed to take into account Mr X’s ongoing mental health problems and ignored its duty to him under the Mental Health Act 1983, section 117 (after care services).
• The Council failed to properly respond to her complaint.

The Council’s response

39. The Council has accepted some fault in the way it has dealt with this matter because it took too long to deal with Mr X’s homelessness application between March and June 2017. This in turn led to Mr X not being given the right to ask for a review of the decision, although the Council says it is unlikely Mr X would have exercised this right.
40. But overall the Council said it provided a good service to Mr X, despite it being a difficult case for officers to deal with due to the following factors.

• Mr X’s non engagement with housing officers and mental health services.
• Lack of consistency about whether Mr X wanted his mother to be involved or not.
• Parallel safeguarding obligations to Mr X’s girlfriend.
• Mr X’s previous behaviour severely limited available housing options.

Analysis

Consent

41. An area of contention between the Council and Mrs Y has been the issue of consent. What I cannot ignore is that Mr X, other than signing a form in May 2018 agreeing for his mother to bring a complaint on his behalf, has not been either able or willing to participate in this investigation. There are many references within the case records to Mr X making, what would appear to be, informed choices about his housing and lifestyle in general.
42. It is clearly not within the scope of this investigation to make a finding on Mr X’s diagnosis or mental capacity. Mrs Y has already made a complaint about lack of support to Mr X in respect of his mental health. My investigation has focused on the actions of the Council’s housing department. My role is to determine whether the Council properly took into account Mr X’s circumstances and medical evidence in dealing with his requests for support with housing.
43. This context will be taken into account in reaching my decision about this complaint.

The first application – March 2017

44. Once the Council accepted a homelessness application, it should have taken no more than 33 days to carry out its enquiries and issue a formal decision letter. Mr X made his application on 3 March 2017. The Council did not issue a formal decision. Instead, the Council held two “minded to” meetings. I did not criticise this practice as the Code endorses Council’s explaining their decisions to ensure applicants understand the consequences. I accept this was the reason these meetings were held because Mr X could be adversely affected by a decision about intentional homelessness being made about him. This is because he wanted to join the housing register and it could affect his priority for social housing.
45. But both meetings took place well outside the 33-day timeframe recommended by the Code (May and June 2017). During this time Mr X continued to reside with his parents which Mrs Y said they only did because the Council failed to provide emergency accommodation.
46. The first “minded to” meeting led to the Council reconsidering the basis for its refusal. It is not clear from the records why it changed its mind. Instead it decided a duty was not owed because he was not homeless. Mr X accepted this decision but is recorded at the meeting held on 9 June 2017 that he would “await the letter”.
47. But the Council did not follow this up with a formal decision letter as required by the Act. This is fault. Instead it arranged accommodation at a hostel. It is unclear under what duty the Council did so. The records I have seen do not tell me. Mr X then withdrew his homelessness application on 4 July 2017. I assume this was because he had somewhere to live.
48. Failure to provide Mr X with a s184 letter denied him his right of appeal. While I cannot anticipate whether any review would have been made by Mr X, and if it had, whether it would have been successful, but he was denied this right. This is fault.

Failure to provide emergency accommodation from March – June 2017

49. While the records show the Council made some attempts to find somewhere for Mr X to live temporarily in March 2017, once two landlords said they were unable to accommodate him and he still had a roof over his head at his parents’ house, the search ended.
50. I am satisfied by the fact the Council tried to find him accommodation that it accepted a duty to provide emergency accommodation. The Ombudsman would expect to see this in writing if it had changed its mind.
51. But in the response to enquiries by the Ombudsman, the Council said that after “basic investigations” it was satisfied Mr X did not suffer from “the level of mental health problems that Mrs Y had implied”. Because of this, it was satisfied he was not in priority need nor vulnerable and so the duty to provide emergency accommodation did not arise. I do not accept this explanation.
52. In terms of “basic investigations”, the records show the housing officer wrote to Mr X’s GP but there is no record of a reply. Mrs Y made her own enquiries of the GP surgery and she was told no enquiry had been made. On balance, I do not dispute her version of events. There is a record from a housing officer from 5 April 2017 that said, “the mental health team had been a little bit of a nightmare in contacting”. There is no evidence that these “basic investigations” had provided sufficient evidence to allow the Council to decide he was neither vulnerable or in priority need.
53. In support of her case that Mr X was mentally ill, Mrs Y told the Council that:

• Mr X was supported in his move to Accommodation B by Mental Health Services following his detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act. This was an establishment run by Rethink the national mental health charity.
• Mr X had previosuly been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 and was entitled to receive aftercare support under section 117 of the Mental Health Act.
• Mr X was still under the care of the Early Intervention Team undergoing an extended assessment for psychosis.
• Mr X was on enhanced CPA and provided a letter from his Consultant Psychiatrist that Mr X probably had “psychosis with thought disorder” and the “psychosis is probably either due to drug induced psychosis or schizophrenia plus drug induced psychosis”.

54. With this evidence available, it is difficult to see how the officer could reach the conclusion that Mr X was not in priority need/vulnerable and so did not require interim accommodation. The reality was the Council could not find anywhere to house him and his parents had not physically removed his from the premises so they did not pursue this any further.
55. It is my view that a duty was still owed to Mr X because the Council has reason to believe Mr X was homeless. His licence to occupy his parents’ home had been revoked and there was no evidence that Mr X was not in priority need on the basis of the evidence set out in paragraph 53. Quite the contrary, because Mr X was still subject to both section 117 aftercare services and the CPA programme. If the Council had decided he was not entitled to emergency accommodation it should have demonstrated a good reason and told Mr X.
56. This duty did not end until it had formally communicated its homelessness decision. Being unable to find accommodation does not end the duty.
57. Taking all of this into consideration, I find the Council was at fault for not providing emergency accommodation under s188 once it had accepted this duty.

Unsuitable accommodation

58. Mr X stayed at the homelessness hostel from June to November 2017. It is fair to say it ended for similar reasons as led to his eviction from Accommodation B. Mrs Y says this was inevitable because the hostel did not provide him with adequate support for his mental health.
59. In summary, the records I have seen show the following relevant points:

• support was available to Mr X but he chose not to accept this.
• a meeting was held one month into the placement when Mr X was allowing his girlfriend to stay which was in breach of the rules. Special arrangements were made to facilitate this but Mr X continued to flout these arrangements.
• the landlord claimed Mr X was responsible for many serious breaches of his licence to occupy. He was warned on numerous occasions what would happen is this continued.
• the landlord said Mr X required more support than they were able to offer.

60. Just because the placement broke down does not necessarily mean the Council was at fault for placing him there in the first place. Support was available but he did not use it. While the landlord held the view that Mr X needed more support, this did not, in itself, oblige the Council to do so.
61. My conclusion is that Mr X had support but chose not to make use of it. While I understand Mrs Y has a firmly held belief about Mr X’s lack of capacity in this area, but I do not have the evidence to allow me to make a finding about this. Infact the later reports on his mental health state Mr X does have capacity.
62. On the evidence available, I cannot say whether the support was adequate or not. It is also clear there were sufficient grounds for his tenancy to be ended. His behaviour was certainly in breach of the rules. I cannot say with any certainty there was a definitive link between any lack of support and Mr X’s conduct.
63. This, together with my inability to discuss this area of complaint with Mr X, means I am unable to reach a conclusion about the suitability of this accommodation.

The second homelessness application – November 2017

64. Mr X applied again in November 2017 but due to Mr X’s aggression during the meeting the interview was terminated.
65. The Council has a duty of care towards housing officers and a manger took the decision to do this. The Council issued him with a warning letter but said he would continue to be supported if Mr X arranged a meeting in advance.
66. Nevertheless, the housing manager decided to accept this homelessness application and make enquiries, particularly with mental health services. This was the correct approach.
67. But by taking the homelessness application, the Council should have then considered its duties under s188 to provide emergency accommodation, particularly due to the uncertainty about his mental health. There is no evidence it did so. This is fault.
68. The records show the Council did conduct enquiries, particularly about Mr X’s mental health. It is likely this was in part prompted by Mrs X engaging a solicitor who highlighted the Council’s responsibilities under section 117. He was offered an assessment of his mental health and refused. He was discharged from s117 soon afterwards. He was deemed to have capacity and was chose not to engage with services and to make certain lifestyle choices.
69. The records show a homelessness decision letter was drafted in December 2017, but further information was needed before it was finalised. The decision letter was issued in April 2018. The Council has relied upon Mr X’s failure to engage with them that it was waiting for information from mental health services to explain this delay.
70. The case records partially support what the Council said about this. Officers visited Mr X in February 2018 following a report of someone sleeping rough at the quarry. But this was not in connection with progressing his homelessness application. Mr X had been discharged from his s117 aftercare service in January 2018. Nothing appears to have happened to progress matters or obtain an update on his mental health until April 2018 despite the discharge having taken place in January. This delay, without evidence of any attempts to move the matter forward for four months, is fault.
71. There was also fault by not providing Mr X with interim accommodation pending further enquiries. Mr X was clearly homeless and eligible. His priority need status remained unclear and he remained subject to s117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
72. The Council was entitled to make the decision it did about Mr X being intentionally homeless. I appreciate Mrs Y is of the opinion this is not correct because Mr X’s actions were a direct result of his mental health. But the Council’s decision letter shows consideration was given to the available evidence about his diagnosis and capacity and the Council made a decision based on this. If Mr X wanted to contest this, he could have used his appeal right but chose not to. There is no fault here.

The third homelessness application – November 2018

73. This was not accepted by the Council because it said Mr X’s circumstances had not changed since its decision in April that year. I am satisfied this decision was made in line with the Code of Guidance in respect of repeat applications which requires a change in circumstances. The letter invited Mrs Y to submit further evidence in support of her case that things had changed. This was the correct approach.

Failure to have proper regard for Mr X’s mental health when dealing with his homelessness applications

74. At the heart of this complaint lies a fundamental difference of opinion between the Council (and in all probability Mr X) and Mrs Y about Mr X’s mental health. Mrs X has presented both the Council and the Ombudsman with evidence to support her assertion that Mr X’s conduct is a direct result of a diagnosed mental health condition.
75. She also says he lacks capacity to make decisions about his own well-being and any non-engagement by his is a direct result of his mental illness. She says this should have had more bearing on the Council’s actions and decisions.
76. The Council says the evidence does not support this conclusion. In dealing with his second homelessness application it sought advice from mental health professionals who had assessed Mr X. Based on that advice, its position is that Mr X’s mental health issues stem primarily from substance misuse. It says there is no evidence to support Mrs Y’s view that her son lacks capacity and he is therefore responsible for the consequences of his behaviours and non-engagement.
77. In accordance with the Code, this is the correct approach. The Council was entitled to reach this decision based on professional opinion it had sought.
78. But it did not act correctly during the first application or when it did not provide interim accommodation in November 2017. Mr X was still subject to s 117 aftercare, CPA and has been accommodated in supported accommodation specifically as a result of his diagnosed psychosis. I am not satisfied the Council paid sufficient regard to the information provided by Mrs Y about Mr X’s mental health and did not make proper enquiries of the relevant professionals for the reason explained at paragraph 52 above). Had it done so I would have expected to have seen some record of this in the section 184 decision letter, or at the very least the draft decision letters that were shown to Mrs Y during the two “minded to” meetings. These draft letters were not kept on his file.
79. For this reason, I find the Council was at fault during the first application and the start of the second.

Complaint response

80. Mrs Y first complained in November 2017, but the Council did not issue a formal response due to the ongoing consent issue. Mr X then gave permission for his personal information to be shared with her and she complained again in June 2018. The Council replied in September 2018. Dissatisfied with the Council’s reply she sought further information and on receipt of her further comments the Council issued its final response in October 2018 and so brought he matter to the attention of the Ombudsman.
81. It is clear the issue of Mr X’s consent for his mother to deal with his housing situation and any resulting complaints was inconsistent. This affected the Council’s ability to properly investigate and respond to her complaints. For this reason, I do not criticise the Council for its complaint handling

Injustice

82. I must consider what significant injustice, if any, was suffered by Mr X. I have been unable to discuss this with him personally, so I have had to make certain assumptions about this based on the facts before me.
83. Mr X was denied emergency accommodation on two occasions. First he had no choice but to stay with his parents against their wishes. I have been told the household environment was difficult for everyone involved. The latter occasion led directly to his becoming street homeless for a number of months. I accept Mr X may have chosen this path, but he should have been given the choice of a suitable alternative. This is injustice.
84. He was also denied an appeal right because the Council did not issue a homelessness decision letter in respect of his first application. I accept, in part, the Council’s argument that it was highly unlikely he would have pursued this. But this is not definite. I am satisfied he suffered an injustice here by being denied this opportunity.
85. I also consider Mrs Y has suffered an injustice. She has clearly spent considerable time and effort providing the Council with information about Mr X’s mental health which the Council failed to properly take into consideration during the first and second applications. She has also had to help support Mr X while living with her when the Council failed to find him somewhere to live and when he was living at the quarry. This caused Mrs Y great deal of distress and is injustice.

Agreed action

86. To acknowledge the impact of the faults identified in this report on both Mr X and Mrs Y, the Ombudsman recommended the Council should take the following action:
1. Apologise in writing to Mr X.
2. Pay Mr X £800. This is £100 for every month he was denied the benefit of interim accommodation and takes into consideration the other fault I have identified. In deciding on this amount I have had regard to the Ombudsman Guidance on Remedies. It is at the lower end of the possible award because I have been unable to discuss the injustice with Mr X personally.
3. Contact Mr X to offer him assistance with finding accommodation and if he requests it, give consideration to taking a fresh homelessness application, properly taking into account his history of mental health problems and any new circumstances.
4. Apologise in writing to Mrs Y.
5. Pay Mrs Y £500. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the time and trouble she has spent bringing these matters to the attention for the Council and also to recognise the additional support she offered her son due to the Council’s fault.
6. Review its policies and procedures about how it processes homelessness applications from people with mental health problems to ensure compliance with the Homelessness Code of Practice. It should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of what it has done.
87. The Council has agreed with the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations.
88. These actions should take place within one month from the date of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

89. The Ombudsman has identified several faults in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness applications. The Ombudsman recommended a suitable remedy that the Council has agreed to.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman