Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application since September 2018. On the evidence available we find fault by the Council which may have affected Mr B’s chances of finding suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to invite a fresh homeless application from Mr B and pay him £500.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) has not dealt properly with the homelessness application he made in September 2018 and has not given him enough help in finding accommodation since then, despite his continuing homelessness and ill health. Mr B also complains about the Council's failure to communicate with him about his case or assist him access the choice-based lettings scheme in order to bid for properties. Mr B is still homeless and has no permanent accommodation.

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. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. 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

Legislation and statutory guidance

5. Part 7 of 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.

Homelessness

6. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018 if he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans (PHPs)

7. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP).

The prevention duty

8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases.

The relief duty

9. Councils must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

10. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Examples of applicants in priority need include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.

The main homelessness duty

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation
12. After completing inquiries, 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. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a decision.

What happened

13. Mr B has a number of health conditions and in 2018 was living with his mother and six siblings in a three-bedroom property. In August 2018 he applied online to the Council for housing as his mother had refused him access to the property. The Council said it processed the application and placed his application in the lowest priority band.
14. He went back to the Council with his mother in September 2018 and made a homeless application. He said he was sofa-surfing and sleeping in his car. He said he had been referred to the Council’s autism service and was vulnerable on the street. The Council interviewed him and his mother. She said she was struggling to have him at home due to his behaviour and the impact it had on the other children, three of whom had additional needs. She did not think Mr B could look after himself as he needed prompting to wash and could leave the cooker on when cooking.
15. The Council said he was eligible for a room in shared accommodation. His mother agreed to let him stay at her house for a bit longer as she did not think shared accommodation was suitable. The Council concluded he was eligible for help as he was threatened with homelessness. It said it would take reasonable steps to help him keep his current accommodation. It also provided advice about finding alternative accommodation. It agreed to make a referral to the Accommodation Finding Service and said it could help with a deposit for property in the private sector. It asked Mr B to provide information about his health problems so the Council could carry out a medical assessment. The Council also referred him to the reablement service while it waited for his social care assessment (due to be done in October).
16. It sent Mr B a PHP. This said the Council would:
• Assist him with obtaining the right priority on the housing list;
• Provide advice and assistance about finding accommodation in the private sector;
• Refer him to the Council’s procurement service and the self-help scheme;
• Contact him periodically to check on his progress and update him with any progress it made.
17. The PHP also said Mr B would contact family and friends about possible accommodation and search for accommodation himself from a list of websites provided.
18. The Council has provided an email indicating that Mr B was referred to the sustain and support service in October 2018 but the Council could not provide any information about the outcome of this referral.
19. The Council completed a social care assessment on 25 October 2018. It concluded Mr B was eligible for care services due to his health conditions. It noted he needed support to be able to make of his home safely and maintain a habitable home. It said there was a fire risk when cooking as he often left the cooker on. It also noted he was not good with finances, being motivated to wash clothes and buy the things he needed when shopping It suggested a floating support service could be used to assist Mr B in developing his daily living skills, his budgeting and managing a tenancy. The assessment recommended he attend the homeless person’s unit as he was sofa-surfing at his aunt’s and needed his own accommodation.
20. The Council says the social care assessment was not seen by the medical adviser or Mr B’s housing caseworker.
21. On 2 November 2018 Mr B attended the Council offices to hand in some documents. He says he handed in a lot of documents about his medical conditions on several occasions but the caseworker then said she had lost them. He visited again on 8 November 2018 to say he was now homeless and wanted to speak to his caseworker. The records say an email was sent to her. There is no record of a response.
22. He visited the offices again on 27 November 2018 to request temporary accommodation. The Council arranged a home visit as the notes indicated that Mr B was not capable of independent living.
23. The visit took place on 29 November 2018. Mr B’s mother said that Mr B has very high support needs and that he needs supported accommodation. He needs reminding when to go to appointments and when to bathe. She also said that if he tried to cook something, he may forget that he has left something on the stove. She also said that social services had assessed him, and the report was with his housing caseworker. Mrs B also detailed the family circumstances and the Council agreed that homelessness was not preventable due to the household circumstances The visiting officer concluded that the allocation process would take too long unless his banding could be changed, that reablement may not have any supported accommodation and that a referral to social services may be necessary. The officer did not feel that temporary accommodation would be suitable. The officer did not offer any further solutions or assistance.
24. The next record of contact is on 9 January 2019 when Mr B approached the office again asking for temporary accommodation as he had been rough sleeping since before Christmas. He provided a completed medical assessment form and medical letters from 2013. The Council said it would not provide any temporary accommodation until Mr B provided further medical information to enable a medical assessment to be done.
25. The Council sent him a letter on 9 January 2019 confirming that the prevention duty had ended and it now had a duty to find him suitable accommodation. It said it had enclosed an updated PHP. The medical assessment decision was made on 13 January 2019. The medical adviser concluded that Mr B had no medical need to move. They said:

While I appreciate the current accommodation is not ideal, the evidence supplied does not provide compelling indications for a change of accommodation on medical grounds.

The issue of overcrowding attracts its own priority.

While I acknowledge the difficult circumstances, marital, domestic or familial disharmony are not considered to be a medical matter.

26. The Council called Mr B again on 21 January 2019 to get more information but there was no response.
27. Mr B emailed the Council on 24 January 2019 to ask if the medical assessment had been reviewed. He was sleeping rough several times a week. The Council did not reply to this email until January 2020.
28. The Council notified Mr B by letter of the medical assessment decision on 21 February 2019 sending the letter to his mother’s address.
29. The Council sent an annual review letter for the housing register to Mr B’s mother’s address in June 2019. It received no reply from him so removed him from the register in July 2019.
30. In January 2020 the Council contacted Mr B by email to ask where he was staying and to say it had some hostel accommodation for him. Mr B replied to say he was still homeless and struggling to find affordable accommodation. The Council said he did not meet the criteria for the hostel. It said he had passed the 56-day prevention stage and needed to find a room in shared accommodation. It could then help with the deposit. It asked him to provide any new medical information. If he was not in priority need then she would close the case.
31. Mr B contacted our office to complain. We contacted the Council and it said it had a record of Mr B making a complaint in January 2019, but it had no record of sending him a response. It closed the complaint on 30 January 2019. It also said it had no record of a PHP and requested an urgent decision now be made, along with assistance with finding private sector accommodation. In February 2020 we decided to investigate the complaint and it joined our allocation queue. We then suspended casework activity until the end of June 2020 due to COVID19.
32. On 18 February 2020 the medical adviser decided that Mr B was not significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person. This meant he was not in priority need. The adviser had made the decision based on Mr B’s own declarations. The Council sent this decision to Mr B on 5 March 2020 and asked him to provide any additional medical evidence by 6 March 2020.
33. On 27 March 2020 the Council sent Mr B a decision letter confirming as he did not have a priority need, it did not have a duty to rehouse him. It provided details of how to access the Council’s help to rent scheme and again said it would help with a deposit if he found accommodation. The letter provided details of how to request a review.

Analysis

34. Following Mr B’s homelessness interview on 25 September 2018 the Council appears to have taken some steps to recognise his health conditions and possible vulnerabilities: it offered him temporary accommodation, referred him to the accommodation-finding service, referred to the reablement service while he awaited a social care assessment and referred him to the sustain and support service. It also asked him to provide medical information for a medical assessment. However, none of these options were followed through and the Council did not contact Mr B again until he visited in November 2018.
35. The Council failed to consider the outcome of the social care assessment and its relevance to his housing situation. There is evidence that Mr B visited the Council shortly after the assessment and handed some documents in. His mother in November 2018 also confirmed that the housing caseworker had the assessment. But she made no reference to it, did not update the PHP and took no action. This was fault.
36. The Council’s own visit to Mr B in November 2018 confirmed the outcome of the social care assessment: he needed support to manage a tenancy and temporary accommodation may not be suitable for him. But again the Council failed to take note of this information, did not update the PHP and took no action until Mr B contacted the Council himself in January 2019. This was fault.
37. In January 2019 the Council made a referral to the medical assessment team but only included a questionnaire completed by Mr B. It failed to send the social care assessment or the information obtained during the home visit in November 2018. It is not clear that the medical assessor had the correct information about where Mr B was living as they refer to family disharmony in his current accommodation and makes no mention of sofa-surfing or sleeping rough. The whole process appears inaccurate and incomplete. This was fault.
38. The Council made one attempt to contact Mr B by phone in January 2019 but then did not respond to his email of 24 January 2019 where he was asking for a review of the medical assessment and did not contact him again until January 2020. This was fault. I accept neither did Mr B make contact, but his lack of engagement was perhaps understandable given the Council’s failure to progress his case properly.
39. The Council’s action in January 2020 appears rushed and simply a means of closing the case. It referred Mr B’s information again to the medical adviser but did not include details of his social care needs and simply asked Mr B to provide further medical information which he did not have. It did not carry out a further interview or discuss any possible housing options beyond a hostel. This was fault.
40. But it did provide Mr B with a decision letter and it was open to him to request a review of the decision which he did not do.

Injustice

41. It is difficult to say if the outcome for Mr B would have been any different had the Council been more proactive in the initial stages. It is also the case that from January 2019 Mr B has not engaged significantly with the Council or provided any new information about his circumstances. However, it remains uncertain whether he would have secured suitable accommodation, if his circumstances had been accurately and completely considered between September 2018 and January 2019. During this time, he spent periods sleeping in his car and sofa-surfing. Mr B has also had to chase up the Council on many occasions, which has caused him significant time and trouble

Agreed action

42. I asked the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision, to:
• invite a fresh homeless application from Mr B, so the Council can take full information about his current circumstances including the difficulties previously identified with his ability to sustain a tenancy and look after himself; and
• pay Mr B £500 for the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s failings.
43. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mr B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman