Summary: There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s homelessness application. It considered the information it had at the time and reconsidered its decision when new information came to light. Nor was there any fault in the accommodation it provided Mr X or in the way it considered Mr X’s disabilities.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council was at fault in how it considered his homelessness application in 2022. He said it did not properly recognise he had a disability.
2. He also complained the accommodation the Council obtained was not suitable.
3. Mr X said because of the way the Council managed his case, he suffered with worsening mental health and believed the Council had discriminated against him.

Back to top

What I have not investigated

4. Mr X also complained about how the Council dealt with a mental health assessment in 2019 and dealt with his homelessness in 2021. These are late complaints, and there are no good reasons why they could not have been made sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he sent to me.
8. I considered the documents the Council provided.
9. I considered the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, which sets out how the Council should respond to the Homeless Reduction Act 2017.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homelessness

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts a maximum of 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. Where a council believes an applicant has a priority need and may have become homeless intentionally, it can extend the relief duty for longer than 56 days. The guidance says the reasons for this may include;
• the risk of an applicant sleeping rough;
• the needs of the applicant;
• the prospects of securing accommodation within a reasonable period.

(Homelessness code of guidance 14.20)

15. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. 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. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
17. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
18. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. Councils can combine more than one decision notification into a letter. The Code says when doing so, councils should make applicants aware of review rights in respect of each decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.33)
19. Homeless applicants must request a review within 21 days of the decision. However, applicants can ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances. This new decision is open to review under s202, with a new 21 day timescale. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)
20. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which the Council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

What happened

Background

21. The Council told me from 2014 onwards, it had been supporting Mr X who was periodically homeless and sleeping rough. From March 2021 onwards, the Council made Mr X several offers of temporary accommodation (TA).

February to July 2022

22. In early February, Mr X’s landlord asked him to leave. Mr X was then rough sleeping for a short time, and he contacted the housing service at the Council.
23. During an exchange of information, in mid-February, Mr X said his GP had diagnosed him as living with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation while it carried out enquiries into his case.
24. The Council then discovered Mr X’s GP had only made a referral for Mr X to attend an ADHD assessment clinic. Mr X had not been formally diagnosed. The Council then told Mr X it did not see this as a material change in his circumstances and withdrew the offer of interim accommodation.
25. In late February, Mr X sent the Council an email from his GP. The email confirmed the GP had met with Mr X at a clinic that day, and then afterwards the GP confirmed his ADHD diagnosis.
26. The Council took this as new information and made an appointment with Mr X to take a fresh homeless application. It also made enquiries with accommodation providers to find Mr X accommodation immediately.
27. Also in February, the Council completed an assessment as part of Mr X’s personalised housing plan (PHP). The form outlined Mr X’s assessment of needs, and this included that Mr X had mobility issues. It also highlighted other rough sleepers had previously targeted him, meaning there may be further considerations about where he could be accommodated.
28. The assessment of needs said Mr X was waiting for further information from his GP about his ADHD diagnosis. It also outlined other mental health conditions Mr X was living with. The Council referred Mr X for extra support by an independent living facilitator.
29. In late March, a member of the housing service met with Mr X and his advocate. They completed his housing application and noted his specific support needs.
30. The Council then told Mr X it accepted the relief duty and backdated this duty to February, when it first placed him in interim accommodation. The letter set out Mr X had a right to ask for a review within 21 days of its decision. Mr X did not ask for a review.
31. During this period, the case notes say that Mr X flagged up issues about how the Council communicated with him. He said he preferred contact only through his advocate to avoid a negative impact on his mental health. The Council agreed to his request.
32. In late April, the Council made a note on the case notes it could not end relief duty for Mr X. It said it was still waiting for more information about his medical condition. At this point it wrote to Mr X, telling him the 56 day period was due to expire, but it was still looking into his case. It said he could continue to stay in his accommodation.
33. The evidence shows it had previously asked Mr X’s GP for this information. It said this information was to help it to decide whether Mr X’s previous actions meant he had made himself intentionally homeless. It also said Mr X was in priority need because it agreed he was vulnerable.
34. In mid-May, the accommodation providers contacted the Council telling them Mr X would need to move out because of a lack of availability of rooms.
35. The Council made other accommodation arrangements for Mr X, but this new provider refused to admit Mr X, saying his behaviour meant they would not accommodate him.
36. Because of the information this provider and his previous provider sent to the Council, it then wrote to Mr X telling him it was withdrawing its interim duty to accommodate him because of his behaviour. It also told him despite this decision; it was still investigating his homeless application.
37. The Council’s case notes show it continued to contact health care professionals trying to obtain information. It was doing this to help it decide whether Mr X’s medical diagnosis had any bearing on his previous actions.
38. In late May, it sent Mr X a letter saying it ‘was minded’ to make a finding he had previously made himself homeless. It asked him to provide any more information to help it decide. It reiterated this was not a final decision on his case.
39. In mid-June, Mr X’s GP practice responded to the Council and set out how it believed Mr X’s condition would impact on his behaviour. The case notes show the Council then decided Mr X was not intentionally homeless.
40. The Council then sent Mr X a letter telling him it had accepted the main duty and it would secure him TA. It told him he would have the right to ask for a review of the suitability of that accommodation. The letter also explained if he refused an offer of suitable accommodation, the Council would discharge its main duty.
41. The case notes show the Council were initially unable to provide Mr X with TA in line with his preferred choices. The case notes show it did not make any offers of other accommodation that was available, because these were outside of the County. It was aware Mr X would likely refuse these offers, meaning the Council would then have to discharge its main duty. The case notes show the Council was prioritising finding accommodation for Mr X.
42. The case notes show through June and July, the housing service continued to discuss the possibility of suitable TA with Mr X and his advocate. Some of the locations that may have been suitable were unwilling to accommodate Mr X, and others could only offer limited availability.
43. In mid-July, the Council secured TA and wrote to Mr X making a formal offer. The offer letter explained that Mr X had a right to ask for a review of the accommodation. Mr X agreed the accommodation was suitable.

My findings

44. Mr X believed the Council was at fault in how it considered his homeless application. In February, it wrote to him declining to accept his initial request because there was no new substantive information; Mr X did not have a formal ADHD diagnosis at that point. Later in February, when it had a confirmed diagnosis, it agreed to start a new application.
45. We look at how an organisation made a decision and whether there was any flaw in how it decided. The Council considered the information it had and decided not to start a new application in mid-February. It then overturned that decision when new information came to light. This is appropriate decision making.
46. As part of this process, it then reconsidered Mr X’s assessment of needs and Mr X was involved in this. The assessment of needs has recorded Mr X’s mental and physical disabilities.
47. When the Council accepted the relief duty, it told Mr X he had a right to review this decision. Mr X did not ask for a review.
48. The relief duty period should last for 56 days. The Council did not decide on whether to accept or decline main duty at this point, because it was waiting for information. Mr X would have been aware the Council were waiting for information and would have known he could remain in his interim accommodation during this time.
49. The guidance set out reasons why the Council has discretion to extend this period and the weight of evidence shows if it had decided with the information it had, it would have likely said Mr X was intentionally homeless.
50. I can understand why Mr X may have a view this prolonged the decision and caused him more anxiety; This was not fault, the Council were considering this in his favour, to obtain more information.
51. Nor was it a fault on the Council that others were not fully responding to their requests. It was actively trying to obtain all the information it needed.
52. Mr X believed the Council were at fault because after it accepted it owed him the main duty, it took several weeks before it made him an offer of TA. There was no fault here. The Council worked with Mr X, through his advocate, to only make an offer of TA for accommodation that was in a suitable location, to limit the possibility of him refusing an offer.
53. It is not a fault on the Council of the lack of availability of accommodation. The evidence shows Mr X agreed the accommodation it did find was suitable.
54. Mr X said the Council had discriminated against him because of his disability. I have not seen any evidence of discrimination. When Mr X asked for contact in a specified way, the Council responded to this and referred him for extra support. The records reflect it made a note of his physical and mental conditions as they affected his application.

Back to top

Final decision

There was no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman