Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his housing case since March 2020. He says he was unreasonably evicted from temporary accommodation, the Council failed to provide alternative temporary accommodation following his eviction, the Council failed to provide support following his eviction, and the flat the Council offered him is not suitable. We find no fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s housing case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his housing case since he became homeless in March 2020. He complains:
• He was unreasonably evicted from temporary accommodation following a dispute with the accommodation manager.
• The Council failed to provide alternative temporary accommodation following his eviction.
• The Council did not provide him with support following his eviction, despite him having inadequate clothing and no access to his belongings.
• The Council offered him a permanent flat which is not suitable for him.
• It has been difficult to speak with the Council and officers do not return his calls.

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. 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)
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. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Guidance

8. 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.
9. If a council has reason to believe someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make enquiries to establish if the council has a duty to assist them.
10. If a council is satisfied someone is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for them. This is known as the council’s relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. When a council is satisfied an applicant is in priority need and is not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends after 56 days. The council must then complete inquiries promptly to decide what further duty is owed. The council may give notice to bring the relief duty to an end in any of the following circumstances:
• The applicant has suitable accommodation available that has a reasonable prospect of being available for at least six months;
• The Council has complied with the relief duty for at least 56 days (whether or not the applicant has secured accommodation);
• The applicant has refused an offer of suitable accommodation that would have been available for at least six months;
• The applicant has become intentionally homeless from any accommodation that was made available by the authority exercising functions under this section;
• The applicant is no longer eligible for assistance;
• The applicant has withdrawn the application.
• The applicant is deliberately and unreasonably failing to co-operate with the local authority.
12. Section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires housing authorities to secure that accommodation is available for an applicant if they have reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. If this is met, the housing authority must provide interim accommodation whilst fulfilling the relief duty. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 13.4)
13. The threshold for trigging the section 188(1) duty is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. 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.
14. Where an applicant rejects an offer of interim accommodation, this will bring the housing authority’s interim accommodation duty to an end – unless it is reactivated by any change of circumstances. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.22)
15. Applicants can ask councils to review most aspects of their decisions, and, if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law. Applicants can also appeal if a council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204, Homeless Code of Guidance 24)

What happened

16. In March 2020, Mr X approached the Council and told it he was homeless. The Council accepted a housing application.
17. The Council said it was satisfied Mr X was homeless and eligible for help. It accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty. The Council said it also accepted a duty to provide interim accommodation. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation at the end of March 2020, at Hotel A.
18. In June 2020, Hotel A told the Council Mr X said it was leaving the hotel. The Council’s housing officer contacted Mr X’s social worker as there were concerns he had not arranged any alternative accommodation. The housing officer also wanted to ensure Mr X was aware and understood that if he left Hotel A with no alternative accommodation, the Council’s section 188 duty to provide interim accommodation would end.
19. In July 2020, Mr X told the Council he had left Hotel A. He told the Council the staff were unkind and had forced him to clean his room. He also alleged the manager and other residents had stolen his belongings and that he had heard them planning to change the lock on his door so he could not return.
20. Mr X’s housing application was being considered for an adapted properly. The Occupational Therapist had assessed Mr X as needing a one bedroom, ground floor adapted property with a level access shower. This was due to Mr X’s mobility needs and the risks from falls. The Council said Mr X was at risks from falls due to a severe head injury in the past.
21. The records showed the Council told Mr X its Section 188 duty to provide interim accommodation had ended as he had voluntarily left his placement. The Council said it was not able to post a letter confirming this as Mr X would not provide a forwarding address. The Council said it still owed Mr X the relief duty.
22. At the end of July 2020, Mr X told the Council he was homeless. The Council provided Mr X with accommodation at Hotel B. The Council said this accommodation was funded by a grant provided by central government to provide rough sleepers with safe accommodation during the Covid-19 pandemic.
23. Hotel B contacted the Council when Mr X arrived with concerns about the amount of belongings Mr X brought with him. There were concerns his room was overcrowded. Hotel B also noted Mr X needed more support than normal.
24. In August 2020, the Council suggested Mr X move to residential accommodation or a care home due to concerns about his behaviour. Mr X declined this.
25. Mr X complained to the Council that Hotel B were not treating him well. The Council asked Hotel B about this. Hotel B told the Council it was trying to support Mr X, but they were not supported housing. It also told the Council Mr X would not let anyone into his room to clean. Hotel B said it felt Mr X needed accommodation where more support was available.
26. In the middle of August 2020, Hotel B told the Council Mr X was becoming increasingly aggressive and they would not be able to continue to accommodate him if the behaviour continued. Hotel B also told the Council Mr X would not allow it to complete an electrical inspection of his room. The hotel said it needed to check Mr X’s room regularly to ensure there were no fire hazards as he had a lot of personal possessions in the room.
27. At the end of August 2020, Hotel B called the police on Mr X. The records note this was because Mr X had become aggressive towards staff and was slamming a window. The police removed Mr X from Hotel B. Hotel B told the Council it had left Mr X’s belongings in his room and would like the packing up of them to be witnessed by Council staff. Mr X collected his belongings from Hotel B with support from the police.
28. The Council said it would not provide any further interim accommodation to Mr X as it had previously discharged its section 188 duty.
29. In September 2020, the Council asked Mr X to view a property he had been nominated for. Mr X viewed the property but refused the property as he felt it was not suitable for him. Mr X said the property did not have a bath or a place to store his bike. The Council explained a wet room was the recommended adaptation for him. Mr X later accepted the property.
30. The Council said remedial workers were required before Mr X could move in. The records showed the Council offered to contact a homeless shelter on Mr X’s behalf while he waited for the property to be ready. Mr X declined this. The Council asked its rough sleeper team to look out for Mr X. The property was ready for Mr X at the beginning of October 2020 and the tenancy began in mid-October 2020.
31. In November 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X to advise it had ended its relief duty as he had accepted a final offer of social housing made through the Council’s housing allocations scheme. The letter told Mr X he had 21 days to seek a review of the accommodation if he felt the accommodation was unsuitable.
32. Mr X said the flat was unsuitable for his needs. The Council said the flat was suitable for Mr X needs. The Council explained its Occupational Therapist had observed Mr X when he viewed the property and raised no concerns about his mobility around the property or his ability to use the facilities.
33. Mr X’s social worker said Mr X had always been able to contact them by telephone. The Council provided evidence Mr X had either called or met with the Council around 50 times between July 2020 and November 2020. The social worker said Mr X would sometimes fill their voicemail with messages, so it was not always possible to respond to them all.
34. The Council also said Mr X was difficult with deal with at times due to his behaviour. The social worker said Mr X could be verbally abusive on the phone. The Council explained it had to put on place contact restrictions due to Mr X’s unreasonable behaviour.

Analysis

35. The evidence shows the Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 in March 2020. This was appropriate as the evidence suggests the Council had reason to believe Mr X was homeless and eligible for assistance. Mr X left this accommodation voluntarily, despite being advised this would end the Council’s duty to provide interim accommodation. Therefore, there is no fault with the Council’s decision to end its duty to provide interim accommodation as it appropriately advised Mr X of the consequences of leaving the accommodation and Mr X chose to leave the accommodation.
36. The Council later provided Mr X with further temporary accommodation using a grant provided by central government to help rough sleepers. Therefore, this accommodation was not being provided under any housing duty.
37. With regards to Mr X’s eviction from Hotel B, the evidence shows the hotel had raised concerns about Mr X’s increasingly aggressive behaviour in the middle of August 2020. The hotel also told the Council Mr X was preventing it from inspecting his room and there was concern about his room being a fire hazard. The hotel told the Council it could not allow Mr X to remain in the accommodation if his behaviour continued. Then, at the end of August 2020, Hotel B called the police on Mr X because he had become aggressive towards staff and was causing damage to the property.
38. Therefore, the evidence does not suggest Mr X’s eviction from temporary accommodation was unreasonable. Instead, Mr X was evicted due to his behaviour whilst staying at the accommodation. The evidence also shows Hotel B gave Mr X the opportunity to change his behaviour before asking him to leave.
39. The Council did not provide Mr X with any alternative temporary accommodation following his eviction. However, I do not find fault with this as the Council had no duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation as that duty ended when Mr X left Hotel A voluntarily.
40. Mr X said the Council did not provide him with support following his eviction. He said he had no access to his belongings and did not have adequate clothing. However, the evidence shows Mr X was able to collect his belongings from Hotel B following his release from police custody. Further, the Council had offered Mr X a property through its housing allocation scheme a few days after Mr X was asked to leave Hotel B. This demonstrates the Council was providing Mr X with support.
41. The Council says the flat accepted by Mr X is suitable for his needs. Mr X has the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation. The Council has yet to complete a review. Therefore, if Mr X feels the property is not suitable for his needs, he should request the Council complete a suitability review. If Mr X is not happy with the Council’s review, it is open to him to raise a new complaint about the matter.
42. Mr X said it has been difficult to speak with the Council and officers do not return his calls. However, the evidence suggests Mr X has been able to speak with his social worker and other Council officers. There is some evidence to suggest not all of Mr X’s calls were retuned. However, I do not find fault with this as the Council has explained this was due to the volume of calls Mr X made to the Council. I am satisfied it would not be proportionate to expect the Council to return every single call Mr X made.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I find no fault with the way the Council has dealt with Mr X’s housing case. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman