Plymouth City Council (20 004 150)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 02 Jul 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains the Council placed him and his family in unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to place Mr X in interim accommodation when he became homeless and to show the accommodation was unsuitable. The Council is at fault in failing to translate its letters setting out its decisions on Mr X’s homelessness application. These faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr X other than to deny him the opportunity to receive the letters in his preferred language. The Council also delayed in carrying out a review into its decision to end it main housing duty to Mr X which caused some frustration to him. The Council will apologise to Mr X for this injustice and review its procedures.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains that:
      1. The Council placed him and his family in temporary accommodation which he considers was unsuitable due to his and his wife’s medical conditions.
      2. The Council failed to investigate and act on his complaints of other residents trying to enter his room in the temporary accommodation which caused significant distress to his family.
      3. The Council wrongly decided accommodation offered to him was suitable so discharged its main housing duty and evicted him and his family from the temporary accommodation.
      4. An officer told him that he and his family could sleep in a park and threatened to remove the children if he did so.

Mr X consider that as a result he and his family lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and were caused significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
  2. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. 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, or
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
  • it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

  1. 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

  1. I have:
  • Considered the complaint and the information provided by Mr X;
  • Discussed the issues with Mr X with the assistance of an interpreter;
  • 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

Law

  1. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council on or after 3 April 2018:
  • he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
  • he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. [Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)]

If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

  1. 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)
  2. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
  3. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
  4. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
  5. Councils must complete reviews of its decision about the suitability of accommodation to end its main housing duty within eight weeks. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

What happened

Interim accommodation and Devon Home Choice bids

  1. In October 2019 Mr X and his family made a homelessness application to the Council. Mr X was assisted by an advice agency. The Council’s records note Mr X suffered from back pain but could manage a few stairs. Mr X had provided a handwritten note signed by a doctor in 2018 stating he required ground floor accommodation. The Council’s records also note Mr X required an interpreter for the following appointment.
  2. The Council offered interim accommodation to Mr X and his family as it had reason to believe they were in priority need. I shall call this property A. The accommodation was in a flat owned by the Council and which was shared with another household. Property A was accessed via stairs. The Council has said Mr X did not raise any concerns about the stairs at the property A was offered. Mr X has said he told the Council it was unsuitable and officers said they would find alternative accommodation.
  3. Shortly after moving to property A, Mr X reported to the building’s security that a person had entered his flat in the middle of the night which caused distress to his family. Security found that another resident had mistaken Mr X’s flat for their own and they apologised for their error. It also noted the door to Mr X’s property was insecure and would be fixed. The Council’s records note security informed Mr X of what had happened.
  4. In October 2019 Mr X successfully applied for the Council’s housing register so he could bid on properties. Devon Home Choice who administers the scheme notified Mr X of his priority band and asked him to provide further information on his health. It considered the information provided by Mr X was out of date and there was no evidence to show he could only climb three steps. Mr X has said Devon Home Choice did not ask him to provide more medical evidence. The Council did not follow up this matter.
  5. Mr X attended the Council for a homelessness assessment. The Council’s records note it had booked an interpreter. Mr X has said the Council refused to provide one. The Council also drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Mr X setting out the steps he and the Council would take to relive his homelessness. The PHP said the Council considered he did not require any specific design of accommodation.
  6. The Council accepted it had a duty to relieve Mr X’s homelessness. It notified Mr X of this duty in a letter. The letter also advised Mr X he could seek a review of the suitability of his accommodation although there is no statutory right to seek a review of the suitability of accommodation under the relief duty. I understand Mr X did not seek a review at this time or raise with the Council that the accommodation was unsuitable. Mr X has said this was because the Council had agreed to find more suitable accommodation for him.
  7. In January 2020 the Council offered a two bedroom property to Mr and Mrs X who were being assisted by an advice agency at this time. I understand the Council offered the property as temporary accommodation as it had accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty which meant it had a duty to find housing for him. Mr and Mrs X could not accept the property as Mrs X was due to give birth and was hospitalised at this time. Mr X has also said the Council considered it to be unsuitable as it did not have any white goods. Mr and Mrs X therefore remained at property A.
  8. The Council notified Mr X that it owed the main housing duty to him by letter. In this letter it explained Mr X had the right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. I understand Mr X did not seek a review.
  9. Mr X placed a number of bids on properties. In February 2020 Mr X was successfully matched to one property, property B, but his bid was skipped by the registered housing provider because the property had stairs and Mr X’s application stated he could not manage more than three steps. In response to my enquiries the Council has said it would have been good practice for the provider to have contacted the Council to give Mr X the opportunity to relieve his homelessness.
  10. The Council then made a direct offer of a property, property C, to Mr X in March 2020 which was on the second floor. The Council’s records show Mr X refused this as he needed a ground floor property. The Council then offered a ground floor property, property D, to Mr X which he rejected.
  11. The Council’s records also show Mr X was matched with another property, property E, which was a house and the provider sent a text message to Mr X advising he need to complete a financial assessment. The text message advised he needed to contact the provider by a certain date and time or they would offer it to the next bidder. The Council said the bid did not proceed as Mr X did not contact the provider although this is not noted on its records.
  12. The advice agency, with the assistance of an interpreter, explained the direct offer of the ground floor accommodation to Mr X and that the Council could end its main housing duty if he refused it. The advice agency informed the Council that while Mr X had English skills these were not sufficient for him to understand complex conversations. They recommended an interpreter for Mr X for any complex conversations or for any decision making. Emails between the advice agency and Council show officers were surprised Mr X required an interpreter as he often interpreted for other service users.
  13. In April 2020 an officer contacted Mr X to see if he would accept the ground floor property. The Council’s records note Mr X declined the property as he had not bid on it. The record also notes Mr X said he would take his family to sleep in a park. Mr X has said an officer told him he would have to sleep in a park and threatened to report him to children’s services.
  14. The Council ended its main housing duty to Mr X as he had refused the offer of property D which it considered to be suitable.
  15. In June 2020 Mr X reported to security that another person had tried to access his flat during the night. The Council’s records show it informed Mr X that it was likely this was due to someone mistaking his flat for their own and using their key on the wrong door.
  16. In response to my draft decision Mr X has said other residents damaged his property and subjected him to racist abuse in autumn 2020. He said the Council told him it would investigate the matter but did not contact him any further about it.

Review

  1. On 30 April 2020 Mr X, with the help of the advice agency, requested a review of its decision that the property was suitable. Mr X and his family remained in property A at this time. The Council issued a provisional decision in September 2019 saying it was minded to conclude the property was suitable and invited Mr X to submit more information. Mr X submitted more evidence, including medical evidence. The Council issued a further minded to decision. It has not issued a final decision as Mr X has left property A and the area and signed a letter confirming he had secured alternative accommodation and he did not want to pursue his review. Mr X has said an officer misled him about the contents of the letter and he did not want to withdraw his review request.
  2. Emails between the Council and Mr X’s advice agency show it asked for the review letters to Mr X to be translated to enable him to fully understand them. The Council declined to do this as it considered Mr X understood English.

Complaint

  1. Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He complained:
  • The Council had not followed up his reports of people trying to gain access to his flat;
  • He had not been offered a property by Devon Home Choice despite successful bids. He declined one property as he thought it had been offered to someone else, declined the first direct offer as it was on the second floor and one offer was withdrawn.
  • An officer told him he had to accept the direct offer or go and live in a park;
  • The Council had not accepted his medical evidence.
  1. The Council held a meeting with Mr X and arranged an interpreter to support him. The record of the meeting shows Mr X acknowledged he made the statement about going to sleep in a park, not an officer. The record also shows Mr X raised his concerns about the suitability of property A as it had stairs. The Council explained why Mr X had not been offered a property through Devon Home Choice and why it considered his medical evidence submitted with his home choice application was insufficient.
  2. The Council wrote to Mr X after the meeting setting out its response to his complaint. It did not uphold his complaint but said his complaint of a person trying to enter his property was being investigated. I understand the Council did not investigate the matter further.

Notice to Quit

  1. The Council charged Mr X a licence fee to occupy property A. The Council wrote to Mr X in September and October 2020 to warn him that his licence fee account was in arrears. The letters warned Mr X the Council could terminate his licence if he did not pay his arrears. In November 2020 the Council issued a notice to quit as Mr X had not paid his arrears. Mr X paid the arrears and the Council did not terminate his licence. Mr X considers the Council should not have issued the Notice to Quit as it was during the second lockdown period.
  2. In response to my enquiries the Council has said:
  • Mr X and his family were the sole occupiers of property A after the COVID 19 pandemic was declared.
  • It did not consider the medical evidence submitted by Mr X when he presented as homeless to be sufficient as it was 19 months old and Devon Home Choice asked Mr X for up to date evidence. It noted Mr X had bid on properties with stairs.
  • It considered Mr X understood English but acknowledges it was inconsistent in its approach as it did commission an interpreter for some meetings. It will therefore review its service approach to translation, review translation availability and use and work with partners to understand what would be the best and most supportive approach.
  • It acknowledged the provider should referred the offer of property to the Council before skipping it to allow Mr X the opportunity to relieve his homelessness. It has made Devon Home Choice partners aware of this so all providers can be informed of best practice. It has also reviewed its processes to ensure requests for additional medical evidence at the point of application are followed up.
  • It considers it went beyond its duties in allowing Mr X to decline property C as it could have discharged its housing duty as it considered the property to be suitable. The Council accepted Mr X’s refusal of property C and offered property D to support him and his family.

Analysis

Medical evidence

  1. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision not to accept Mr X’s medical evidence when he made his homelessness and Devon Home Choice applications. The Council considered the evidence and has explained why it was out of date. It also gave Mr X the opportunity to submit more up to date information.
  2. Mr X disputes Devon Home Choice asked him to provide additional medical evidence. The Council has provided evidence to show it asked Mr X to provide medical evidence when it notified him of what priority it had awarded to him. So, on balance, I consider the Council asked Mr X to provide additional medical evidence. I cannot say why Mr X did not receive this letter but I cannot conclude this was the fault of the Council.

Property A

  1. On balance, I do not consider the Council to be at fault for placing Mr X in property A when he became homeless. Mr X has said he told the Council the property was unsuitable as he could not manage the stairs. I have not seen evidence to show Mr X raised his concerns. I understand Mr X thought the Council was seeking alternative accommodation. But it is surprising he did not seek a review of the suitability of the interim accommodation if he thought it was unsuitable and when the Council had not provided alternative accommodation. He had the opportunity to do this when the Council accepted the relief duty and when it accepted the main housing duty. Mr X also bid on properties with stairs.
  2. I have considered if the Council was being inconsistent when it withdrew property C and offered property D and whether it shows property A was unsuitable due to the stairs. I do not consider this to be the case. The Council offered property D to assist Mr X. It did not accept Mr X could not manage stairs. I therefore cannot conclude property A was unsuitable for Mr X.
  3. The Council did not send translated letters to Mr X setting out its decisions on the relief and main housing duty which also explained his right to seek a review of the suitability of property A. On balance, I consider this to be fault. The Council’s records note Mr X required an interpreter for his homelessness assessment so it was aware he had language needs. There is no evidence to show the Council explored with Mr X whether he required documents to be translated and it still did not provide translated documents when requested to do so by the advice agency. Instead, it appears to have made its decision not to provide translated documents based on its own assumptions of Mr X’s understanding of English rather than asking him what his needs were.
  4. But, on balance, I do not consider the failure to translate the decision letters caused significant injustice to Mr X. This is because Mr X was assisted by the advice agency so I consider he would have been able to seek a review of the suitability of property A when the Council issued its decisions that it owed the relief and main housing duties. Mr X was also able to seek a review of the Council’s decision that it no longer owed the main housing duty to him as he refused the offer of property D. But the Council should apologise to Mr X for not exploring his language needs and denying him the opportunity to have the decision letters translated into his preferred language to ensure his full understanding.
  5. The Council has acknowledged it was inconsistent in its approach to Mr X’s language needs and will review its processes. It should also ensure it explores with the service user what their needs are so it can ensure they are not disadvantaged.

Devon Home Choice offers

  1. The Council has acknowledged it would have been good practice for the social housing provider to have contacted it about property B before skipping Mr X’s bid. It has also explained the social housing provider did not offer property E to Mr X as he did not respond to its request for contact. Devon Home Choice’s records do not show the reason why property E did not proceed. But I do not consider Mr X would have accepted either property as they both had stairs. I acknowledge Mr X had bid on properties with stairs but he rejected property C due to the stairs.

Complaints about residents entering property A

  1. The Council’s records show it considered Mr X’s complaints of other residents entering or trying to enter property A at the time he made the complaints and explained to Mr X what had happened. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint states the second incident was still under investigation but it did not carry out an investigation. This misinformation raised Mr X’s expectations. I understand Mr X and his family were caused distress by the incidents but it would be disproportionate to ask the Council to now investigate. It is unlikely to be able to add anything more to the explanation given to Mr X by property A’s security.
  2. Mr X has said his property was damaged and he was subjected to racist abuse by residents in autumn 2020 which the Council said it would investigate. I do not know if the Council has investigated the matter or if Mr X complained to the Council about its lack of investigation. But I do not consider I could achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating this matter now.

Decision that property D was suitable for Mr X and decision to end main housing duty

  1. I have not investigated whether property D was suitable and the Council’s decision to end its main housing duty. This is because Mr X was able to seek a review of the decisions.
  2. The Council should have made a decision on Mr X’s review request within eight weeks. It took nearly five months to issue the minded decision. While I acknowledge the pressures caused by COVID 19, the time taken was excessive and amounts to fault. The Council continued to accommodate Mr X at property A but the delay will have caused some frustration to Mr X.
  3. The Council has not issued a final decision on Mr X’s review as he moved from the area and signed a letter stating he wished to withdrew his review request. Mr X has said an officer misled him about the content of the letter and he was tricked into signing it. I do not consider further investigation will establish what the officer said to Mr X about the letter and whether he was misled. So, I will not pursue this matter.

Notice to Quit

  1. The Council issued a notice to quit to Mr X as his licence account was in arrears. I understand Mr X’s concern that the Council issued a notice to quit during the lockdown period. However, there is insufficient injustice to Mr X to warrant investigating the matter further. The Council did not evict Mr X from property A.

Officer told Mr X he and his family could sleep in a park and threatened to report him to children’s services

  1. There is no evidence to show an officer told Mr X he could sleep in the park. I note Mr X said at the meeting with the Council that he told the officer he would take his family to sleep in a park and the Council’s record of his call corroborates that account. There is also no evidence to show an officer threatened to report him to children’s services.

Back to top

Agreed action

  1. That the Council will:
      1. Send a written apology to Mr X for failing to explore his language needs with him, denying him the opportunity to have decision letters translated into his preferred language and the frustration caused by the delay in considering his request for a review of its decision that property D was a suitable offer for the Council to discharge its main housing duty. The Council should take this action within one month of my final decision.
      2. Provide evidence of its review of its service approach to translation and translation availability to support service users with language needs. The Council will also ensure this review includes a requirement for officers to explore language needs with service users. The Council will provide this evidence within two months of my final decision.
      3. Provide evidence of its review of procedures to ensure requests for medical evidence at the point of the homeless application are followed up and its advice provided to Devon Home Choice partners to ensure offers which could relieve a person’s homelessness are not skipped without reference to the Council. The Council will provide this evidence within two months of my final decision.
      4. Review its procedures for considering requests for review of its decisions under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 to ensure the delays experienced by Mr X do not recur. The Council will take this action within two months of my final decision and explain to the Ombudsman the action it has taken to improve its performance in this area.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to place Mr X in interim accommodation when he became homeless and to show the accommodation was unsuitable. The Council is at fault in failing to translate its letters setting out its decisions on Mr X’s homelessness application. These faults did not cause significant injustice to Mr X other than to deny him the opportunity to receive the letters in his preferred language. The Council also delayed in carrying out a review into its decision to end it main housing duty to Mr X which caused some frustration to him. The Council will apologise to Mr X for this injustice and review its procedures. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings