London Borough of Islington (18 015 905)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 19 Jun 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s telephone call to its out of hours service to request emergency accommodation for a homeless client.

The complaint

  1. Mr X is a volunteer with a charity that gives advice and support to single homeless people. Mr X made the complaint in his own right, and not on behalf of the charity’s client, who was the person most affected by the Council’s actions.
  2. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled a call he made to its out of hours service. He called to request interim accommodation for a homeless client. Mr X says the Council failed his client and put him at risk of significant harm. He wants the Council to review and improve the way it handles calls to its out of hours service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

  1. 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

  1. I have spoken to Mr X and considered his complaint. I have seen a blank version of the form completed by the out of hours call handlers when they receive a request for emergency housing.
  2. I have given Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

  1. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
  2. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants (and any household members) if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
  3. The Code of Guidance (paragraph 18.2) says:

“A need for accommodation, or assistance in obtaining accommodation, can arise at any time. Housing authorities will therefore need to provide access to advice and assistance at all times during normal office hours, and have arrangements in place for 24 hour emergency cover, e.g. by enabling telephone access to an appropriate duty officer.”

What happened

The Council’s out of hours service

  1. Customer agents handle telephone calls to the Council’s out of hours service. When someone calls to request emergency housing because they are homeless, the agent completes a form designed by managers in the housing service. The form asks a series of questions to capture relevant information about the caller’s circumstances including the last address, the reason for homelessness, eligibility for assistance and priority need. The same form is used by staff who do the initial screening interview with homeless people during office hours.
  2. The customer agent forwards the completed form to the duty housing manager. The duty manager assesses the information to decide whether there is reason to believe the person may be eligible for assistance, homeless, and in priority need. If the manager considers these criteria are met, they authorise a placement in emergency accommodation. If not, the customer agent informs the caller of the manager’s decision.
  3. The caller cannot speak directly to the out of hours duty housing manager. If the manager needs more information, the customer agent can contact the caller to obtain it. The form includes a record of the manager’s decision.

Mr X’s call to the service

  1. Mr X called the Council’s out of hours service one weekend to request interim accommodation for his client, a single man who was homeless. Mr X had met the client for the first time that day. Mr X says his client had experienced domestic violence and been physically assaulted. He also had mental health issues. The call was not recorded.
  2. The customer agent completed the emergency housing form and forwarded it to the duty housing manager. After reviewing the information on the form, the housing manager decided he did not have reason to believe Mr X’s client was vulnerable and in priority need. The customer agent then called Mr X to inform him of the manager’s decision.
  3. Mr X asked to speak to the duty housing manager. The customer agent refused to transfer his call. Mr X repeated his request and stayed on the line. The Council says the customer agent ended the call because Mr X was preventing other emergency callers getting through. The customer agent told Mr X his client could attend the Council offices when they reopened the following day to get further housing advice and an assessment. Mr X says he had no further contact with his client after that day. As far as he knows, his client did not attend the Council’s offices.
  4. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint about its handling of his call and the refusal to allow him to speak directly to the duty housing manager. It did not uphold the complaint because it found no evidence of fault or service failure. It confirmed that its protocol is for callers to speak to a customer agent who completes the emergency housing referral form and passes it on to the duty manager for a decision. There is no direct contact between callers and the duty manager. It was satisfied the customer agent followed the correct procedure for handling Mr X’s call.

Analysis

  1. Mr X did not make this complaint on behalf of his client. We therefore do not have his client’s consent to access his personal information and records. For this reason, I did not examine the completed form and the records of the duty manager’s decision to refuse interim accommodation. The lack of consent also prevents me from considering the impact of the Council’s decision on Mr X’s client.
  2. This means we are limited to considering Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s arrangements for handling calls to the out of hours service are not adequate. I have decided there was no fault by the Council. I have had regard to the Code of Guidance which says councils must make arrangements to provide 24 hour cover to enable them to deal with applications made outside normal office hours. The Code includes one example of how councils may deliver this service but it is not prescriptive. Councils may choose to operate a call handling and screening service where call handlers pass relevant information to a duty housing manager who then decides whether the criteria to provide interim accommodation are met.
  3. I understand Mr X would rather have spoken directly to the duty housing manager so he could advocate more effectively on behalf of his client and give information about his client’s situation. But it was not fault for the call handler to refuse his request to transfer the call. There is nothing in the law or statutory guidance to say a homeless person (or an advocate) must have direct telephone access to a duty housing officer outside normal office hours. Furthermore, the Council did not breach its own procedure because it does not provide for callers to have direct telephone contact with the duty manager in these circumstances.
  4. As I have not found fault, I do not recommend the Council reviews its arrangements for handling calls to the out of hours service.

Final decision

  1. I have completed the investigation and found no fault in the way the Council handled Mr X’s call to its out of hours service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings