Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not properly deal with his homelessness application. The Council was at fault because it did not make appropriate enquiries when Mr X first contacted the Council in December 2018. Mr X suffered distress. The Council has agreed its case records were limited and has offered to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150. This is a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council did not:
• deal with his homelessness application correctly when he first contacted the Council in December 2018 because it didn’t make enquiries, didn’t provide accommodation and told him to go back to hospital and did not treat him with respect.
• provide satisfactory temporary accommodation because accommodation was too far away from his family and support network and it did not properly take into account his mental and physical health problems.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress and resulted in his mental state deteriorating. He was stabbed and had to go to hospital.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information and documents he has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to his complaint and its response to my enquiries.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. 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)
10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. 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)
12. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons.  All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
13. Anyone who may have a need for community care services is entitled to a social care assessment when they are discharged from hospital to establish what services they might need. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act imposes a duty on health and social services to meet the health/social care needs arising from or related to the persons mental disorder for patients who have been detained under specific sections of the Mental Health Act (e.g. Section 3). Aftercare services provided in relation to the persons mental disorder under S117 cannot be charged for. This is known as section 117 aftercare.

What happened

14. On 9 December 2018, Mr X discharged himself from hospital. He made a homelessness application to the Council on 10 December. A few days later he emailed the Council saying he was still homeless. On 17 December Mr X went to the Council again with his sister.
15. Mr X then went abroad. In June 2019, he made a further homelessness application on his return. The Council provided Mr X with temporary accommodation. Mr X gave this up because he was attacked and had to stay in hospital in a coma.
16. When he was ready to be discharged the Council again provided accommodation for Mr X. Mr X has now found permanent accommodation.

Back to top

Analysis

Homelessness application December 2018

17. Email evidence shows that Mr X made 2 visits to the Council about being homeless, on 10 and 17 December 2018. Mr X also emailed the Leader of the Council on 14 December as well as his MP enquiring about s117 aftercare. Mr X’s MP also wrote to the Council about Mr X’s situation.
18. Considerable enquiries were made as a result of Mr X’s email to the Leader of the Council on 14 December. The Council made some limited enquiries and asked for medical advice following Mr X’s visit on 17 December.
19. The Council’s response to Mr X’s request for help was confused and contradictory. The Council sent a response to Mr X’s MP in late December. A draft response to Mr X based on the earlier response sent to Mr X’s MP was rejected as unacceptable by the Leader of the Council in early January.
20. There is no Personal Housing Plan (PHP) available from 10 December 2018. There is no evidence of a risk assessment having been completed. The Council says it is unable to find any assessment documents or case notes to confirm what discussions took place with the duty Housing Inclusion Officer, the officer involved is no longer employed by CL and it can’t determine what happened or what advice was given to Mr X. The Council agrees it could have made more enquiries about Mr X’s situation.
21. The team leader in December 2018 recalls Mr X visiting the Council on 17 December. The Council says Mr X was distressed and attended with his sister. It says it terminated the assessment and advised Mr X to return when he had been discharged appropriately. The Council says Mr X’s sister agreed he could stay with her for one night and help him return to hospital. Mr X went abroad to stay with family in early January 2019 before a response to his 14 December email could be made.
22. The Council’s stage one response says it could not complete an assessment of Mr X because he left the country. This contradicts the recollection of the team leader.
23. Evidence attributed to Mr X’s sister shows she told the Council that Mr X had been admitted to hospital shortly after his second visit to the Council. The Council then received medical advice that Mr X was vulnerable and required supported housing. Mr X subsequently left the country. If Mr X had returned to the Council instead of leaving the country, he would have been likely to receive support. The Council is not responsible for Mr X’s decision to leave the country in early January.
24. The Council agree that Mr X could have been referred to a Mental Health Housing Inclusion Officer for further support when he first approached the Council.
25. On the balance of probabilities, the Council did not make sufficient necessary enquiries to be able to properly consider Mr X’s mental health situation when he initially presented as homeless in December 2018. Enquiries were made, but these were in response to Mr X’s email. This is fault by the Council. Mr X did not receive the service he should have done. He received inadequate support and had to live with his sister for a short period of time.

Section 117 aftercare

26. Mr X says he was entitled to s117 aftercare when he left hospital in 2018. The Council says it has not had any involvement in s117 aftercare planning for Mr X.
27. I have seen a complaint reply from the hospital Mr X discharged himself from in December 2018 which says, “plans for community aftercare were discussed and agreed during your admission in November 2018 and it was explained to you that aftercare arrangements would take some months to put in place. Unfortunately, it was not possible to implement Section 117 aftercare arrangements because you self-discharged (against medical advice) in December 2018, as you then left the UK the following day. On your return to the UK ...you reported having imminent plans to leave the country during your review appointment, which further delayed 117 aftercare plans being implemented and care coordination being put in place.”
28. The Council asked the hospital for information about Mr X. The hospital sent the Council some information by email, a letter of support in relation to Mr X’s application for housing and a discharge summary sent to the Council in December 2018. These documents do not refer to s117 aftercare provision being necessary. I have not seen any other communication between the hospital and the Council about Mr X’s needs.
29. On the balance of probabilities, the Council were not informed of any s117 aftercare needs and the delivery of any s117 aftercare discussed by the hospital with Mr X was frustrated by him leaving hospital and then travelling abroad. This is not fault by the Council.

Temporary accommodation

30. I have seen risk assessments from the Council that show it considered Mr X’s health issues, including information in his application form. Emails from the Council show it tried to find accommodation that met Mr X’s specific needs within the borough but it was unable to do this. I have seen emails that also show the Council took action to mitigate the impact of Mr X being provided with accommodation some distance from his support network. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

What has the Council done?

31. The Council has provided Mr X with temporary accommodation before and after he was admitted to hospital. The Council has since accepted a s193 duty to house Mr X and placed him in band B1. Mr X has confirmed he has found permanent accommodation.
32. During my investigation, the Council has offered to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 in recognition of the distress he suffered. I consider this is a suitable remedy. The Council should do this within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

33. On the evidence seen, I consider that the Council was at fault. However, there is no outstanding injustice to Mr X because the Council has offered to apologise and pay him £150. This is a suitable remedy. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman