Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the way the Council responded when Mr B presented as homeless. There was fault in the way it decided whether it owed Mr B a duty in respect of his application. It failed to produce a personalised housing plan and there was also fault in the way it communicated with Mr B throughout the process. The fault caused Mr B an injustice. Actions have been agreed to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council responded when he presented as homeless. He says the Council:
• gave him inconsistent information and advice;
• delayed in finding him suitable accommodation;
• failed to properly consider his medical conditions; and
• lost forms and information he provided with his application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
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. 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

5. During my investigation I:
• considered the information Mr B provided with his complaint;
• made enquiries with the Council and considered its response; and
• reviewed relevant law, guidance and council policy.
6. Mr B and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I carefully considered the comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policy

7. A person is considered homeless if they do not have accommodation that they have a legal right to occupy, which is accessible and physically available to them and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to live in.
8. Part seven of The Housing Act 1996 sets out powers and duties of councils where people apply to them for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation in cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness.
9. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 places a set of duties on councils to intervene at an early stage to prevent homelessness and to take reasonable steps to prevent and relieve homelessness for all eligible applicants.
10. The homelessness code of guidance says councils must give proper consideration to all applications for housing assistance, and if they have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they must make inquiries to see whether they owe them any duty under part seven of the 1996 Act.
11. Councils have a duty to carry out an assessment in all cases where an eligible applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Following this assessment the Council must work with the person to develop a personalised housing plan.
12. Councils will need to carefully consider the suitability of accommodation for households with particular medical and/or physical needs. Physical access to and around the home, space, bathroom and kitchen facilities and access to a garden are all factors which might need to be taken into account.
13. Accommodation that is suitable for a short period, for example accommodation used to discharge an interim duty pending enquiries, may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period.
14. Councils must provide written notifications to applicants when they reach certain decisions about their case, and the reasons behind any decisions that are against the applicant’s interests. Applicants can ask the Council to review most aspects of their decisions.

What happened

Background

15. Mr B was in a relationship with Ms C, they have a child together, Child D. They were all living together until October 2018 when Mr B was arrested following a domestic abuse incident. He was bailed to his sisters address and following the Court hearing in November 2018 he was given a restraining order, which prevented him returning to his home address.
16. Mr B has been diagnosed with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), agoraphobia and anxiety.

Chronology

17. The following chronology is a summary of relevant information. It does not contain everything I reviewed as part of my investigation.
18. Following his arrest in October 2018 Mr B approached the Council as homeless because he could not return to his address. The Council says it did not have reason to believe he was homeless because he was bailed to his sisters address. It told Mr B he should discuss his bail conditions with the Police and return after the outcome of his court date. It closed the case as ‘advice only’. Mr B says he was homeless and sleeping in his car at this point.
19. Mr B applied again in November 2018. The Council completed a needs assessment and requested medical evidence. Mr B says he signed a medical form on the day of his assessment to allow the Council to speak to his GP. Mr B told the Council he was still sleeping in his car.
20. In January 2019 the Council wrote to Mr B with a decision about his application. It said it accepted his request for assistance under part seven because he was eligible and threatened with homelessness.
21. The Council requested medical advice about the type of accommodation suitable for Mr B. The Doctor recommended self-contained accommodation but said Bed and Breakfast would also be suitable for short term.
22. A few days later, in response to emails from Mr B’s sister, the Council emailed to say it had reviewed the case and moved it to the relief team and authorised interim accommodation pending enquiries.
23. Mr B turned down the Councils offers of interim accommodation because he said they were unsuitable due to his medical needs.
24. In February 2019 the Council case records noted:

Client will remain at sisters pending allocation of social housing. Not homeless and case to be treated as withdrawn.

25. In August 2019 Mr B made another homeless application because he says he was no longer able to stay at his sisters’ address. The Council assessment found it owed him the relief duty.
26. Mr B complained to the Council about the way his case was being handled and the Council staff, who he says were rude and unhelpful. The Council responded at stage one of its complaint process. It reminded of Mr B of his right to appeal against its decision and apologised for his experience with the Council staff.
27. In September 2019 the Council ended its prevention duty because Mr B had become homeless. It sent a separate letter to confirm it owed Mr B the relief duty:

You are currently homeless. You cannot access the property you were living in prior to the restraining order, you have provided us with documents clarifying this which gives us reason for this decision. As you are homeless the prevention duty will now refer you to the relief duty.

28. The next day Mr B received another letter with a decision about the same application. This letter said he was owed the relief duty because his sister was no longer willing to accommodate him.
29. Mr B was deemed to be in priority need because of his medical needs. He was offered interim accommodation, which he declined on the basis it was not suitable for his medical needs. He agreed to stay with his mother until he was allocated a suitable council property. The Council ended its duty to provide interim accommodation:

The duty owed to secure interim accommodation under s.188 Housing Act 1996 Pt 7 has now ceased. The reasons for this decision is because you have chosen to make your own accommodation arrangements pending the allocation of social housing.

The duty to relieve your homelessness s.189B remains in place, and you should keep in contact with your housing officer and continue to work towards the steps in your personalised housing plan in order to achieve this.

30. In November 2019 the Council ended its relief duty:

‘suitable accommodation available for your occupation with a reasonable prospect that it will continue to be available for at least six months from the date of this notice’.

31. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in August 2019.
32. In response to my enquiries the Council said:
• The Council did not complete a personalised housing plan for Mr B and does not believe it needed to in the circumstances of this case.
• Mr B was given a medical form to complete and return by January 2019. The Council says it received the two medical letters in November 2018 but did not receive a signed medical form.
• The Council’s medical advisor confirmed B&B/ shared accommodation was suitable and this was offered to Mr B. Mr B refused the offers of interim accommodation.
• There were 16 suitable properties advertised between July and October 2019 but Mr B only placed a bid on one property. If Mr B had bid on other properties he would have been housed sooner.

Back to top

My findings

The Council gave inconsistent information and advice

33. I agree with Mr B. Mr B’s case was passed around various teams and officers and this appears to have caused confusion and a lack of consistency. The way the Council communicated with Mr B was also confusing. I found the Council:
• Sent a lot of letters about the various duties it did and did not owe Mr B, some of which contained different information. For example, in November 2018 it sent two decision letters confirming it owed him the relief duty, but each contained a different reason.
• Sent letters to Mr B referring to a personalised housing plan (PHP), which did not exist. One letter said the PHP was enclosed in the letter.
• Incorrectly informed Mr B he was entitled to a two-bed property.
34. I find fault with the Council for the way it communicated with Mr B about his case. The Council approach was uncoordinated, and this led to inconsistent and confusing communication with Mr B.
35. Mr B was already in a difficult situation and this added to his stress and anxiety, this is injustice. It was clear from the information the Council had from Mr B, his sister and Doctors how it was affecting his mental health and the Council should have been more mindful of this.

Delay in finding suitable accommodation

36. The Council delayed in establishing it owed Mr B the relief duty. It was only following intervention from his sister that his case was reviewed. He was moved from the prevention to the relief duty and interim accommodation was approved. As there was no new information, I can only assume he was owed the relief duty and interim accommodation earlier.
37. I find fault with the Council’s decision making about Mr B’s homelessness status in this case. Considering the definition of homelessness (paragraph 7) Mr B appears to have been homeless/ threatened with homelessness for the period October 2018 to October 2019. During this time Mr B stayed with family and in his car. I cannot see what enquiries the Council made with Mr B’s family to understand the availability and suitability of these arrangements.
38. I have considered the ‘suitability’ part of this aspect of Mr B’s complaint. I do not find fault with the Council. There is a limited amount of accommodation available to councils for interim accommodation. Once it established this was owed to Mr B the Council sought advice from its medical advisor about suitability and it took this into consideration when it made offers to Mr B. Mr B declined all offers of interim accommodation.
39. The Council provided support and advice to Mr B to enable him to register to bid on council properties. I do not find fault with the Council for Mr B’s delay securing a property. The Council cannot control the properties that become available to bid on. It ensured Mr B was banded correctly and in the best position he could be to secure accommodation. Mr B chose not to bid on several properties that became available and this meant it took longer to secure accommodation. This was Mr B’s choice and not a result of any fault by the Council.
40. I do not consider the above faults caused Mr B an injustice. On balance, if the Council had offered Mr B interim accommodation earlier I believe he would have declined it and been in the same position.

The Council failed to properly consider Mr B’s medical conditions

41. There was a delay in obtaining advice from the medical advisor. Mr B says he provided the relevant medical letters and signed medical form in November 2018. The Council says it received the letters but not the form. As it subsequently referred the case to the medical advisor without the medical form, I believe it was the fact it did not think it owed Mr B interim accommodation that caused the delay.
42. I found inconsistency in the Council records in respect of Mr B’s medical conditions. There are a number of assessments on file which contain varying levels of information. Mr B was very clear about the significance of his medical conditions in respect of his homelessness and this was reiterated by his sister and mother. Mr B’s medical letters from his consultants also give very clear information about his medical conditions.
43. I do not find fault in the way the Council considered Mr B’s medical conditions in respect of his accommodation. It sought medical advice and took this into consideration. However, I do find some fault in the way the Council failed to consider Mr B’s medical conditions more generally during its handling of his case. I do not think the Council gave enough consideration to how it communicated with Mr B and the impact of the situation on his mental health and wellbeing. This caused Mr B an injustice. It increased his stress and anxiety and denied him from any reasonable adjustments he may have been entitled to.

Lost forms and information Mr B provided with his application

44. I did not find any evidence to support this part of Mr B’s complaint. I have discussed the medical form in paragraph 41.

Other issues

45. I do not accept the Council’s explanation for failing to complete a PHP. Where a prevention duty is owed, there will always be a duty to assess and produce a PHP. These duties apply when an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness and eligible. I find fault with the Council for failing to complete a PHP for Mr B.
46. I believe the lack of PHP contributed to the other faults I have identified in this case. The PHP could have improved the coordination, consistency and information sharing. It would have also provided Mr B with more clarity about what he was expected to do and what actions the Council would carry out. A detailed PHP, kept under review, would have assisted with identifying any changes in circumstances and duty owed to Mr B. Mr B would have had the right of appeal in respect of the Council actions listed in the PHP.
47. By failing to complete a PHP the Council denied Mr B the information he was entitled to fully understand his case and be able to make informed decisions. The lack of PHP also contributed to the lack of coordination and made the situation more confusing for Mr B. This caused Mr B an injustice.

Agreed action

48. Within four weeks of my decision the Council agrees to:
• apologise to Mr B for the faults I have identified; and
• pay Mr B £150 for the unnecessary distress it caused.
49. Within eight weeks of my decision the Council agrees to:
• remind housing officers, and any other relevant staff, of the requirement to complete a personalised housing plan and when this is necessary; and
• review its procedure for how it considers offering reasonable adjustments when dealing with and communicating with people using its homeless services.
50. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has improved its practice in relation to the actions outlined in paragraph 49.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I find fault with the Council causing injustice to Mr B. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman