Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to end its duty to provide interim accommodation to her son, Mr F between June and November 2020. There was no fault in the Council’s decisions to end its duties during that period. The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr F with a letter about ending its housing duty and for including flawed information in a letter to him when he was evicted from a property in October 2020. However, those faults did not cause Mr F a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decisions to end its duty to provide her son, Mr F with interim accommodation between June and November 2020. Mrs X said the Council failed to consider Mr F’s vulnerability mental health issues in making its decision.
2. Mrs X said Mr F is currently serving a prison sentence which could have been avoided had the Council provided Mr F with accommodation. She said the matter has caused Mr F, her and the wider family distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 to Mrs X about her complaint and considered information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

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. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
11. Where a council is satisfied a person is homeless and eligible for support, it has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the person secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. This is the relief duty and applies for 56 days.
12. A council will apply four tests to decide what, if any, duty it owes to a homeless applicant. Councils will make inquiries to find out if the applicant is:
• eligible for assistance;
• homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• in priority need (e.g. is vulnerable, has dependent children etc.);
• not intentionally homeless.
13. 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)
14. 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.
15. A council can end its duty to accommodate under section 188 in various circumstances including when it decides it does not owe the applicant a duty under section 190 (duty to persons who are intentionally homeless). There is no right of review to this decision. Any challenge is by way of judicial review only.

What happened

16. In April 2020 Mr F approached the Council for a homelessness assessment. Records show the Council recorded Mr F as having depression and anxiety and was obtaining help with mental health issues. The Council accepted it had a relief duty and placed in interim shared accommodation. Records show the Council issued Mr F with a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) and also provided Mr F with lists of private landlords.
17. At the end of April 2020 the Council issued a warning letter to all of the residents (including Mr F) living in the shared accommodation. The warning was around evidence the residents were breaching COVID-19 lockdown rules. In May 2020 the Council sent Mr F a warning letter about breaching COVID-19 lockdown rules. Records also show Mr F had failed to pay any of the service charges due since moving into the property. The Council also received information from the police about an incident where Mr F was assaulted with a knife. The Council carried out a visit and inspection of Mr F’s room. It gave Mr F a final warning letter and asked him too clean the room.
18. At the start of June the Council carried out an inspection of Mr F’s room after a further incident at the shared accommodation involving Mr F. The Council recorded it had tried to contact Mr F however it appeared that he had left the property and was not answering his telephone. Due to the state of Mr F’s room and his past behaviour the Council decided to evict Mr F from the shared accommodation. The Council left Mr F a letter explaining its decision and the reasons for it asking him to vacate the shared accommodation within three days
19. In early June 2020 Mr F was top of the list for a private rented property. Records show the Council tried to contact Mr F on a number of occasions during June without success. The Council decided to end its duty to Mr F at the end of June because it had lost contact with him. The Council wrote a letter to Mr F explaining its decision but could not deliver it to him, so it kept it on file. The letter outlined Mr F had a right of review to this decision within 21 days.
20. Case notes show Mr F visited the Council offices seven days later and provided his new contact number. Mr F said he was still homeless. At that stage the Council decided there had been no material change since it closed its case. Two weeks later, after the Council learnt that Mr F was suffering from mental health issues and had attempted suicide, the Council completed a new homelessness application with Mr F. This was. Records show Mr F was sofa surfing and sleeping on the streets at that time.
21. The Council accepted a relief duty for Mr F and placed him into interim accommodation at a hotel (Hotel 1). It provided him with a list of private landlords and carried out a review of his PHP.
22. Mr F remained living at Hotel 1 between July and the end of September 2020. Records show Mr F told the Council he had found a flat to rent in August however Mr F did not provide any further updates. At the end of September, the Council received reports of an incident involving Mr F at Hotel 1. Records show the manager of Hotel 1 reported Mr F had shouted at and threatened another resident and was abusive to staff. The manager said the incident was on CCTV. One of the Council’s homeless officers who was present also witnessed Mr F assault another resident. Case records show Hotel 1 wanted Mr F to leave.
23. Based on the information it received the Council decided to end its interim accommodation duty to Mr F on 1 October 2020. It set out its decision in a letter to Mr F and said the eviction was due to his behaviour. The letter explained two individuals were assaulted at Hotel 1 which was caught on CCTV and that Mr F was one of the perpetrators. It said Mr F also refused to return to his room and caused noise nuisance. The Council evicted Mr F with immediate effect. The Council relied on information from Hotel 1 and there is no evidence the Council carried out any of its own investigations.
24. On 2 October 2020 records show Mr F was in hospital after taking an overdose following the eviction. Records show a mental health officer called the Council about Mr F’s eviction and risk of Mr F trying to harm himself. The officer said they had spoken with Hotel 1, who confirmed Mr F was not in fact involved in the incident caught on the CCTV although it had initially thought he was based on viewing CCTV footage. Hotel 1 said that although Mr F was not involved in that incident, staff had witnessed Mr F assault another resident in a separate incident.
25. On 3 October a psychiatric nurse called the Council asking why it was not providing Mr F with accommodation and said they were worried Mr F would attempt suicide again. The nurse told the Council Mr F was not involved in the incident at Hotel 1. Records show the Council gave Mr F new interim accommodation at Hotel 2, however he did not move there until 6 October 2020.
26. At the end of October Hotel 1 reported an incident to the Council. The manager asked Mr F to move his car which he had parked in the hotel car park, however when he turned up they said he appeared to be under the influence of either drugs or alcohol and was taken to hospital.
27. A couple of days later at the start of November 2020 records show a police officer reported an incident they had attended at Hotel 2 involving Mr F. The police officer told the Council Hotel 2 wanted to evict Mr F as he had caused issues since he arrived. The police said Mr F had left Hotel 2 but had taken the keys with him.
28. The Council called Hotel 2 for further information. The manager said Mr F had been a ‘nightmare guest’. They said police had attended due to his behaviours, that Mr F had been taken to hospital twice and was often under the influence of drugs.
29. On 3 November 2020 the Council wrote to Mr F informing him he was evicted from Hotel 2 and that the Council had ended its duty to provide him with interim accommodation. The letter outlined the reasons for the eviction and said it had no further duty to provide him with interim accommodation whilst it carried out its homelessness enquiries and issued Mr F with a homelessness decision letter.
30. On 4 November 2020 Mrs X contacted the Council, unhappy it was no longer offering Mr F interim accommodation. Mrs X explained that Mr F had recently had a mental health diagnosis and that was the cause of his behaviour. Mrs X said this was a change of circumstances and that the Council should reconsider offering him interim accommodation. Mrs X said she was concerned Mr F might harm himself if not offered accommodation. Records show the Council told Mrs X that its decision stood but it would help Mr F with a deposit if he found private accommodation.
31. Records show Mr F was in police custody on 5 November. Case notes show Mrs X would not accommodate him on his release from custody, so the Council made a safeguarding referral. It decided on 6 November to provide Mr F with interim accommodation at Hotel 1. The Council informed Mrs X of its decision however Mr F had already attended hospital for a voluntary psychiatric assessment and was offered accommodation there.
32. Records show the Council chased the hospital and clinic for evidence of Mr F’s mental health diagnosis. There is no evidence the Council received formal evidence confirming Mr F’s diagnosis. On 11 November the psychiatric ward wrote to the Council and said there were no current identified risks that would prevent Mr F from being discharged. Records show the clinic did not reference Mr F’s diagnosis on the admission and assessment summary. The ward said it would discharge Mr F on 16 November. Records show the police arrested Mr F from the ward before his discharge.
33. The Council wrote to Mr F towards the end of November to inform him it owed him a main housing duty and would help provide him with temporary accommodation. Mr F however remained in police custody and is currently serving a prison sentence. As such, the Council ended its housing duty with Mr F and informed him by letter in May 2021.
34. Mrs X complained to the Council about its decision making between 2 and 4 November. Mrs X asked why the Council decided it did not owe a duty to Mr F between these dates but then changed its mind on 6 November. The Council responded to Mrs X and said the officers held an informal review of Mr F’s case and decided that although there was no new information it would provide Mr X with further interim accommodation. However, Mr F already had secure accommodation at the psychiatric unit by this time. The Council confirmed to Mrs X that it made no records or minutes of that meeting.
35. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us. Mrs X complained the Council’s decision to evict Mr F from Hotel 1 was flawed because Mr F was not involved in the incident caught on CCTV. Mrs X said the Council’s decision to evict Mr F from Hotel 2 was also unfair. Mrs X also said the Council did not properly consider Mr F’s mental health diagnosis when it refused to provide him with accommodation in November. Mrs X said Mr F may not have committed a crime if the Council had offered him the support he was entitled to.

My findings

36. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of how much a complainant disagrees with the decision.

Mr F’s eviction from shared accommodation in June 2020 and its decision to end its housing duty.

37. The Council decided, based on Mr F’s behaviour and the state of his room, to evict him from the shared accommodation. The Council acted on information it had at the time and was entitled to make that decision. It provided Mr F with an eviction notice explaining the decision. There was no fault in the Council’s decision which was in line with relevant law and guidance.
38. Following his eviction from the shared accommodation the Council tried to inform Mr F he was in first place for a private rented property. Records show the Council made various attempts to contact Mr F without success. It therefore made an assumption that Mr F no longer required assistance and so ended its relief duty. This decision gave Mr F a right of review which Mr F never got the opportunity to use. The Council said it held the letter on file because contact with Mr F was not possible. However, case records show Mr F visited Council offices only 7 days after the decision date. Therefore, it should have provided him with the letter then. Not doing so was fault. However, the fault did not cause Mr F an injustice as the Council accepted the relief duty again just two weeks later, which on balance would have been quicker than if Mr F had used his right of review.

Mr F’s eviction from Hotel 1 in October 2020

39. The Council made its decision to end its interim accommodation duty at Hotel 1 following an incident at the end of September. It again issued Mr F with the decision letter outlining its reasons for ending its interim accommodation duty which was based on the report from the manager. The Council acted on information it received at the time about Mr F from the manager.
40. However, eviction does not mean the Council has to end its interim duty to accommodate. We expect councils to make their own enquiries before deciding whether it is appropriate to end its duty. The Council has confirmed that there were two incidents and that Mr F was not involved in the one caught on CCTV as initially believed. Case notes show the Council acknowledged this fact. There is no evidence the Council checked the CCTV and it did not make further enquiries before issuing the end of interim duty letter. It meant ultimately the reasons given for ending its interim accommodation duty were flawed. That was fault. But, I do not find it caused Mr F an injustice because on balance, the outcome would not have been different.

Mr F’s eviction from Hotel 2 in November 2020

41. Records show the Council decided to end its interim accommodation duty again after Hotel 2 wanted to evict Mr F. This was following reports of his behaviour from a police officer and the manager. The manager told the Council they did not want Mr F back at the hotel. The letter to Mr F explained the reasons for the decision and the Council said it was satisfied there were no reasons or vulnerability to excuse or explain his behaviour. In this case the Council considered information from the police, the Hotel 2 manager and Mr F’s case file. There was no fault in the Council’s decision which was in line with relevant law and guidance.

The Council’s decision not to give Mr F interim accommodation between 2 and 4 November

42. Mrs X approached the Council following Mr F’s eviction from Hotel 2 and its letter to Mr F explaining it had ended its duty to provide him with interim accommodation. Records show the Council was clear that its duty to help Mr F find accommodation still applied and it would assist with deposits if necessary. Mrs X told the Council Mr F now had a mental health diagnosis which may have explained his behaviour. The Council considered that information but decided to stand by its decision to end its duty to provide him with interim accommodation. At that stage, the Council had not seen any medical evidence about Mr F’s mental health issues and it was satisfied that those mental health issues would not impact him in such a way that he would not understand the consequences of his actions. This is a decision the Council was entitled to take. There was no procedural fault in the Council’s decision making and so I cannot question the merits of its decision.

The decision to offer Mr F interim accommodation on 6 November 2020

43. The law says the only way to challenge a council’s decision to end its duty to provide interim accommodation is by way of judicial review. Any decision to reoffer interim accommodation is a discretionary one. After further consideration of Mr F’s circumstances and following a safeguarding referral after Mr F left police custody, the Council used its discretion to again offer Mr F interim accommodation on 6 November. This was a decision the Council had discretion to make and there was no fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to remind relevant officers to ensure they check systems when dealing with homeless applicants for any relevant notices or letters saved on file for the applicant.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I completed my investigation. I found some fault but that did not cause Mr F an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman