Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said the Council placed him in unsuitable accommodation and discriminated against him. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said the Council placed him in unsuitable interim accommodation and discriminated against him.
2. Mr X said the interim accommodation has mice, bed bugs, and asbestos. The toilet does not work and there are no facilities to wash his clothes. He said the accommodation made him ill.
3. Mr X said the Council ignored his evidence about his housing situation in his former home, which was outside the Council’s area. He also said the Council ignored his complaints about the condition of the interim accommodation. He feels this is racially motivated.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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

6. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

9. 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)
10. 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). (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
11. 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;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse
12. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the Council’s decision.
14. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))
15. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
16. A council must secure 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. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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 housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
20. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a 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.
21. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their 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)

What happened

22. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
23. Mr X left his former home, which was outside the Council’s area, after incidents of burglary and criminal damage. Mr X believes his former home was targeted and he felt he was at risk of violence. He reported these incidents to the police, but they were unable to take action due to a lack of evidence.
24. Mr X presented as homeless to the Council in October 2022. He said he could not go back to the area where he used to live due to the threat of violence. He also said he suffered discrimination from the police and the local authority where he used to live.
25. The Council made enquiries with Mr X’s former landlord, to confirm the details about why he left. The Council also made enquiries with the police.
26. Mr X tried to contact his housing officer on 17 October as he was sleeping rough. When he got no reply from his housing officer, he contacted the Council’s out of hours housing service.
27. After considering Mr X’s medical history, the Council agreed to provide him with interim accommodation (IA) at a B&B while it considered his homelessness application.
28. Mr X complained to the Council on 19 October. He said his housing officer had not called him back. He also accused an officer from the out of hours service of discriminating against him.
29. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. It accepted his housing officer did not call him back, but confirmed they were working on his case. The Council spoke to members of its out of hours team, but did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about discrimination.
30. The Council decided there was not enough evidence Mr X was at risk from violence in the whole of his former home area. Mr X also lacked a local connection to the Council’s area. The Council therefore referred Mr X’s homelessness application to the local authority where he used to live. It told Mr X about this in December 2022 and explained it must wait for his former local authority to accept the referral.
31. On 13 December 2023, Mr X reported a pest infestation, damp, and a leaking toilet at his IA. The IA provider fixed the toilet and arranged for a pest controller to attend. The pest controller found no evidence of pests but treated the IA as a precaution.
32. Mr X complained about pests, damp, mould, and asbestos at his IA on 3 January 2023. The IA provider inspected the room and confirmed there was no damp or asbestos. They found no evidence of pests, but asked the pest controller to visit again. The provider told the Council Mr X was not keeping his room clean. It offered him a new room, but Mr X declined.
33. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said it had used the B&B accommodation for over 10 years and it was last inspected by an environmental health officer in June 2022. The Council said pest controllers attended in December 2022 but found no evidence of bugs, cockroaches or mice. They carried out treatment, nevertheless. The property was inspected again after Mr X’s reports on 3 January 2023. There was no evidence of damp or asbestos.
34. Mr X complained again in February 2023. He said his IA was unsuitable and he wanted his own accommodation. He said the Council had not made a decision on his homelessness application and had not accepted the full housing duty. He said this was because of his race.
35. The Council said Mr X raised concerns about his IA before, and it worked with the provider to remedy pest control concerns. It also offered to move him to alternative IA. Mr X refused because he wanted his own self-contained accommodation. The Council said Mr X’s housing officer made the usual enquiries into his application. They identified a local connection to his former home local authority, and the Council assessed Mr X was not at risk in all of his former home area. The Council said Mr X provided no evidence he was treated differently due to his race.
36. In March 2023, Mr X’s former local authority agreed to accept the referral of his homelessness application. The Council notified Mr X on 7 March and told him he must leave the IA.
37. Mr X appealed and asked the Council to review its decision. He again stressed that he was at risk of violence in his former home area.
38. While considering Mr X’s appeal, the Council noted Mr X had been staying in IA in its area for about six months. That meant Mr X qualified for a local connection.
39. The Council therefore decided to overturn its decision to refer Mr X’s homelessness application to his former local authority. It notified Mr X of this decision in April 2023.
40. The Council is in the process of considering Mr X’s homelessness application. Mr X remains in the same B&B accommodation. The Council again offered Mr X alternative accommodation, but he refused.

Analysis

41. The Council agreed to overturn its decision to refer Mr X’s homelessness application to his former local authority. However, that does not mean the Council’s initial decision was wrong.
42. I understand why the Council decided Mr X was not at risk of violence in all his former home area. The only confirmed police reports are about burglary and criminal damage. There is no substantiated evidence of a threat to Mr X personally. Mr X did report someone with a hammer at his property, but the police confirmed this was not evident on closed circuit television (CCTV) and neighbours did not witness anything. There was also no evidence to suggest Mr X was the target of any physical attack. In addition, at that time, Mr X had only been in the Council’s area for a short time and had no local connection, whereas he did have a local connection to his former home area. I have therefore not found evidence of fault in the Council’s initial decision to refer Mr X’s homelessness application back to his former local authority.
43. Mr X’s former local authority should have made a decision about whether to accept the referral within ten working days. Unfortunately, there was a significant delay. However, I found the Council chased Mr X’s former local authority for a decision on several occasions. The Council is therefore not at fault for the delay.
44. Mr X complained his IA was unsuitable. The Council has a duty to ensure IA is suitable for an applicant’s needs. In this case I saw no evidence to suggest the IA was unsuitable for Mr X’s needs. The Council considered Mr X’s medical history, and its medical advisor did not highlight and specific needs Mr X may have. The issues Mr X reported with pests, damp, and disrepair were inspected promptly and rectified by the IA provider. I also found the IA was inspected by an environmental health officer in June 2022. I did not find evidence of fault by the Council regarding Mr X’s IA.
45. I did not see evidence the Council discriminated against Mr X. I found the Council followed the correct decision-making process. The delay making a decision on Mr X’s homelessness application was the fault of his former local authority. Mr X alleged a particular Council officer discriminated against him in a telephone conversation. The Council investigated this at the time but did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to interfere with internal personnel or disciplinary matters. The Council took suitable steps to investigate Mr X’s complaint by speaking to the officer concerned, and I found no evidence of fault in the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman