Summary: Mr X complains he requested support from the Council in 2016 when he was homeless for several months, but it failed to provide this support. He says this period has had a significant impact on him mentally and he wants the Council to apologise to him for its failure. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault because it provided an appropriate level of support to Mr X in the period before and after he became homeless in 2016.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, complains he requested support from the Council in 2016 when he was homeless for several months, but it failed to provide this support. He says this period has had a significant impact on him mentally and he wants the Council to apologise to him for its failure.

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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
• Read Mr X’s complaint and discussed it with him.
• Considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
• Provided both parties with an opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In April 2015, Mr X moved into a Council property on an introductory tenancy after leaving care.
7. At the beginning of February 2016, the Council extended the introductory tenancy period by six months as Mr X had breached his tenancy agreement on several occasions.
8. In mid-March 2016, it started the process to end the tenancy by issuing a notice of possession proceedings. Mr X appealed against this decision and attended a meeting with the Council the following month to present his case. Two days later, it informed him it had decided not to uphold the appeal.
9. At the beginning of May 2016, Mr X complained to the Council after the locks on his property had been changed. He acknowledged he had lost his keys and had broken open the door to gain access to the property. The Council noted the police subsequently became involved and called its Contact Centre. Mr X said the police were advised he had been evicted and should not be allowed to enter the property, which was incorrect. Consequently, he said the police told him to gather his things and leave the property.
10. In mid-June 2016, the Council responded to the complaint and upheld it, accepting it had wrongly advised the police that Mr X had been evicted when this was not the case. It apologised and said the staff member involved had been spoken to. It also advised Mr X how he could escalate his complaint.
11. Toward the end of the month, the courts ordered that Mr X was to surrender possession of the property at the start of July 2016. The Council then sought a warrant for possession when this date passed and Mr X had not left. The warrant stated a bailiff would seize possession of the property in mid-September 2016.
12. At the end of July 2016, Mr X handed the keys to the property back to the Council and ended his tenancy.
13. At the beginning of August 2016, Mr X visited the Council offices to request support. Its notes of the meeting show he had approached a neighbouring local authority requesting accommodation, but the officer he spoke to said the Council could not transfer his case to this other authority just because he had decided he wanted to live somewhere else. The notes also show Mr X claimed the Council had failed to support him. Regarding his current situation, the officer advised him to visit the Salvation Army for help as the Council could not support him any further. Mr X was not content with this response and refused to speak to the officer any further, instead approaching the Council’s Housing Team for help.
14. In the middle of the month, the Council reviewed Mr X’s case. It detailed the events leading up to him becoming homeless and noted it had advised him to approach the Salvation Army for help. It added he would turn up at the Council’s offices every so often and he refused to carry a mobile phone, which meant it was difficult for officers to contact him.
15. At the beginning of September 2016, Mr X met with the Young Person’s Advisor allocated by the Council who had been supporting him since leaving care. She noted the Council had liaised with medical professionals to try and get him the support he needed but he had failed to engage with the process. Similarly, she noted this lack of engagement had been an ongoing issue and stated the Council could not compel him to engage with the support it had offered, it could only encourage him.
16. In the middle of the month, Mr X visited the Council offices again and met with his Young Person’s Advisor. The details of the meeting were recorded by the Council. Mr X acknowledged she had tried to help him in the past and he said he had cut communication with others because of mental health and other issues. However, he said he was now ready to engage with the support being offered as he wanted to change his life.
17. The Advisor noted his benefit payments had stopped because he had not attended his medical appointments, therefore she agreed to arrange a new appointment with his GP to address this issue. She noted this would also enable him to seek treatment for his mental health. In addition, she advised him to contact the YMCA about his housing situation and said she would liaise with this organisation on his behalf. Moreover, after the meeting she noted she would speak to one of her housing colleagues to check whether there was anything else the Council could do.
18. Approximately a week later, Mr X informed his Advisor he was unable to get to a probation appointment as he had no money. She noted she had given him money the day before and questioned what he had done with his. Nevertheless, she gave him a travel card which would enable him to get to his appointment. She also gave him money for food and discussed arrangements for making a GP’s appointment.
19. Following the meeting, the Advisor called one of her colleagues and requested that supported accommodation be arranged for Mr X. Four days later, he moved into this accommodation.

Analysis

20. In the notes of the meeting held at the beginning of August 2016, the Council listed the support it had given to Mr X prior to him becoming homeless. This included the following:
• Helping him to move into his property in April 2015.
• Trying to help him keep his tenancy by booking appointments on his behalf and attending meetings.
• Booking medical appointments and arranging transport to enable him to attend these appointments.
• Giving him food, money and travel cards.
• Arranging bank training and a cooking course, which he attended.
• Supporting him when he was arrested and had to attend court.
21. The records I have seen provide evidence that this level of support was given. I note Mr X states he did not engage with a lot of of this support because of mental health issues. I appreciate this was difficult period for him and understand why he did not engage, but the Council was not at fault because it did try to help him address his issues.
22. He then became homeless at the end of July 2016 and a few days later, the Council advised him to approach the Salvation Army for support. When dealing with his complaint about this matter, the Council acknowledged it could have given more “constructive support” at the time to help him identify somewhere to live. I agree with this assessment but have decided the Council was not at fault. This is because it made numerous attempts to support Mr X before he became homeless and it could do little else at the time, other than refer him to other organisations and services for support. Moreover, the Council did increase the support it gave him in mid-September 2016 when he stated he wanted to turn his life around and vowed to engage with any help being offered.

Back to top

Final decision

23. The Council was not at fault because it provided an appropriate level of support to Mr X in the period before and after he became homeless in 2016.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

24. I did not investigate the part of Mr X’s complaint about the action the Council took to evict him from his home. This is because the Housing Ombudsman Service is responsible for investigating these matters, not the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman