Summary: The Council delayed providing Mr B with interim accommodation, provided unsuitable interim accommodation and failed to follow its complaints procedure. That meant Mr B was street homeless for several days, spent six days in unsuitable accommodation and had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, payment to Mr B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained the Council:
• failed to provide him with interim accommodation between 29 July and 5 August 2019;
• provided him with unsuitable accommodation between 6 and 11 August 2019; and
• failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
5. Gave Mr B 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

Homelessness Code of Guidance

6. Section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires housing authorities to secure that accommodation is available for an applicant (and their household) if they have reason to believe that the applicant may:
• (a)be homeless;
• (b)be eligible for assistance; and,
• (c)have a priority need.
7. The threshold for triggering the section 188(1) duty is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
8. Housing authorities should have regard to any advice from medical professionals, social services or current providers of care and support. In cases where there is doubt as to the extent of any vulnerability authorities may also consider seeking a clinical opinion. However, the final decision on the question of vulnerability will rest with the housing authority.
9. Section 206(1) of the Housing Act 1996 provides that a housing authority may discharge its housing functions under Part 7 in the following ways:
• (a)by securing that suitable accommodation provided by them is available for the applicant;
• (b)by securing that the applicant obtains suitable accommodation from some other person; or,
• (c)by giving the applicant such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available from some other person.
10. Accommodation secured must be available and suitable for occupation by the applicant and any other person who normally resides with them as a member of their family, or any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with them.
11. In deciding what accommodation is to be secured, housing authorities will need to consider whether the applicant has any support needs, as identified in their personalised housing plan, and taking in to account any additional information available from health or social care services, or from other agencies providing services to them.
12. Accommodation that is suitable for a short period, for example accommodation used to discharge an interim duty pending inquiries under section 188, may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period, for example to discharge a duty under section 193(2).

Background

13. The Home Office granted Mr B leave to remain. Because of that decision Mr B was no longer entitled to stay in his accommodation. The Home Office gave him notice to quit the accommodation, which he had to leave on 29 July 2019.
14. Mr B approached the Council on 18 July 2019 as homeless. Mr B provided the Council with evidence he would be made homeless on 29 July. Mr B also provided medical evidence to show he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The medical evidence Mr B provided included information from his clinical psychologist. That said in the psychologist’s clinical opinion Mr B would not cope with the challenges of homelessness due to his mental health needs. It said becoming homeless would likely result in a significant worsening in Mr B’s mental health including his PTSD symptoms. The clinical psychologist said it was clinically important Mr B had his own facilities in any accommodation.
15. On 25 July Mr B’s representative raised concerns the Council had not mentioned providing temporary accommodation from 29 July when it met with Mr B earlier that day. The representative told the Council it had advised Mr B to attend the Council’s offices on 29 July to present as homeless and seek temporary accommodation. The representative asked for confirmation the Council would provide accommodation when he attended on 29 July.
16. The Council referred the case to Now Medical for advice on whether Mr B had a priority need on 26 July. When the Council received Now Medical’s advice on 30 July it issued a relief duty letter, accepting responsibility to provide Mr B with interim accommodation.
17. Mr B attended the Council’s offices to sort out interim accommodation on 1 August. However, he had to leave as he experienced chest pains and was taken to hospital.
18. On 2 August Mr B’s representative sent the Council an email at 2:41pm, noted as a letter before claim, asking for a response by 4:30pm. The email explained Mr B needed accommodation. The Council dealt with that on 5 August. On that day a Council officer spoke to Mr B who said he could not come into the Council’s offices to sign for the interim accommodation until the following day. The Council provided bed-and-breakfast accommodation to Mr B on 6 August.
19. On 8 August Mr B’s representative raised concerns with the Council about it placing Mr B in bed-and-breakfast accommodation when he had provided medical evidence which said shared accommodation was unsuitable for his needs. The representative said it would consider issuing proceedings if the Council did not provide suitable self-contained accommodation. The representative also raised concerns about the personal housing plan as it did not provide any continuing actions for the Council to take.
20. The Council moved Mr B into self-contained accommodation on 12 August.
21. On 14 August the Council agreed with Mr B’s representative the personal housing plan did not show enough action during the relief duty. The Council said it would complete a fuller and more rounded set of actions for the personal housing plan. The Council issued a new personal housing plan on 2 September.
22. Mr B’s representative put in a complaint on 2 September 2019. The Council responded to that on 30 September. The letter referred Mr B to the Ombudsman if he was unhappy with the outcome of his stage one complaint. Mr B’s representative asked the Council to move the complaint to the next stage on 2 October. The Council says it has no record of the email, although the documentary evidence shows the representative sent the email to the right address. In November 2019 the Council declined to take the complaint further and referred Mr B to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

23. Mr B says the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation between 29 July and 5 August 2019 when the Council knew he was homeless from 29 July. In contrast the Council says it did not immediately provide accommodation to Mr B as it was still investigating whether he had a priority need. I am concerned about the Council’s approach here, I refer to the test the Council has to apply in paragraphs 6 and 7. As the code of guidance makes clear, the threshold for triggering a duty to provide interim accommodation is low and the Council does not need to be satisfied the applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Rather, all that is required for the Council to provide interim accommodation is for it to have a reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. In this case I am satisfied the Council had evidence before 29 July that Mr B would be homeless from 29 July, was eligible for assistance and the medical evidence provided by Mr B’s representative was enough for the Council to provide a reason to believe he was also in priority need. I therefore consider the Council’s approach of waiting for advice from its medical advisers on the priority need issue to be fault. Had the Council acted as it should have done I am satisfied it would have provided interim accommodation from 29 July which would have prevented Mr B becoming street homeless. Failure to provide interim accommodation from 29 July is fault.
24. I consider part of the issue in this case was the Council, when completing a personal housing plan with Mr B, failed to include much detail in the first plan about what the Council would do to seek to prevent his homelessness. The Council has accepted the plan did not provide enough information about the action the Council would take during the relief duty. I consider it possible, if the Council had properly completed the personal housing plan, it might have identified the need to sort out interim accommodation for Mr B from 29 July should other attempts to identify suitable accommodation not have succeeded by then. Failure to complete the first personal housing plan properly is fault.
25. I consider it likely though if Mr B had not become ill on 1 August while in the Council’s offices the Council would have provided him with interim accommodation. I therefore do not consider fault by the Council meant Mr B was street homeless on 1 August. Nor do I consider fault by the Council meant Mr B was street homeless between 2 and 4 August. That is because there is no evidence Mr B went back to the Council’s offices on 2 August when he was released from hospital to seek interim accommodation. I am surprised he did not attend the Council’s offices that day and instead went to his solicitor. I am also surprised the solicitor did not telephone the Council to arrange an urgent afternoon appointment and instead sent a pre-action protocol letter at 2:30pm on what was a Friday afternoon. I do not consider it likely the Council would have taken note of that email before its offices closed for the weekend. Nor would I consider it fault for the Council not to do so given the time period involved. Given the Council had intended to provide interim accommodation to Mr B on 1 August I consider it likely it would have done so had Mr B attended the Council’s offices on 2 August or his solicitor had telephoned the Council to ask for an urgent appointment. I therefore do not consider fault by the Council meant Mr B was street homeless between 2 and 4 August.
26. That leaves 5 August. Mr B’s representative says Mr B attended the Council’s offices on 5 August and could not speak to an officer. In contrast the Council says Mr B did not attend its offices on 5 August. I have carefully considered the documentary evidence. That includes an email from the Council to Mr B’s representative on 5 August where it states the Council had invited Mr B to its offices on that day to sort out interim accommodation. The email says Mr B told the Council he could only attend the following day. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for not providing interim accommodation on 5 August as I have no evidence Mr B attended on that day. I therefore consider Mr B’s injustice is limited to the three days the Council did not provide interim accommodation between 29 and 31 July 2019.
27. Mr B says the Council provided him with unsuitable interim accommodation between 6 and 11 August 2019. Mr B says he provided the Council with medical evidence which showed shared accommodation was not suitable when he applied as homeless. The Council nevertheless provided him with shared accommodation between those dates. The Council, in contrast, says it provided accommodation it had available on 6 August 2019 and it considered the accommodation suitable. I believe the Council is relying here on the medical advice it received from Now Medical. Now Medical said Mr B was in priority need and shared accommodation or similar was suitable for his needs. The first point to make here is although the Council takes advice from medical experts when deciding priority need the responsibility for making the decision nevertheless falls to the Council. So, I would expect the Council to consider all the evidence, including any medical advice received, when deciding what interim accommodation to provide to homeless applicants.
28. In this case I am satisfied the information the Council had from Mr B included a letter from a clinical psychologist treating him. That letter said:
• ‘It is clinically important that (Mr B) has his own facilities in his own accommodation, as he has discussed at length that sharing facilities has led to an increase in his PTSD symptoms. For example, his traumatic memories are currently being triggered by sharing toilets with others and these becoming dirty.’
29. I have seen no evidence to suggest either the Council or Now Medical considered that point and whether shared accommodation was suitable. Failure to do that is fault. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council moved Mr B out of shared accommodation and into self-contained accommodation when his representative challenged the Council’s decision to provide shared accommodation and highlighted the medical information the Council already had. In those circumstances, given nothing had changed between the Council providing shared accommodation and it moving Mr B to self-contained accommodation I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the Council would have provided Mr B with self-contained accommodation from the outset had it properly considered his medical evidence. I therefore consider fault by the Council meant Mr B had to stay in unsuitable accommodation between 6 and 11 August 2019.
30. Mr B says the Council failed to follow its complaints procedure when responding to his complaint as it refused to take the complaint to stage two. Having considered the Council’s complaints procedure I note it provides for consideration of a complaint at three stages. At both the first and second stage the Council’s complaints procedure says a person can take their complaint to the next stage if they are unhappy with the outcome of their complaint at the previous stage or are unhappy with the response they have received. The complaints procedure makes clear though when responding at stage one or two the Council will either advise the person complaining how to move their complaint to the next stage or advise them they can take their complaint direct to the Ombudsman if the Council feels the decision cannot be overturned through the complaint process. So, in theory the Council’s complaints procedure allows for the Council to refuse to take a complaint to the next stage.
31. I am satisfied though the complaints procedure makes clear the Council will only decide not to move a complaint to the next stage if it considers the decision cannot be overturned through the complaint process. The complaints procedure also makes clear the response, at either stage one or two, will explain that where that is the case. In this case though the Council’s response to the complaint stated only if Mr B was not satisfied with the response he could ask the Ombudsman to consider the matter further. There is nothing in the Council’s complaint response to suggest the Council said that because it did not feel the decision could be overturned through the complaints process. In any event, in asking for the complaint to go to stage two Mr B’s representative highlighted issues the Council had not covered in its stage one response. In those circumstances, and given what the Council’s complaints procedure says about when it is appropriate not to move a complaint to the next stage, I would have expected the Council to consider the complaint at stage two. Failure to do that is fault.
32. So, I have found fault as the Council failed to provide Mr B with interim accommodation from 29 July, provided shared accommodation when it should have known that was unsuitable and failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure. I now have to consider a suitable remedy for the complaint. As I said earlier, I am satisfied fault by the Council resulted in Mr B being street homeless between 29 and 31 July. Fault by the Council also meant Mr B had to stay in unsuitable accommodation between 6 and 11 August 2019. Mr B was also caused frustration by the Council refusing to deal with his complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. Fault by the Council also meant Mr B had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. I consider a suitable remedy would be for the Council to apologise to Mr B, pay him £450 and send a memo to officers dealing with homeless applications and complaints to cover the issues I have dealt with in this statement. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the faults identified in this statement;
• pay Mr B £450;
• send a memo to officers dealing with homeless applications to remind them of what they need to include in personal housing plans and of the test they should apply when considering whether a person is in priority need, along with a reminder Council officers must make the decision on priority need rather than relying solely on any medical advice from Now Medical; and
• send a memo to those dealing with complaints to remind them the Council’s complaints procedure allows for early referral to the Ombudsman only when officers have decided the decision cannot be overturned through the complaints process.

Back to top

Final decision

34. I have completed my investigation and uphold the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman