Liverpool City Council (19 002 147)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 13 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council has dealt with her homeless application and failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation. Miss X also complains that the Council failed to protect her personal belongings. The Ombudsman finds that the Council delayed making a decision on her homelessness application and failed to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed a remedy to reflect the level of distress caused to Miss X.

The complaint

  1. Miss X complains about the way the council has dealt with her homelessness application. She said the Council:
  • delayed in accepting it owed her a full housing duty;
  • placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation and
  • failed to protect her belongings.
  1. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her an injustice. She was left in unsuitable temporary accommodation which caused her great distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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 considered the complaint and documents provided by Miss X and spoke to her. I made enquiries of the Council and asked it to comment on the complaint and provide information.
  2. I sent Miss X and the Council a copy of my draft decision and invited their comments. I considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

  1. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local authorities set out the councils’ power and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 was amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 with effect from April 2018. This changed the law on homelessness and introduced new duties on councils.
  2. Miss X asked the council for housing help on 3 May 2018. So, the changes introduced by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 apply.
  3. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018, he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days (Housing act 1996, section 175(4)).
  4. The Homelessness Reduction act says if a local authority is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and threatened with homelessness, it must make an assessment of the applicant’s case.
  5. The local authority’s assessment of the applicant’s case must include the following:
  • Details of the circumstances that caused the applicant to become homeless or threatened with homelessness.
  • The housing needs of the applicant
  • Whether any support is needed for the applicant to retain suitable accommodation.
  1. After carrying out an assessment, the Council must prepare a personal housing plan with the applicant to prevent or relieve their homelessness, depending on circumstances. The Council should try to agree with the applicant what steps he must take and what steps will be taken by the Council.
  2. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for the applicant’s occupation. This is called the Prevention duty.
  3. Where the Council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. This is called the Relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1196, section 189B)
  4. The Relief duty will come to an end in any of the following circumstances:
    • The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months.
    • 56 days have passed since the authority became subject to this duty, whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation.
    • The applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months.
    • The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section.
    • The applicant is no longer eligible.
    • The applicant has withdrawn the application.
  5. The duty can also be brought to an end where the applicant is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
  6. Any decision that the duty has come to an end must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.
  7. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the Relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
  8. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
  9. The Council has a responsibility to protect an applicant’s belongings, when it had at least an interim duty to accommodate an applicant, or where an eligible applicant in priority need is threatened with homelessness.
  10. The Council should take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of a person’s property, or mitigate damage, where it has reason to believe there is danger of loss or damage because the applicant is unable to protect their property.
  11. The Council may make reasonable charges in respect of the action it takes under the provision for storage and removal costs.

Background information

  1. Miss X was living in sheltered accommodation and was being evicted due to allegations of anti-social behaviour. The issues were subject to a court case and on 14 May 2018 the High Court denied Miss X’s application for an appeal.
  2. Miss X told the Council she was being evicted from her accommodation. The Council took a homelessness application arranged interim accommodation for Miss X at a hostel. It arranged for the storage of her belongings.

What happened in this case

  1. Below is a brief chronology of key events. It is not intended to show everything that happened.
  2. On 3 May 2018 Miss X told the Council she was being evicted from her accommodation. A week later, Miss X met with the Council and said she had been diagnosed with arthritis, asbestosis and claustrophobia. On the same day the officer made enquiries with the adult social care team.
  3. On 14 May, the adult social care team told Miss X’s case worker that she would be evicted on 18 May. The team confirmed that Miss X had been offered an assessment, but no response had been received.
  4. On 15 May 2018 the sheltered accommodation provider told the case worker that Miss X was being evicted based on allegations of anti-social behaviour “in the form of serial and vexatious complaints/allegations against… [the provider], members of staff and other residents. It said the matter had been subject of a court case and the High Court had denied Miss X’s request for an appeal.
  5. On 16 May Miss X declined an assessment by the adult social care team. The next day the case worker contacted Miss X and again suggested an adult social care assessment. Miss X refused. The case worker told Miss X that without an assessment he would make a referral for hostel accommodation. Miss X agreed.
  6. On 17 May the Council placed Miss X in temporary accommodation in a hostel. On 31 May Miss X told the Council that living at the hostel was “extremely difficult and stressful”. She said that a police officer had advised that she could only live in sheltered accommodation due to “requiring a measure of protection from her family”. Miss X provided the case worker with an email of the police officer.
  7. On 14 June the case worker contacted Miss X and provided her with an update. He said he had contacted her GP and the police. The police provided no information around an alleged risk from her family. The GP said it could not comment on a diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder as this was made by a previous GP. The case worker told Miss X that he could not establish any mitigating circumstances that led to her eviction from sheltered accommodation. Miss X asked the case worker to contact the Council’s complaints team for further information. she also provided details of two Councillors who had been involved in her case.
  8. On the same day Miss X spoke to a senior housing officer. The Council’s records state that Miss X “mentioned the problems with the hostel” and said it felt like a brothel. Miss X confirmed that she had no mental health problems. The officer explained that if the Council decided that Miss X was intentionally homeless then it would have no duty to assist her and the case would be passed to social services. Miss X declined any support from social services and said she would start to look for accommodation herself.
  9. On 9 July Miss X contacted the Council three times by email requesting a call back. Miss X was advised that her case worker would contact her on return from annual leave. On the same day the hostel contacted the Council requesting an update.
  10. On 17 July, the case worker attended a meeting at the hostel to discuss finding alternative accommodation for Miss X. Miss X was invited to the meeting but refuse because she was not given enough notice. Miss X agreed to provide the case worker with a copy of the court judgement.
  11. On 19 July the sheltered accommodation provider said that it could not provide the Council with a copy of the court judgement. The Council’s records state that Miss X’s placement at the hostel had “become acutely problematic due to incidents with other residents including alleged assaults”. The case worker noted that were minimal options for alterative temporary accommodation. On the same day Miss X told the caseworker that she would only consider accommodation with a specific housing provider, on the first floor with large windows. The case worker explained that this would limit her options even further.
  12. On 26 July Miss X attended the Council offices and said she had been advised not to disclose the court judgement to the Council. Miss X said she refused to see a social worker at the hostel or in the future. Miss X said that she wanted to leave the hostel but was told that she would be reported as a missing person. The officer told Miss X that she could leave the hostel at any time and find her own accommodations, if she wished to do so.
  13. On 8 August Miss X informed the Council that the sheltered accommodation provider had stopped paying for the storage of her personal belongings.
  14. On 14 August Miss X attended the Council offices and was informed that it would not be making an intentionality decision.
  15. On 20 August, the Council agreed to pay for the storage of Miss X’s belongings.
  16. On 30 August, the Council confirmed in writing that Miss X was “eligible for assistance, homeless, in priority needs and not homeless intentionally”. Miss X was placed in Band A with a priority need. The letter went on to say “You will be made only ONE suitable offer of housing to fulfil the council’s housing duty to you. You have very limited rights of refusal under the homelessness legislation because your situation is an urgent one”
  17. On 2 October, Miss X was issued with a 28-day notice to quit from the hostel. On 5 October Miss X attended the Council offices and said that she continued to experience problems at the hostel. The officer explained that there was a placement available at an alternative hostel, but Miss X refused.
  18. On 26 October Miss X signed a new tenancy agreement with a sheltered housing scheme. Miss X moved into the accommodation on 30 October.
  19. On 31 October, Miss X sent an email to the Council confirming that her personal belongings had been delivered to her new accommodation and that she was satisfied with the storage and service she had received. She gave permission for the Council to dispose of items marked with an ‘X’ on the inventory form.

Analysis

  1. I will first address the Council’s handling of Miss X’s request for housing help. I will then address Miss X’s complaints about the hostel accommodation provided and storage of her belongings.
  2. Under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, when Miss X approached the Council for housing help on 3 May 2018 the Council should have completed a formal assessment of Miss X’s housing needs and produced a personalised housing plan. I have seen no evidence that the Council did this. This is fault. However, there is evidence that it made inquiries into the circumstances that caused Miss X to become homeless and offered her a social care assessment.
  3. Miss X was being evicted from the sheltered accommodation on 18 May. The Council would therefore have been satisfied that Miss X was homeless and had to provide interim accommodation while it considered her homelessness application. From the Council’s records it is not clear whether the Council recognised that it owed Miss X a Relief duty and because of this it failed to inform Miss X in writing. This is fault.
  4. The Relief duty would normally end 56 days after the duty had been accepted. This was on 28 June 2018. If the Council could not decide whether it owed Miss X the main housing duty, it could have extended the Relief duty and told Miss X this. But the Council did not do this.
  5. The code of guidance at the time, does not provide a timescale for a local authority to make enquiries and decide a homelessness application. However, it does state that the Relief duty will end when 56 days have passed, and the housing authority is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need. This implies that a Council should decide a homelessness application soon after the end of the Relief duty.
  6. The Council decided Miss X’s homelessness application on 30 August 2018. The Council took two months after the end of the Relief duty to decide that it owed Miss X a full housing duty. This is a considerable amount of time. The Council accepts that it took longer that expected to make a decision.
  7. The Council explains that the delay in processing Miss X’s homeless application was due to difficulties in obtaining information from Miss X’s former social landlord and her GP. Miss X also refused to provide legal notices she had been issued by her landlord and refused to engage with social services when an assessment was offered. I acknowledge the Council’s comments and accept that Miss X did not help by refusing to provide copies of legal documents. However, looking at the case records there were in total 5 weeks where the Council took no action at all on the application. I therefore find there has been unreasonable and avoidable delay by the Council.
  8. I consider Miss X has suffered a significant injustice because of the fault I have identified.
  9. If the Council has fully engaged with its Relief duty, completed an assessment and personalised housing plan it is possible that it would have decided Miss X’s homelessness application sooner. I consider Miss X has suffered some distress and uncertainty by the Council’s delay in deciding her homelessness application. The Council was of the view that Miss X had mental health conditions and therefore I can fully understand why the Council’s delay has affected Miss X’s well-being.
  10. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Recommended action’ section below. In doing so I have considered the Council’s comment that Miss X refused to provide copies of legal documents explaining the circumstances of her eviction.
  11. I will now address Miss X’s additional complaints under separate headings.

Temporary accommodation

  1. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and, to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability, until such time as the accommodation duty is bought to an end.
  2. Miss X says that the Council placed her in unsuitable hostel accommodation while it considered her application and has ignored her concerns about this. The Council placed Miss X in a hostel on 17 May 2018 until 30 October 2018. The Council says because Miss X refused a social services assessment it did not consider there was any better alternative it could offer. The Council explained this to Miss X at the time. Miss X accepted the hostel accommodation.
  3. Miss X first raised her concerns about the hostel four weeks after the placement. The Council has accepted that it was aware that Miss X found the hostel unsuitable. Miss X had raised concerns directly with the Council and via a Councillor acting on her behalf. The Council said Miss X also complained to the service provider and all complaints were investigated and not substantiated.
  4. As mentioned in Paragraph 33 the Council was aware that Miss X’s stay at the hostel was becoming problematic. There is no evidence that the Council investigated the concerns raised by Miss X and therefore I find the Council failed to fulfil its obligation to keep the suitability of the temporary accommodation under review. Furthermore, the Council should have carried out a suitability review of the hostel once it accepted it owed Miss X a full housing duty. Failure to do this is fault.
  5. I cannot say whether a review of the temporary accommodation by the Council would have resulted in a different outcome for Miss X. However, I find that there is uncertainly for Miss X as to what the outcome may have been.
  6. I have asked the Council to take action to put right this injustice in the ‘Recommended action’ section below.

Storage of belongings

  1. Miss X had arrangements in place with the sheltered accommodation provider for the storage of her belongings. On 20 August 2018 the Council agreed to pay for the storage of Miss X’s belongings.
  2. I have not seen evidence to suggest that Miss X’s belongings went missing or were damaged. On the contrary, Miss X confirmed by email that she was satisfied with the storage and delivery of her belongings and said that items marked with an “X” could be disposed. I have found no fault by the Council.

Agreed action

  1. To remedy the injustice set out in this decision statement the Council has agreed to take the following action:

Within one month of the final decsion:

  • Write to Miss X and apologise for the delay in deciding her homelessness application and failure to carry out a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation, and
  • Pay Miss X £300 for the distress and uncertainty she has suffered because of the Council’s delay in deciding her homelessness application and its failure to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation;

Within three months of the final decision:

  • Carry out a review into the cause of the delay and specify the action it will take to avoid such errors happening in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application. It also failed to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

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