Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to support him when he became homeless. The Ombudsman has not found fault in how the Council acted.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with housing and other support when he became homeless. He says this led to a deterioration in his mental health and having to sleep in his car. This caused Mr X significant distress and inconvenience.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. My investigation has only considered the complaint made by Mr X regarding his request for support at the time he had no recourse to public funds between February and April 2019. The Council has dealt with housing and homelessness applications from other family members. These have included Mr X and reference is made to these within this decision statement only where relevant. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my investigation I have:

• considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• considered the relevant law and statutory guidance;
• considered the notes taken by a colleague when she spoke to Mr X about his complaint; and
• sent my draft decision to both parties and invited comments on it. Comments received were taken into consideration before I reached my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

No recourse to public funds

6. People who are subject to immigration control may have ‘no recourse to public funds’ and be unable to access a number of benefits, including universal credit, housing benefit, and council tax reduction.
7. The Council’s “No Recourse to Public Funds” (NRPF) team assesses such persons for support and accommodation where they would otherwise be destitute.

What happened

8. I have set out below a summary of the key events. It is not meant to show everything which happened.
9. Mr X is disabled. He has mobility problems as a result of a serious accident. He also suffers with mental health issues. At the time of the relevant events, Mr X was a person who had no recourse to public funds.
10. Mr X says he became homeless in early February 2019 and had to sleep in his car. His wife, who was also his carer, contacted the Council to request assistance on his behalf. Mrs X was eligible for housing assistance in her own right. The couple told the Council they were separated, but Mrs X was still his carer.
11. The Council’s records show a referral was received by its NRPF team on 21 February 2019. His GP had contacted the Council on 18 February 2019.
12. The next day the Council offered Mrs X temporary accommodation for herself and her children. The Council said Mr X was allowed to stay with his family. It was also agreed he could take a specialist bed he needed, with him. Mrs X told the Council her housing application was for only her and her children. She told the Council she was only acting as Mr X’s carer and the Council should be supporting Mr X’s own, separate need for specialist housing because of his disability.
13. Mr X’s case was allocated to a social worker (Officer J) on the Council’s NRPF team on 25 February 2019. Officer J tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr X by telephone. Later that day, Mr X called the out of hours service at 8.15 pm and he was provided with numbers for homeless shelters, in the absence of other support at that time.
14. Because he had been unable to contact Mr X by phone, Officer J made an unannounced visit to the property where Mrs X had been temporarily accommodated. Mr X was not there but was staying nearby in his car. Officer J followed up this visit with an email to Mr X asking him to make contact.
15. Two days later, Mr X attended the Council office but the assessment did not take place because Mr X would not go inside for the assessment. He asked Officer J to carry out the assessment either in his car or a hotel room. Officer J asked a manager about this proposal. He was told this was contrary to Council policy, and so Officer J refused this request.
16. Officer J later emailed Mr X and advised him that his cooperation was required to complete the assessment.
17. Mr X’s mental health deteriorated which led to a short hospital stay. He was discharged to a hotel. The hospital consultant said there was no medical reason to continue with his detention.
18. On 3 March 2019, Mr X says his solicitor contacted the Council to request an assessment. The Council says it did not receive this letter.
19. Having received no reply to this request, on 7 March 2019, Mrs X contacted the Council requesting another assessment of Mr X. An appointment was arranged for 11 March 2019. He attended with Mrs X. Both Mr and Mrs X were asked to sign a consent form allowing the Council to request information from other agencies. Mr X agreed but Mrs X refused on the basis that her consent was irrelevant to Mr X’s assessment. The Council said it was required because they are a family and their affairs, both domestic and financial were closely linked. Because of this, the Council said it could not complete the assessment.
20. Mr X complained to the Council about what happened. In particular, he complained about the following matters:

• The delay in responding to the referral from Mrs X and other agencies when he became homeless in early February.
• An unannounced visit to Mrs X’s temporary accommodation.
• The refusal to carry out an assessment in Mr X’s car as he was unable to attend the Council building.
• The delay in arranging the assessment following an urgent referral from Mr X’s solicitor on 3 March 2019.
• The Council’s refusal to continue with his assessment when Mrs X did not sign a consent form.
• A hate agenda against Mr X and his family, akin to “modern day slavery”.

21. The Council did not uphold his complaint and so Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

22. I will consider each of these points raised by Mr X in turn:

The delay in responding to the referral from Mrs X and other agencies when he became homeless in early February 2019

23. While Mr X says he had been homeless and sleeping in his car since early February, the records show the Council was unaware of Mr X’s possible individual need for support until his GP contacted the Council on 18 February 2019. His GP was advised that Mr X should contact the Council directly. I am satisfied this was a sufficient response, particularly as the Council was already supporting the family to identify suitable housing.
24. Mrs X then contacted the Council on Mr X’s behalf on 21 February 2019.
25. Prior to this, Mr X had been included in his wife’s application for housing support. The Council had been supporting Mr X in this context.
26. I am satisfied that it was not until on 21 February 2019, when Mrs X informed the Council they had separated, was the Council aware that a separate assessment was required for Mr X. This had to be carried out by the NFPF team because of Mr X’s immigration status.
27. Officer J made contact with Mr X to arrange an assessment on 25 February 2019. The assessment was scheduled for two days later. I am satisfied this was a reasonable timescale and there was no excessive delay. Particularly as the Council had said Mr X could stay in the temporary accommodation that had been offered to Mrs X. It is clear to me from the case records that Mr and Mrs X were still in close contact and sharing responsibility for their children. It was not unreasonable for the Council to expect Mr X to take up this offer of accommodation rather than sleep in his car. To do so at this time was therefore his choice and not because of Council fault.

An unannounced visit to Mrs X’s temporary accommodation

28. Mr X says there was no good reason for Officer J to have made this unannounced visit on 25 February 2019. I disagree. Officer J had tried to contact Mr X by telephone a number of times and had been made aware of Mr X’s late call to the out of hours service.
29. Officer J had a reasonably held belief that Mr X may be with Mrs X and it is to his credit that he made attempts to contact him. I do not criticise the Council for its approach here.

The refusal to carry out the assessment in Mr X’s car as he was unable to attend the Council building

30. It is clear from both Mr X’s account of what happened and the Council’s records that a “stand off” situation arose outside the council building. Mr X’s felt the assessment could take place in his car or a hotel, yet Officer J could not agree to this for health and safety reasons. Officer J explained he could not sit on the street and carry out the assessment with Mr X in the car either. Officer J sought advice from a senior colleague before confirming this position.
31. I do not consider Officer J’s actions to be unreasonable. The council building was fully accessible for disabled persons. The Council, as Officer J’s employer, had a duty of care to him to ensure his place of work was safe. Officer J’s manager decided it was not safe for Officer J to carry out the assessment either in the car or a hotel room. This was a decision she was entitled to make having assessed the risk involved. Officer J tried to reassure Mr X but was unsuccessful and he says Mr X became aggressive and uncooperative.
32. There is a responsibility on individuals to co-operate with officers and the assessment process. Officer J followed up the unsuccessful assessment with an email explaining the Council’s position and invited Mr X to reengage in order to carry out the assessment.
33. This was the correct approach that I cannot criticise. I do not find fault.

The delay in arranging the assessment following an urgent referral from Mr X’s solicitor on 3 March 2019

34. The Council says it did not receive this letter. I have not been provided with a copy of it by Mr X. In the absence of any evidence to prove whether it was sent, I am unable to make a finding on this aspect of the complaint.

The Council’s refusal to continue with his assessment when Mrs X did not sign a consent form

35. The Council has explained its rationale for asking Mrs X to sign the consent form. This was a reasonable position for the Council to take as the evidence shows that Mr and Mrs X’s personal and financial circumstances were interlinked.
36. As I have said before, there is a responsibility on those wanting Council support to cooperate with the assessment process. Mr and Mrs X chose not to cooperate for their own personal reasons. Because of this, the Council was not obliged to continue with the assessment and for this reason, I do not find fault.

A hate agenda against Mr X and his family, akin to “modern day slavery”

37. Mr X made this claim without providing the Council or the Ombudsman any specific evidence to support it. My investigation has found no evidence to support this claim either and so I do not find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation having found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman