Summary: Mr K complains about the temporary housing services the Council referred him to. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr K, complains that:
• The Council advised him to apply for a place in a hostel that it should have known, given what it knew about his needs and disabilities, was not suitable for him.
• As an indirect result of this, a housing association refused a nomination for him to one of its properties.
• He had to return at short notice to sign a consent form.

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. The information I have seen includes the documents Mr K supplied with his complaint and the Council’s responses to the Ombudsman’s enquires.
5. I sent my draft decision to Mr K and the Council and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

What happened

7. Mr K was first made homeless in December 2017. He says the Council advised him to contact a hostel and look for private rented accommodation.
8. The hostel accepted Mr K as a tenant in January 2018. He says he soon found out it was not suited to his needs, because of his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In April, the hostel asked Mr K to leave. It says he breached his license agreement by assaulting another resident.
9. In September Mr K went back to the Council. An officer completed a personal housing plan. In November the Council referred him to a housing service for young people (Service 1).
10. In November a housing association refused Mr K’s nomination to it because of the reasons the hostel had asked him to leave.
11. At the end of November Service 1 accepted a referral for Mr K to one of its supported housing placements. The placement was for six months.
12. Towards the end of December 2018, Service 1 issued Mr K with a warning for arguing in the accommodation with his girlfriend. In January 2019 Service 1 issued Mr K with a written warning and a guest ban, after it found beer bottles in a bin in his room. At the beginning of March Service 1 evicted Mr K, due to alleged theft.
13. The Council has records that Mr K was sleeping rough after this. It has notes of actions it took to try to find him with accommodation. It also sent him forms to sign. There were some problems after this in arranging meetings with Mr K. The Council established (after some time) that Mr K had moved to his mother’s home in the south-west. Mr K’s partner confirmed this to the Council in August.
14. At the beginning of September, Mr K did not turn up for a viewing or answer his telephone. The Council sent him a letter, ending its involvement, to a new email address his girlfriend had given the Council (he had been using his girlfriend’s address before, but she advised their relationship had ended).

The complaint

15. Mr K first contacted the Ombudsman in March 2019, after advice from a Citizens’ Advice Bureau. We asked him to first complain to the Council.
16. In April 2019 the Council responded to Mr K’s complaint. It said:
• The hostel was supported accommodation, so its view was it was suitable.
• He had not complied with its officer’s request for information or to attend meetings. It suggested he contacted her.
• It had offered him a month’s rent and deposit for private renting. That offer was still available.
17. Mr K came back to the Ombudsman in May. We passed his complaint for investigation at the end of June. I tried to speak to Mr K in August, and into September, but did not receive a response. But I had enough information to investigate the complaint, so I asked the Council for some information.
18. The Council responded in October. From those documents I saw that Mr K was no longer using the email or telephone number he had given us. I could also see from the Council’s file that its belief was he was no longer in the Borough and had moved to the south-west. I rang Mr K’s new telephone number. I also emailed him at his new email address asking him to get in contact. I received no reply.

Analysis

19. From the information I have see my view is the accommodation the Council referred Mr K to was suitable and I see no evidence of fault.
20. I am unclear what has happened with the later events. But I have not been able to investigate these fully, as Mr K has not contacted me. In any case, the information that he has left the Borough shows that there is, on balance, unlikely to be enough injustice in this period to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

21. My decision is there was no fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman