Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not properly completed a review of its decision he is intentionally homeless. Mr X says he suffered economic loss and avoidable distress. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council has not properly considered his circumstances when it has made the decision that he is intentionally homeless.
2. Mr X says he has suffered economic loss and avoidable distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 about his complaint and considered documents he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and the supporting documents it provided.
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.
9. I exercised discretion to investigate this complaint because Mr X showed that he was unable to obtain legal advice and his vulnerability means that he would be unable to go to court to challenge the Council’s decision.
10. Mr X raised issues in support of his complaint dating back to 2016. Mr X previously highlighted a range of these issues when the Council considered a review of property suitability in 2018. Mr X was able to complain about matters during that time. I have not investigated historic matters as per paragraph 6 above.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
12. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
13. Councils must complete a review of an intentionally homeless decision within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
14. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Homelessness Code of Guidance

15. A person becomes homeless intentionally if ALL of the following apply:
• they deliberately do or fail to do anything in consequence of which they cease to occupy accommodation; and,
• the accommodation is available for their occupation; and,
• it would have been reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation.

Paragraph 9.7

16. An applicant whose refusal of a suitable offer of accommodation brought to an end the section 193(2) duty under which they were at the time accommodated, resulting in the loss of that accommodation, may be considered to be intentionally homeless. Paragraph 9.12
17. For homelessness to be intentional, the ending of occupation of the accommodation must be a consequence of a deliberate act or omission by the applicant. Having established that there was a deliberate act or omission, the housing authority will need to decide whether the loss of the applicant’s home is the reasonably likely result of that act or omission. Paragraph 9.13
18. Housing authorities need to look back to the last period of settled accommodation and the reasons why the applicant left that accommodation, to determine whether the current incidence of homelessness is the reasonably likely result of a deliberate act or omission. Paragraph 9.13
19. Where a person becomes homeless intentionally, that condition may continue until the link between the causal act or omission and the intentional homelessness has been broken. It could be broken by an intervening event, where, for example, an applicant gave up accommodation without sufficient good reason but at the later point at which they applied for assistance due to homelessness this accommodation would no longer have been available to them, or reasonable for them to occupy. Paragraph 9.14

What happened?

20. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
21. The Council's housing register is run by the Homemove team at Clarion Housing in partnership with 20 housing associations in the Council’s area.
22. Mr X made a homeless application to the Council in 2016. He was provided with temporary accommodation at Location 1.
23. In 2017, the Council offered Mr X a permanent property, at Location 2. The Council told Mr X that if he refused the offer, it would no longer owe him any further housing duty. Mr X declined the offer of Location 2 and requested a review of its suitability. The Council completed a review and found the property to be suitable. The Council therefore ended its homeless duty to Mr X.
24. Mr X then remained living in Location 1 between August 2017 and December 2021.
25. Mr X was moved to hotel accommodation in December 2021, at Location 3. On instructions from the Council, Clarion took court action to remove Mr X from the temporary accommodation at Location 1.
26. Mr X was required to leave Location 1 in September 2022. He then made a homeless application to the Council again.
27. The Council considered Mr X’s homeless application and made the decision he was intentionally homeless. Mr X asked the Council to review this decision.
28. The Council completed a review of its decision finding Mr X intentionally homeless, supporting its original decision. The basis for its decision was that refusing its offer of Location 2 in 2017 resulted in his eviction from Location 1.

Analysis

29. I have reviewed all available documentary evidence including emails, letters, and Mr X’s housing file. I have also reviewed extensive documentation and comments provided by Mr X.
30. The Council found that:
• Mr X’s deliberate action was the refusal of the offer of housing at Location 2;
• he was aware how this might impact him;
• the refusal of Location 2 led to his eviction from Location 1;
• that Location 1 was his last settled accommodation, and that Mr X’s was evicted from Location 1 because the Council had discharged its housing duty to him;
• Location 1 was accommodation available to him;
• His medical circumstances and disabilities did not affect his homelessness.
31. I have seen letters and documents that show the offer of Location 2 made to Mr X, including the likely impact of a refusal of that accommodation. I have also seen the decision review concerning the suitability of Location 2. I am satisfied that the Council’s decision that Mr X’s refusal of accommodation at Location 2 was a deliberate act was evidenced.
32. Mr X argued that the hotel accommodation at Location 3 should be considered settled and would therefore break the chain of causality in relation to his homelessness. The Council disagreed and provided me with an email showing that Mr X was placed into hotel accommodation at Location 3 because, ”Reason was the ‘extreme disturbance’ from the neighbour (the screaming / ASB), which he cited as being prejudicial to this mental and physical health.” I agree with the Council. Location 3 is not settled accommodation.
33. I have seen emails and documents about Mr X’s medical circumstances. The Council were aware of all relevant information when it made its decision.
34. In order for Mr X to be intentionally homeless, there has to be a link between his “deliberate act or omission” and his homelessness. The Council says Mr X’s “deliberate act or omission” was refusing its offer of Location 2. For this to make Mr X intentionally homeless from Location 1, the Council must be satisfied that the reason the Mr X was evicted in 2022 was because the Council ended its homeless duty to him in 2017. It cannot assume this was the reason Mr X was evicted without evidence, particularly given the significant passage of time.
35. I asked the Council to provide a copy of all relevant documents it considered in reaching the review decision Mr X was intentionally homeless.
36. The Council told me, “In August 2017, [Mr X] was made a final offer of accommodation under Part 6 of the above Act at [Location 2]. As he refused the offer, that main duty ended so was subsequently he was evicted from [Location 1]. As the duty ended, [the landlord] carried out the eviction. Unfortunately, it took [the landlord] until September 2022 to complete the eviction process.”
37. The part of the Council’s decision review related to the link between his deliberate action and his homelessness was four and a half lines long. The Council stated, “[Mr X] refused a suitable offer of accommodation of [Location 2] and the Council advised [him] of the possible consequences of refusing this offer.”
38. The Council says the loss of the accommodation at Location 1 was as a result of the refusal of the offer of accommodation at Location 2 because the Council gave the instruction to seek possession to the Landlord. I have seen an email which shows this.
39. Mr X says he did not have mental capacity to understand the process at the time. Mr X requested a review of the suitability of Location 2. Mr X was notified December 2018 of the Council’s intent to take this action in a letter providing him with the review decision outcome in relation to Location 2. On the balance of probability, Mr X had mental capacity at the time because he was able to exercise his rights to a decision review regarding suitability of the property.
40. The Council considered the reason Mr X was evicted from Location 1 and that this related to his refusal of Location 2 as part of its decision review. This is not fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have not found fault by the Council. I have now completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman