Summary: Mr X complains the Council refused to provide temporary accommodation despite knowing he was street homeless and vulnerable. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as Mr X had a right to request a review of the Council’s decision and a subsequent right of appeal to court and it was reasonable for him to have used it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council refused to provide temporary accommodation whilst it considered his homelessness application, despite knowing he was street homeless and having information on record that he was vulnerable.
2. As a result of the Council’s decision he remained street homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• The information Mr X and the Council provided.
• The law and guidance, as set out below.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

7. When a person applies to a council for accommodation and it has reason to believe they may be homeless, a number of duties arise, including:
• to make enquiries;
• to secure suitable accommodation for certain applicants pending the outcome of the enquiries: and
• to notify the applicant of the decision in writing and the right to request a review of the decision.
8. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says the council must make its enquiries and decision about whether the applicant is eligible for assistance within 56 days. During this period, it should work with the applicant to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be set out in a personalised housing plan (PHP).
9. If the council thinks the applicant is homeless and in priority need it must, if the person asks for it, provide emergency accommodation whilst it makes its enquiries. Examples of priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people with serious health problems; and
• some elderly people.
10. After completing enquiries, 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. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

What happened

11. Mr X made contact with the Council in late February 2020. He told the Council he was street homeless. He said he was vulnerable and asked it to provide temporary accommodation.
12. At the initial interview in early March, the Council prepared a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Mr X and advised him:
• to view accommodation the Council identified for him;
• to apply for suitable accommodation through its housing register;
• about how to find private rented accommodation, the maximum rent that would be covered by housing benefit and assistance available, including a deposit scheme.
13. Mr X completed a medical assessment form and vulnerability questionnaire. In the medical questionnaire he stated:
• he had a number of health conditions;
• his health had got worse; and
• he had attempted suicide, including “several” attempts recently.

Council records show in early March it was aware of one suicide attempt in August 2019. It later became aware of second suicide attempt in September 2019. When it was told about the first incident it referred Mr X to its Adult Social Care team and a social worker tried to help Mr X but he did not engage with them.

14. The Council says it did not offer Mr X emergency accommodation because in the officer’s professional judgement there were no reasons to believe Mr X met the threshold for priority need. On the same day as the initial interview the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had decided he was homeless and eligible for assistance but not in priority need. It said it would not offer emergency accommodation because it had decided he was not in priority need. It explained he could ask for a review of the decision. Mr X did not ask for a review.
15. The Council did arrange for him to view private rented accommodation. Mr X did not attend the viewing although he confirmed he had received the information about it. The Council said it intended to provide suitable support if Mr X was successful in finding private rented accommodation, and it stated this in the PHP.
16. Later in March, the Council asked its medical adviser to consider whether Mr X was in priority need. The medical advisers said Mr X was not in priority need. I understand the Council send a further letter to Mr X in early April to confirm its view he was not in priority need.
17. As part of the government measures in response to covid 19 the Council offered Mr X temporary accommodation in late March. Mr X accepted this but then left it soon afterwards. The Council was not aware of his reasons for leaving and its records show it tried to contact Mr X numerous times without success.
18. In his comments on my draft decision Mr X said he was in hospital for three weeks. He also said the accommodation was not suitable for him as he had to share a kitchen and bathroom but he has not complained to the Council about this.

My findings

19. The Council accepted a homelessness application in early March. It did not offer Mr X interim accommodation because it decided he was not in priority need. It wrote to him straightaway to tell him its decision and his right to ask for a review.
20. It is unclear why the Council subsequently wrote to its medical advisor after it had reached its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. However, Mr X had a right to request a review of the Council’s decision, which was issued on the same day as his initial interview. Mr X could have raised this as part of his review request and any subsequent appeal to the County Court.
21. I see no reason why Mr X could not have asked for a review of the Council’s decision he was not in priority need and no reason why he would be unable to pursue an appeal to the County Court. Mr X has been able pursue his complaints with the Council and the Ombudsman. Therefore, I have stopped my investigation into this part of Mr X’s complaint.
22. The Council did offer Mr X a viewing for private rented accommodation, which he did not attend. Later it offered emergency accommodation under the government’s covid-19 initiative, which Mr X accepted and then left. Therefore, there is no fault in the assistance the Council has provided to Mr X in assisting him to find permanent accommodation or secure accommodation under the government’s covid-19 initiative. Mr X now says the accommodation was not suitable for him. He needs to complain to the Council about that. If he is not satisfied with its response he can make a new complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have ended my investigation into the Council’s refusal to provide him with temporary accommodation. This is because he had a right to request a review of the Council’s decision followed by a right of appeal to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman