Summary: the Council was at fault because it delayed assessing whether Mr Z was vulnerable and in priority need when he was homeless. However, when it later completed the assessment, it decided he was not vulnerable and so he was not owed the interim accommodation duty. This means the delay did not cause injustice to Mr Z. There was further fault because the Council failed to issue a Personalised Housing Plan when it accepted the relief duty. This caused some uncertainty about the steps the Council had agreed to take to relieve Mr Z’s homelessness and it denied him the option of requesting a review if he disagreed with them. The Council has agreed to provide a suitable remedy for this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X made this complaint on behalf of her adult son, Mr Z, with his consent.
2. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide Mr Z with adequate and appropriate support between July and October 2020 when he was homeless and requested assistance to meet his housing and social care needs.
3. Mr Z has autism. He became homeless when Mrs X asked him to leave the family home due to the impact of his behaviour on the family. At first Mr Z sofa-surfed with a friend and then went to stay with another relative for a short time. Mrs X then paid for him to stay in a hotel until he secured a private rented sector tenancy in another Council area in October 2020.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons to do so. A complaint is late when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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)
    
7. 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)
    
8. 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

9. Mrs X complained to us in February 2023. The events of this complaint happened while Mr Z was homeless between July and October 2020. This means the complaint is late because it was made to us more than 12 months after Mrs X and Mr Z first knew about the Council’s alleged fault.
10. We decided there were good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate the complaint despite it being late. Mr Z was 21 years old at the time and has autism. He had a mental health crisis shortly after these events which led to him being detained in hospital.
11. Mrs X told us Mr Z had issues with substance misuse since his teenage years which he had concealed from her until recently. She said her son struggled to accept his autism diagnosis. She told us she could not complain to us sooner because of her own health issues.
12. One of my colleagues discussed the complaint with Mrs X. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter and relevant documents from Mr Z’s housing records.
13. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

14. 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.
15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps the council and the applicant can 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)
16. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
17. Applicants in priority need include:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness, a learning disability, a physical disability or some other special reason;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.
   

18. The Code of Guidance says that when a Council assesses whether someone in one of the above groups is vulnerable, it should decide whether, if homeless, the applicant would be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person would be if they became homeless. This involves making a qualitative and composite assessment which takes into account all the relevant facts and circumstances. The Council should consider whether the applicant would suffer, or be at risk of suffering, harm or detriment which the ordinary person would not suffer or be at risk of suffering, such that the harm or detriment would make a noticeable difference to their ability to deal with the consequences of homelessness.
19. Councils must also take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to assess needs under the Care Act 2014

20. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult who appears to need care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved. These assessments are carried out by officers in the Council’s Adult Social Care team.

What happened

21. Until late June 2020 Mr Z lived with his mother, Mrs X, who had recently moved from Greater Manchester to another town. When Mr Z asked Manchester City Council for housing assistance on 7 July 2020, he had been sofa-surfing for about a week at a friend’s home in the city. Mr Z told the Council his mother had asked him to leave the family home following an argument.
22. The officer who spoke to Mr Z checked he had somewhere safe to stay that night and arranged a telephone appointment for a housing assessment the following day.
23. The Council commissioned a charity to provide housing-related support to young people aged 18 to 25 in Manchester. The charity also assesses homeless applications made by young people in this age group on behalf of the Council.
24. On 8 July Officer A, a homelessness prevention officer who works at the charity, completed the initial telephone assessment with Mr Z. She noted he has autism and described himself as a vulnerable adult. Mr Z told Officer A he was sleeping on the sofa in a friend’s living room and could not stay much longer. He said he was at risk in certain areas of Manchester city centre due to threats which he had not reported to the police. Mr Z did not disclose any mental health issues or substance misuse during this interview. He told Officer A he received Universal Credit and a Personal Independence Payment.
25. Officer A completed an assessment form. She recorded that Mr Z did not take any medication or receive any support for his autism.
26. Officer A identified three potential housing options for Mr Z:
• Supported accommodation in a specific area in Manchester;
• Accommodation in the private rented sector;
• Applying to Manchester Moves (the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme for social housing).
27. Officer A uploaded the form on the same day to a system which matches people to vacancies in supported accommodation such as hostels. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it often takes months for a vacancy in supported accommodation to become available. There were very few vacancies in shared supported accommodation at this time because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
28. The Council’s records show Officer A did not complete a vulnerability assessment on 8 July to assess whether Mr Z may be in priority need. There is no record to indicate she made a decision then about whether or not he met the criteria for interim accommodation.
29. The records show Officer A made several attempts to telephone Mrs X between 8 and 27 July to check Mr Z was homeless and could no longer live with her. She also contacted Mr Z on 10 July to say she had not been able to contact Mrs X.
30. On 28 July Mrs X sent a text message to Officer A. She confirmed Mr Z was not living with her. She said her son was homeless and needed help to find somewhere to live. She apologised for not responding sooner to Officer A’s earlier attempts to contact her.
31. After Mrs X confirmed Mr Z was homeless, Officer A notified him the next day that the Council owed him the relief duty. The email confirmed he was eligible for assistance and homeless. It said a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) was attached to the email. However the Council has since confirmed it cannot trace a PHP in the case records.
32. On 4 August Mr Z called Officer A to say he had been staying with his grandmother but they had been arguing a lot. The case note is incomplete so it is not clear whether Mr Z specifically asked for accommodation then or what advice Officer A gave him.
33. On 25 August Mr Z spoke to Officer A again. He said he had left his grandmother’s home because they were not getting on. He told Officer A his mother, Mrs X, had been paying for him to stay in a hotel. Officer A asked how long he could stay there. The notes do not record Mr Z’s answer.
34. In late August 2020 Mrs X told Officer A that Mr Z had an Education, Care and Health Plan when he was in education. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said it had ceased to maintain Mr Z’s EHCP in 2019 because he was no longer accessing education.
35. On 7 September Officer A made a referral to the Private Rented Sector team because Mr Z had found a potential property. Two days later the Private Rented Sector team said they could not support Mr Z with a rent deposit for this property because the resident landlord was offering Mr Z a licence agreement. The team could only support people to obtain tenancies in the private rented sector.
36. On 9 September Officer A contacted Mr Z to ask if he would be interested in a room in shared accommodation in another area of Manchester. Mr Z confirmed his interest. However Mr Z was not successful for this property.
37. On 14 September Mrs X told Mr Z she could not afford to pay for his hotel room for much longer. She forwarded this email thread to Councillors and asked them to help because her son needed somewhere to live.
38. On 15 September Officer A put Mr Z forward for a room in a Council scheme called “A Bed every night”. Mr Z was not offered a room. Officer A said she would continue to make referrals to this scheme when another vacancy came up.
39. On the same day a Housing Solutions Officer asked Officer A whether she considered Mr Z was vulnerable. Officer A completed a vulnerability questionnaire during a telephone interview with Mr Z that day. She asked a series of questions about his physical and mental health, his mobility and whether he had any learning difficulties or learning disabilities. She also asked whether he had ever been in care, served in the armed forces, been in prison, fled violence, or been admitted to hospital.
40. Mr Z confirmed he had autism. He said he could use a phone, read and write, claim and manage social security benefits paid into his own bank account. He did not disclose any issues with drug or alcohol misuse. He said he had not been admitted to hospital, served a prison sentence or been in local authority care.
41. Officer A sent an email to the Housing Solutions Officer to say she had completed the vulnerability questionnaire. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the information Mr Z gave Officer A did not indicate he was vulnerable so there was no duty to arrange interim accommodation for him.
42. Mrs X told us that Mr Z probably presented then as less disabled than he does now.
43. On 16 September a senior officer responsible for the homelessness service replied to the Councillor’s enquiry. She said the Private Rented Sector team had referred Mr Z for alternative housing options, including Shared Habitat, which may have rooms in a shared house. She said a shared property would be the most affordable option for Mr Z because, as he was under 35 years old, he was entitled to the shared accommodation rate of the housing element of Universal Credit. She said the Private Rented Sector team would continue to provide advice and support to look for accommodation.
44. On 6 October an officer in the Private Rented Sector team contacted Mr Z and the managing agent of a property he was interested in renting. According to the case records, she did not hear anything more from either of them about this property.
45. Mrs X says she and her husband struggled to keep paying for Mr Z’s hotel room. She was also very worried about him. She found him a private rented property outside Manchester and agreed to act as his guarantor. Mr Z was granted a tenancy for six months from October 2020.
46. The Council’s records show it closed Mr Z’s case on 22 October 2020 after he was granted the tenancy of this accommodation. However the letter ending the relief duty was not sent to Mr Z until March 2021.
47. Mr Z was sectioned and detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act in late November 2020 following a mental health crisis. This happened after the Council had closed Mr Z’s homelessness application in late October 2020 and after the period covered by this investigation. Mrs X told us Mr Z is now living in suitable supported accommodation with support from a keyworker.

Referral for Care Act needs assessment

48. The Council says the housing service did not refer Mr Z to Adult Care Services for a Care Act needs assessment between July and October 2020. On the information officers had at the time, he did not appear to be in need of care and support then and did not meet the criteria for an assessment.

Analysis

Housing assessment and relief duty

49. The Council completed the assessment of Mr Z’s housing needs promptly the day after he contacted the service on 7 July 2020.
50. The delay in accepting the relief duty was due to Officer A’s difficulty in making contact with Mrs X. She needed to check Mr Z could no longer live with her. When Mrs X confirmed this in late July, the Council accepted Mr Z was homeless and wrote to him on the same day accepting the relief duty. I find no evidence of fault up to this point.

Interim accommodation

51. The Council has to arrange interim accommodation for a homeless person if it has reason to believe they may be in priority need. The case records show Officer A did not consider whether Mr Z may be vulnerable and in priority need until 15 September when she completed the vulnerability questionnaire.
52. I am likely to find it was fault not to have considered this when Mr Z requested homelessness assistance in July 2020. And a record of the decision about whether or not the Council owed Mr Z the interim accommodation duty should have been made then in the case records.
53. Did this delay cause injustice to Mr Z? Based on the information Mr Z gave Officer A in July and September 2020, she reached the view he was not in priority need. She asked relevant questions to enable her to decide whether he may be vulnerable due to any physical and mental health conditions, a learning disability or a background in care or custody. Mr Z did disclose his autism. Whether that made him vulnerable depended on whether it put him at greater risk of harm than an ordinary homeless person and affected his ability to deal with the consequences of homelessness. As Mrs X said, Mr Z may not have presented as someone who was disabled when he approached the Council. He also told Officer A he could manage his finances and meet his day to day needs without support.
54. Mr Z was later sectioned and detained in hospital following a mental health crisis in late November 2020. This happened after his tenancy started. From the housing records I have seen, the Council’s housing service had no knowledge of any concerns about Mr Z’s mental health while it was considering his homelessness application between July and October 2020. For these reasons, I do not intend to find the Council failed to secure interim accommodation for Mr Z when it had a duty to do so.

Personalised housing plan

55. The Council accepted the relief duty but it did not complete a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) for Mr Z. That was fault. It had a legal duty to prepare a PHP and keep it under review. Without a PHP, there is no record of what steps the Council agreed to take to help Mr Z secure accommodation. From the Council’s subsequent actions, it considered providing financial assistance to help Mr Z secure a private rented tenancy and it referred him for vacancies in supported accommodation. The absence of a PHP also means the Council did not make it clear what steps it expected Mr Z to take to secure accommodation. It also deprived him of the option of using review and appeal rights if he disagreed with the steps in the PHP. Without knowing what the PHP would have said, we do not know whether Mr Z would have wanted to challenge it.
56. We cannot say that issuing a PHP would have led to a better outcome for Mr Z. We do not know what it would have said and whether it would have enabled him to secure accommodation any sooner. But the uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to produce a PHP, and the fact he was denied the opportunity to request a review if he was dissatisfied with the steps the Council agreed to take, is in itself an injustice.

Referral for Care Act needs assessment

57. The officers who handled Mr Z’s homelessness application did not refer him to the Adult Social Care team for a Care Act needs assessment in this period. This was because, based on the information he gave in response to the vulnerability questionnaire, he did not appear to be in need of care and support. He therefore did not meet the criteria for a Care Act needs assessment. Having seen the information Mr Z gave housing officers between July and October 2020, I consider there was no fault in the way they reached that decision.

Back to top

Final decision

58. I have completed the investigation and found the failure to assess and record the decision on Mr Z’s vulnerability when he first approached the Council for homelessness assistance in July 2020 was fault. However I am not likely to find this fault caused injustice to Mr Z. When it later considered his responses to the vulnerability questionnaire in September, the Council decided he was not vulnerable and it did not owe him the interim accommodation duty. This means he did not miss out on an offer of interim accommodation due to this delay.
59. There was further fault because the Council did not prepare a Personalised Housing Plan for Mr Z and keep it under review. Without a PHP, it is not clear what steps the Council agreed to take to help Mr Z secure accommodation and no date for a review was scheduled. This caused uncertainty for Mr Z: he did not know whether the Council was doing everything it agreed to do to try to resolve his homelessness. It also means essential information was not set out clearly in writing for Mr Z.

Back to top

Agreed action

60. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise in writing to Mr Z for the failure to complete a Personalised Housing Plan and keep it under review;
• Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr Z acknowledge the uncertainty this caused;
• Remind staff to record decisions about whether the applicant is owed the interim accommodation duty in the case notes at an early stage in the housing assessment;
• Issue a written reminder to staff about the legal duty to prepare and issue a PHP in every case and to keep it under review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman