Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not let him return to his property following an incident in May 2019, and therefore left him homeless until November 2019. The Council was not at fault for Mr X’s homelessness. It considered Mr X’s situation in line with homelessness legislation and guidance. The Council offered Mr X appointments and referrals for support however he failed to engage, which prevented the Council assisting him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not let him return to his property following an incident in May 2019 and he was therefore homeless until November 2019. This caused him distress, uncertainty and avoidable financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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.
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)
5. 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

6. I considered Mr X’s complaint correspondence.
7. I considered the Council’s records on the matter and its response to my enquiry letter.
8. I considered relevant parts of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the Housing Act 1996.
9. I considered government issued guidance titled ‘Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities’
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. Neither Mr X or the Council made any comment.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

11. 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.
12. A person is considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they are entitled to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
13. The Council must provide interim accommodation if it thinks a person is homeless and has a priority need. The act says the council will accept a person is in priority need if it is satisfied the person is vulnerable or may be vulnerable. This includes as a result of a mental illness or other special reasons.
14. Section 189B of the act sets out the council’s relief duty. When the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months.

Background

15. Mr X had a secure Council tenancy at property A. In 2018, following an incident at property A, Mr X went to see his social worker and said he no longer wanted to live there. He said his mental health would suffer if he returned and he would prefer to be street homeless rather than return to it. Records show the social worker tried to engage Mr X with the doctor however he would not engage.
16. The Council completed a homeless application with Mr X, however as he already had a tenancy at property A there was little the Council could do. The Council’s adult social care department agreed to fund interim accommodation for Mr X at a hotel while its Housing Team tried to look for a property exchange. The records show the Council referred Mr X to mental health services, but he would not engage.
17. Mr X continued to live at the hotel until April 2019 as, despite efforts from the Council, the records show Mr X had failed to adequately engage with mental health, the doctor or the housing department who had offered to meet him at the hotel to discuss the way forward. As Mr X was not engaging, the Council decided it could no longer justify the cost of keeping Mr X in a hotel.
18. Following the Council’s decision, the records show Mr X began engaging with a mental health support group who offered him shared accommodation if he relinquished property A. However, Mr X decided he would arrange his own transfer out of the Council’s area via a property exchange.
19. Mr X formally complained to the Council that it was refusing to rehouse him. The Council responded and said he was offered alternative accommodation through the mental health support group but refused. The Council said Mr X’s tenancy at property A was available to him and it would provide him with a new set of keys. The Council said it would continue to support him in looking for a property exchange.
20. In April 2019, the Council provided Mr X with a new set of keys for property A which was left empty during his stay in the hotel. Mr X informed the Council he had found someone who was willing to carry out a property exchange and the matter was transferred to the lettings team to deal with.

What happened

21. In May 2019 the Council attended property A following a concern call that the front door was open, and someone may have broken in. It had also received complaints about anti-social behaviour at the property. Mr X was not at the property, but the Council officer found a number of knives and a firearm. There was also evidence of drug use. The Council officer called the police and then secured property A with a new lock, and metal sheeting on all of the windows and doors. The records show it was not clear whether Mr X was living there or whether other people had been using the property.
22. The Council referred the matter to its anti-social behaviour (ASB) officer. Records show the ASB officer decided the Council would no longer allow Mr X to carry out a property exchange due to what was found as this could put the exchange tenant at risk. The ASB officer said the Council should have a case conference then meet with Mr X to find out where he was currently living and what he knew about the items found at property A.
23. Records show the Council tried to contact Mr X during May 2019 by telephone and email offering him appointments to speak with the ASB officer about the matter. However, Mr X failed to make contact or engage with the Council. Mr X sent an email to the Council at the end of May 2019 stating he was unable to attend the appointment but stated he was now homeless and living ‘rough’.
24. The records show Mr X next contacted a social worker in July 2019. Mr X told the Council he was still living ‘rough’. The social worker emailed Mr X and asked that he contact them so they could try and help. Records show the Council tried to call Mr X however there was no reply.
25. Mr X emailed the Council again during July 2019. He said he was homeless and asked what his options were with regards to accommodation. The records show the Council tenancy officer told the social worker that the case was with the ASB officer. The ASB officer provided an update and told the tenancy officer and the social worker that Mr X could not go back to property A until he engaged with the ASB team so it could carry out a risk assessment of whether it was safe for Mr X to return to the property .
26. During July 2019 Mr X continued to email the Council to tell it he was homeless and had nowhere to live. Mr X’s social worker continued to ask the housing and tenancy officer about how they could progress finding accommodation for Mr X. The social worker also sent an email to mental health services asking if Mr X ever engages to put him in touch with the Council homeless link worker. Records show the social worker continued to invite Mr X to Council offices whenever he emailed and urged him to contact the ASB officer.
27. The social worker asked the ASB officer for a further update. The Social worker said Mr X was homeless and had nowhere to go. The social worker asked as a matter of urgency what the plan was in terms of Mr X’s housing. The social worker said Mr X was homeless and property A was unsuitable. The ASB officer responded and said Mr X would need to meet with him and the tenancy officer first. The ASB officer reiterated that property A was not, at the time, suitable for Mr X because it was linked to serious ASB and a firearm was recovered from within it.
28. Records show Mr X’s social worker emailed him at the end of July 2019. They said he still needed to meet with the ASB officer to discuss the items which were found in property A. The social worker said that following that meeting the Council would make a decision regarding his housing. The social worker emailed Mr X and gave him an appointment to meet with the ASB officer at the start of August 2019. Mr X failed to attend that appointment.
29. In August 2019 Mr X sent an email to his doctor which contained threats of violence towards his social worker. The Council put a risk assessment in place that staff would not see Mr X unless it was at Council offices with support from the police.
30. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. He said the Council had forced him into homelessness and were refusing to rehouse him. Following Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman the Council provided us with a response in September 2019. It said Mr X still had a tenancy at property A and had a lawful right to return to it. The Council said it, and mental health professionals had tried to engage with Mr X but he had failed to engage. The Council said the matter was with the ASB team which is where it remains.
31. The Council said Mr X attended its offices in November 2019 and was offered emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. Since then the Council said it will offer Mr X a move to an alternative property pending the outcome of a mental health assessment. Until then the Council said it will continue to accommodate Mr X in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation.

My findings

32. The Council responded to concern calls at property A in May 2019 when it found evidence of ASB along with knives and a firearm and the ASB officer became involved. The actions of the ASB officer and tenancy officer relate to the Council’s management of property A as the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot consider the role of the Council as a social landlord so the actions of the ASB officer and tenancy officer are outside of our jurisdiction. If Mr X has ongoing concerns about the actions of the ASB officer and tenancy officer, he should approach the Housing Ombudsman.
33. I have therefore looked at whether the Council carried out its homelessness duty to Mr X in line with relevant legislation and guidance. The records show the Council could not determine whether Mr X could safely return to his tenancy until he spoke with the ASB officer.
34. The records show Mr X contacted the Council and informed it that he was homeless. The Council made several attempts to engage Mr X. It arranged appointments, referred him to the mental health team, provided him with contact numbers for his social worker, and asked him to engage with the ASB officer. The records show Mr X did not engage with any of the appointments or referrals. The records show Mr X was homeless, and the Council recognised it had a duty to assist him. However, as he did not engage, the Council did not have the opportunity to decide whether he could return to his tenancy safely, assist him, or provide him with interim accommodation. When Mr X did engage in November 2019, the Council immediately provided him with bed and breakfast accommodation and is now working with him for a managed move to another property. Therefore, on balance, had Mr X engaged with the Council between May and November 2019, I find it would have provided him with interim accommodation and would have assisted him with a move away from property A.
35. I am satisfied the Council considered Mr X’s situation in line with the relevant homeless legislation and guidance and was not at fault. It recognised Mr X was homeless and made efforts to engage him by offering appointments and referrals. When Mr X did engage it offered him accommodation. The delay in doing so was not due to Council fault.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman