Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s actions which led to her brother being sent to a hostel. She complains the Council should have been aware of her brother’s vulnerabilities and that because of these vulnerabilities, he should not have been sent to the hostel. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s actions which led to her brother being sent to a hostel. She complains the Council should have been aware of her brother’s vulnerabilities and that because of these vulnerabilities, he should not have been sent to the hostel.

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. 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

4. I spoke with Miss X and considered the information she provided.
5. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
6. I sent a draft decision to Miss X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. S188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 imposes an interim duty on housing authorities to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant pending their decision as to what duty, if any, is owed. This interim duty to accommodate applies when the council has reason to believe the applicant may be:
1. homeless,
2. be eligible for assistance, and
3. have a priority need.
8. The guidance states priority need includes a person who is vulnerable as a result of mental illness or other special reason. The guidance highlights that it is a matter of judgment whether the applicant’s circumstances make them vulnerable.
9. The threshold for the duty is low as the local authority only has to have a reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
10. The guidance does not set out any specific action or process for local authorities to follow where an applicant has been identified as having vulnerabilities, such as alcohol and substance misuse.

Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP)

11. The Council activates this protocol during certain periods of the year, normally for around four months in the winter. One of the main aims of the protocol is to take rough sleepers off the streets during severe weather.
12. There is no national policy or guidance on how SWEP should operate. This means it is down to each local authority to design and implement their own process.
13. At the time Miss X’s brother was assessed, the Council had no written SWEP policy. There is nothing in legislation which states the Council must have a written policy for SWEP.
14. The Council confirmed the initial assessment would have been very basic and incorporated the following:

• Is the applicant homeless.
• Is he a single person with no priority need.
• Is the SWEP active.
• Does he have a local connection to the borough.

What happened

15. In January 2018, Miss X’s brother, Mr B, presented himself to the Council as homeless. Mr B had issues with alcohol and substance misuse.
16. The Council assessed him under the SWEP because it was active at the time he approached the Council. The Council said it completed an initial assessment but that this assessment was not written or recorded anywhere.
17. The Council said the housing service was not aware of Mr B’s vulnerabilities because he had not said anything when he approached the Council. The adult social care service said Mr B was not known to them until after his death.
18. Mr B was known to children social services as the service was involved with his ex-partner and his child.
19. The Council sent Mr B to a bed and breakfast accommodation. The Council said it had arranged to complete a full housing assessment with him for the next week.
20. Mr B had an accident while at the bed and breakfast accommodation and died shortly after.

Social care records

21. The Council provided a copy of its social care records of Mr B. The Council explained Mr B was put on its system by children social services because he was an associated person.
22. The first entry on his record showed Mr B contacted the Council by telephone in 2017. The notes recorded Mr B told the council officer he had been homeless for more than three weeks. The council officer advised Mr B to presented himself at the housing service in the morning. The case was closed. The record showed Mr B did not disclose he suffered from alcohol and substance misuse.
23. The next entry in Mr B’s record was dated January 2018, before Mr B presented himself as homeless. It was copied over from the children social service’s record. The note detailed that Mr B had relapsed (alcohol and drugs) and was street homeless. The Council said the note was copied over manually, but it did not know why the note had been copied over.
24. The Council said this record would only have been visible to children social services and was independent of any adult social care service records relating to Mr B.
25. The next entry in Mr B’s record was added after his death. It stated Mr B did not ask for access to any other services but that it had been identified at his initial assessment that he may need support for alcohol/drug misuse and mental health problems. It said these would have been investigated further at the full housing assessment that had been arranged.

Analysis

26. It has been difficult to work out exactly what the Council knew of Mr B from the records it provided. The Council had no written protocol in place at the time and it also did not complete a written record of the initial assessment it completed with Mr B. This is not helpful.
27. The Council says it did not know of Mr B’s vulnerabilities because he did not mention them. However, on balance, I am of the view the Council did know of Mr B’s vulnerabilities. This is because of the record that noted it had been identified at Mr B’s initial assessment that he may need support for alcohol/drug misuse and mental health problems.
28. It is also clear from the evidence that children social services were aware of Mr B’s vulnerabilities. However, it appears the housing department was unable to access this record because it had been entered in by an officer from children social services. This is unfortunate.
29. As the Council had no written policy for the SWEP, I considered what the homelessness code of guidance says about the interim duty to accommodate. This is because I am of the view Mr B, on balance, met the threshold for this duty.
30. The guidance does not set out any specific process or action for councils to take when they have identified individuals with vulnerabilities. It was therefore open to the Council to decide where to send Mr B.
31. I am of the view it was not unreasonable for the Council to have sent Mr B to bed and breakfast accommodation. This is because the focus of the SWEP was to take rough sleepers off the streets during severe weather. Mr B presented himself as homeless while this protocol was in place and so it is understandable the priority of the Council was to ensure Mr B was kept off the streets.
32. Further, just because someone has alcohol or drug misuse does not automatically mean they cannot stay in accommodation alone; there is no guidance or policy which states this should not be done.
33. Therefore, although I find the Council was aware of Mr B’s vulnerabilities, I do not find fault with its decision to put him in bed and breakfast accommodation. This is because there is no other process it should have followed.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I find no fault with the Council’s decision to accommodate Mr B in a bed and breakfast. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman