Summary: The Council is at fault as it delayed in offering interim accommodation to Mr X which meant he lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council will remedy this injustice by making a payment of £250 to Mr X to acknowledge he lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about being offered supported accommodation to relieve his homelessness as he had the right to seek a review of the suitability of that accommodation. We also cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints of racial harassment in the supported accommodation as the accommodation providers are outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council:

1. Discriminated against him on the grounds of his gender when he first made a homelessness application in 2018;
2. placed him in supported accommodation and hostels which was unsuitable as he suffered racial abuse in the accommodation;
3. failed to deal with his complaints about racial abuse in the supported accommodation
4. offered interim accommodation in a racist area following his eviction from hostel 2.
5. placed him in unsuitable permanent accommodation which is also in disrepair.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. I consider there are good reasons to investigate Mr X’s complaint from October 2018 when he made a homelessness application as he was unwell and had good reasons for making a late complaint.
4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

8. 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

9. I have:

• Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
• Discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Made enquiries of the Council and considered the information provided;
• Invited Mr X and the Council to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

13. The threshold for triggering the duty to provide interim accommodation is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than be satisfied) that the application may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (section 15.4 of the homeless code of guidance)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions. These include:

• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

What happened

Request for interim accommodation

15. The Council’s records show Mr X approached the Council for assistance in October 2018 as he was homeless. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment and Mr X provided information about his mental health, including a letter from his GP. The Council decided it owed the relief duty to Mr X.
16. Officer A, homelessness officer, considered the Council did not have a duty to offer interim accommodation to Mr X. She considered Mr X was not in priority need. Emails between officer A and Mr X shows she considered Mr X was not any more vulnerable than an ordinary person who was homeless so not in priority need. Mr X considers officer A was discriminatory and did not provide interim accommodation as he was not a woman.
17. In mid December 2018 Mr X provided a medical needs form and letter from his GP explaining his mental health conditions. Mr X and his GP both referred to Mr X thoughts of self harm. The Council referred this information to its health team for assessment. Its records note that on the face of it Mr X would not be considered to be priority need but it needed further clarification from his GP. Mr X then advised the Council he had been hospitalised and considered his mental health to be deteriorating.
18. The Council’s records note Mr X was living on and off with a friend at this time but his friend had asked him to leave and he did not feel safe living there. The Council contacted Mr X’s friend and persuaded him to let Mr X stay for a longer period.
19. In early January 2019 the Council contacted Mr X’s GP for further information. On the basis of this information the Council considered Mr X should be offered pathways supported accommodation. Nine days later the Council decided Mr X was in priority need and offering interim accommodation. The Council cannot account for the delay in offering interim accommodation after contacting his GP.

Hostel accommodation

20. A few days later the Council offered accommodation to Mr X at hostel 1 through its homelessness pathways service. This is a scheme to provide accommodation with support to help people become independent. The Council commissions the service but it is run in partnership by other housing providers. Mr X accepted the accommodation and entered into a licence agreement with the provider to stay in the hostel.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X to notify him that it had ended its relief duty as it considered it had offered Mr X suitable accommodation which was likely to remain available to him for six months or more. The letter explained Mr X could seek a review of the Council’s decision to discharge its relief duty or its decision that supported accommodation was suitable. Mr X did not seek a review.
22. In May 2019 Mr X’s MP contacted the Council as Mr X had complained of racial harassment at hostel 1. The Council advised Mr X should refer his concerns to the provider.
23. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2019 as he felt unsafe at hostel 1 as he was being racially abused. The provider had served Mr X with a notice to quit but had not enforced this and it was seeking to move Mr X to accommodation with a higher level of support. The Council’s records show it advised Mr X that he was not homeless at this time as he could return to hostel 1 but would reconsider this if he could provide information from the police to show he was unsafe at the property. The Council also advised Mr X to raise his concerns about the support provided at hostel 1 with the provider. Mr X’s solicitor also contacted the Council due to a risk Mr X could be homeless.
24. Mr X moved to hostel 2 in late August 2019. The Council’s record note the move was arranged under the homelessness pathways to prevent him from being evicted and to provide higher level support.
25. In October 2019 Mr X attended the Council as he considered it was unsafe for him to remain at hostel 2 due to incidents. The Council contacted the police who confirmed it was not safe for Mr X to return to hostel 2. The Council’s records note Mr X said he would find a hotel and attend the Council on the following day. The Council has said Mr X returned to hostel 2.
26. The Council’s records show an officer spoke to Mr X in November 2019 and he said he was no longer being harassed. However, the provider of hostel 2 served Mr X with a notice to quit due to an incident. Hostel 2 agreed Mr X could stay if he kept to an acceptable behaviour contract.
27. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2020 to complain of racial harassment which was making his mental health worse. The Council raised Mr X’s concerns with the provider which said it had not seen evidence of harassment towards Mr X.
28. Mr X made further complaints about harassment to the Council. The provider had also issued an eviction notice to Mr X which the Council says was due to an incident.
29. The Council accepted a homelessness application from Mr X and offered interim accommodation. Mr X declined the accommodation as he considered it was in an area which was racist. The Council’s records note he stayed with a friend for one night. The Council offered alternative interim accommodation the following day.
30. The Council made a direct offer of a flat to Mr X in May 2020 which he accepted.
31. Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He considered the Council had mistreated him as he had suffered racist abuse on the homelessness pathway. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. In April 2020 Mr X requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council responded in November 2020. The Council said that any complaints about harassment in the hostels was a matter for the providers. Mr X’s licence agreement to live at hostels 1 and 2 was with the provider so it was also a matter for the providers as to whether Mr X had breached the terms of the licence. The Council also did not uphold Mr X’s complaint of gender discrimination. It considered any reference to his gender when discussing if the Council could offer emergency accommodation was likely to be in the context of outlining the priority need criteria.
32. The Council acknowledged it had taken too long to deal with Mr X’s complaint, apologised and offered a payment of £250 in recognition of the distress caused to Mr X by the delay. Mr X disputes he received the payment for the distress caused by the delay in dealing with his complaint.

Analysis

Interim accommodation

33. Mr X considers the Council’s decision to refuse interim accommodation was discriminatory. He says officer A told him when carrying out his homelessness assessment that he was not vulnerable as he was not a woman. I cannot establish what was said during officer A’s conversation with Mr X during his homelessness assessment. Officer A explained in her email to Mr X that she considered Mr X was not any more vulnerable than ordinary person who was homeless. I therefore do not consider there is evidence to show the Council discriminated against Mr X on grounds of his gender. The Council had considered Mr X’s medical information when making its decision that there was no reason to believe he may be in priority need. So, there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that it should not offer interim accommodation to Mr X in October 2018.
34. In responding to my draft decision Mr X said he first approached the Council for assistance in August 2018. I have not seen evidence to show this was the case but it is not proportionate to investigate the matter further. The Council did not offer interim accommodation to Mr X in October 2018. So, on balance, I consider the Council would not have offered interim accommodation to Mr X in August 2018.
35. On balance, there is fault in how the Council reached is decision that it did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X in December 2018. The law provides that the Council should secure accommodation if it has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible and have a priority need. The code of guidance states this is a low threshold. It appears the Council was trying to satisfy itself that Mr X was in priority need when it referred his medical information to its medical team who in turn sought further information from Mr X’s GP. The Council therefore placed a too high threshold for whether it should provide interim accommodation to Mr X. On balance, I consider the Council would have offered Mr X interim accommodation in December 2018 if it had properly considered he may be in priority need against the appropriate threshold.
36. The Council also delayed in considering if Mr X may have priority need in December 2018. It took three weeks to contact Mr X’s GP for further information. This is excessive even taking into account the Christmas period, particularly when Mr X and his GP had raised concerns about self harm. The Council then took a further 10 days to decide Mr X was in priority need and to offer interim accommodation after it obtained further information from Mr X’s GP. The Council cannot account for this delay. This is fault.
37. The Council’s records show Mr X was living with a friend during this period. But his occupation was precarious as his friend had asked him to leave on one occasion and he did not feel safe at the accommodation. The faults outlined above meant Mr X lived in unsuitable accommodation for five weeks longer than necessary which will have caused distress to him. The Council should remedy this injustice.

Suitability of supported accommodation

38. Mr X considers the homelessness pathway and supported accommodation were unsuitable for him and caused his mental health to significantly decline. I understand Mr X was unwell at the time the Council offered supported accommodation to discharge the relief duty. But the Council clearly notified Mr X of his right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation in its letter notifying him of the end of the relief duty. Mr X could have sought advice from advice agencies and I note he later instructed a solicitor. So, while I understand Mr X was unwell, I consider it is reasonable to expect him to have sought a review of the Council decision to offer supported accommodation. Mr X would then have had the right to appeal to the County Court if the Council did not uphold his review request.
39. Furthermore, and having considered all the evidence, I do not consider I could establish whether the homelessness pathway was suitable for Mr X some three years after the Council offered the placement.

Complaints of racial discrimination in hostels 1 and 2

40. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints of racial discrimination in hostels 1 and 2. The evidence shows the hostel providers were Mr X’s landlords and were responsible for investigating complaints about the behaviour of other tenants. The hostel providers are not within our jurisdiction so I cannot investigate how they considered Mr X’s complaints of racial discrimination.

Offer of interim accommodation after Mr X was evicted from hostel 2

41. Mr X considers the Council is at fault for offering interim accommodation in an area he considered to be racist. The Council offered alternative interim accommodation to Mr X when he declined the first offer. So I do not consider there could be sufficient injustice to Mr X to warrant investigating this matter further.

Unsuitable permanent accommodation

42. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of his current property. Mr X had the right to request a review of the suitability of the property and I consider it is reasonable to expect him to do so. I also have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about disrepair in the property as the complaint is about the Council in its role as a social landlord. We cannot investigate complaints about the Council as a social landlord.

Complaint

43. The Council has acknowledged it delayed in dealing with Mr X’s complaint. The Council’s apology and payment of £250 is sufficient and proportionate to acknowledge the distress caused to Mr X by the delay. The Council has provided evidence to show the payment was made to Mr X for the distress caused by the delay in dealing with his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. That the Council:
1. Send a written apology and makes a payment of £250 to Mr X for the distress caused to him by the Council’s delay in offering interim accommodation from December 2018. This meant he lived in unsuitable accommodation for five weeks longer than necessary. The recommended payment of £250 is in accordance with our guidance on remedies. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.
2. By training or other means, remind officers of the provisions set out in the Housing Act 1996 and Homelessness Code of Guidance, in particular the low threshold, when deciding if the Council has a duty to offer interim accommodation. The Council should take this action within six weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

45. The Council is at fault as it delayed in offering interim accommodation to Mr X which meant he lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice as recommended. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaints about being offered supported accommodation to relieve his homelessness as he had the right to seek a review of the suitability of that accommodation. I also cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints of racial harassment in the supported accommodation as the accommodation providers are outside our jurisdiction. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman