Summary: Mr W complains about the Council’s housing advice and support, after he was discharged from hospital. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint, due to inadequate records and a delay in referring Mr W for advice. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall describe as Mr W, complains the Council:
• delayed taking action about his housing situation after a hospital’s referral;
• did not check whether his home was suitable for him to return to;
• did not propose a personal housing plan or support package;
• despite never having had a tenancy, insisted he got his landlord to evict him;
• failed to provide him with suitable advice and support; for example about welfare benefits;
• referred him to a voluntary agency for support. But the support worker had to close his case when the Council told her it would not rehouse him;
• in both its complaint responses, at best, misrepresented events and what he did, to try to show him in a bad light.
2. Mr W says the injustice to him is that he had to live in his car for two weeks. The stress has led to him taking medication and he lost his job, as he did not have an address.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr W;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response;
• spoken to Mr W;
• sent my draft decision to Mr W and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Assured shorthold tenants

6. The Housing Act 1988 says most tenants (who do not live with their landlord) are assured shorthold tenants; irrespective of whether they have a tenancy agreement. If a landlord wants to end a tenancy without agreement with a tenant they need to give them, in writing, two months’ notice to quit the property.

Councils’ homelessness duties

7. Duties towards people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness rest with councils. If there is reason to believe somebody may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, a council must carry out an assessment to find out if this is the case. Councils also have prevention duties to applicants who are threatened with homelessness. They should complete a personal housing plan with an applicant who is threatened with homelessness.
8. The Housing Act 1996 says a person is homeless if they have no accommodation it is reasonable for them to continue to occupy.
9. The 1996 Act says a council does not have a duty to provide permanent alternative accommodation when it decides that a homeless applicant has made themselves intentionally homeless. This would happen when an applicant left accommodation that it was reasonable for them to continue to occupy.
10. Councils have a duty to provide advice and information about homelessness and preventing homelessness to any person in their district. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) notes:
• councils can provide this advice themselves, or refer people to other organisations;
• often people seeking advice will want practical advice and support. For example, with issues like rights to benefits and assistance in completing forms, managing debt; rent arrears.

The Ombudsman’s principles of good administrative practice

11. The Ombudsman publishes “Principles of good administrative practice”, as a guide, for the bodies in our jurisdiction, of our expectations. One of those principles, around being open and accountable, is to keep proper and appropriate records.

What happened

12. Mr W lived in a room in a house in multiple occupation. He says he did not have a tenancy agreement, and paid his rent weekly. Mr W describes the flat as being up three flights of stairs. Mr W was working as a self-employed driver. He was not claiming any welfare benefits.
13. At the end of May 2022, Mr W had a stroke. He was admitted to hospital. While in hospital, Mr W texted his landlord to advise he was in hospital, so he could not work and would struggle to pay his rent. He says the landlord told him he was concerned for his welfare and the suitability of the flat. And, in any case, he wanted the flat back. Mr W says he agreed to move out as soon as possible.
14. On 6 June, shortly before it was ready to discharge him, the hospital referred Mr W to the Council’s Homeless, Independence and Preventive Services. The Council’s hospital link worker (whom I shall refer to as Officer 1) telephoned Mr W. Officer 1 advised Mr W the Council would be able to help him more efficiently if he returned home.
15. Mr W could not pay his rent and was not claiming any welfare benefits. He says on 10 June Officer 1 emailed him copying a link to an application for a discretionary housing payment to help with rent arrears. Officer 1’s email advised Mr W: “[a]ny questions, let me know”. Mr W read the discretionary housing payment form. This noted applicants for a payment needed to be receiving housing benefit. Mr W emailed Officer 1, asking if he needed to claim housing benefit first? Officer 1 did not reply.
16. Mr W went home soon after. Later in the month Officer 1 completed an interview/assessment with him. On the form he completed, Officer 1 noted:
• the hospital had discharged Mr W with no care and support needs;
• Mr W could manage stairs;
• he had advised Mr W that his landlord needed to follow an eviction procedure and that he should stay in the property until that happened.
17. Mr W next spoke to Officer 1 at the end of July. Mr W says he told Officer 1 his landlord had visited him and they had agreed that their text exchange in May should be the start date for two months’ notice to leave the property. So he had agreed to leave the property around ten days later.
18. At the beginning of August, Officer 1:
• advised Mr W to stay in the property, until his landlord got an eviction notice;
• referred Mr W to the Council’s My Independence service, which in turn referred him to a support agency to help with tasks such as filling in forms and claiming welfare benefits.
19. On 18 August, Mr W advised Officer 1 that continuing to live in the property was harmful to his health and well-being, and he would not be asking his landlord to serve an eviction notice. He asked to complain. Officer 1 signposted Mr W to the Council’s complaints procedure and advised him again that he had the right to remain at his address.
20. Mr W says Officer 1 telephoned him at the end of August, advising he had negotiated with his landlord for him to stay there for an extra two weeks. And the Council would help him to move into supported housing.
21. Mr W says he was due to move out of the property in mid-September. On the date he was due to move, Officer 1 telephoned him advising the Council could offer him some temporary accommodation. There was then some misunderstanding about what had been agreed. But around a week later, Mr W viewed a property which he refused. He explains his view was that it was too small and there had been some police activity in the area.
22. Mr W says he lived in his car from that date for two weeks. Mr W telephoned Officer 1 advising he had reconsidered and decided to accept the property. But when he went to collect the keys the managing agency advised the property had been let. That agency showed Mr W two further homes, the second of which he accepted in early October.
23. In September, Mr W complained about the lack of support after he left hospital and in finding him alternative accommodation. The Council’s responses:

• said its view was it had completed a detailed assessment of Mr W’s holistic needs. It had carried out prevention work by contacting his landlord to get an agreement for him to stay in the property;
• advised it had continued to work with Mr W at multiple points despite having grounds for ending its support;
• recognised it should have responded to Mr W’s query about claiming benefits;
• advised if, after leaving hospital, Mr W had not gone home, it would have likely offered him short-term emergency accommodation. That would likely have been bed and breakfast accommodation with shared facilities with several other households.

24. Mr W complained to the Ombudsman. I asked the Council for some casework documents. It sent me its assessment record, which I have cited in this statement. In response to my request for specific other records it advised the caseworker, review officer and team manager who contributed to its complaint responses no longer worked for the Council. So it could not provide further records.

Was there fault by the Council?

The initial advice to return home from hospital

25. Mr W says the Council should not have asked him to return home. He says the property was not suitable for him to return to after his stroke – he cites the number of steps there were up to his flat. The Council’s assessment document records that the hospital discharged Mr W with no care and support needs and that he could manage stairs.
26. So there is no record, at Mr W’s time of discharge, of any evidence that should have led the Council to have concerns about the suitability of Mr W’s property. My decision is I do not have the evidence to uphold this part of Mr W’s complaint.

Mr W’s tenancy status, and whether he was threatened with homelessness

27. Mr W strongly disagreed with the Council’s insistence that he should ask his landlord to evict him. He says he had never had a tenancy agreement.
28. I have checked this and it is likely the Council was correct in its advice to Mr W. He had a legal right to stay in his home until his landlord completed possession proceedings. That right is not dependent on him having a formal tenancy agreement. It also applies to houses in multiple occupation. The possession action would have started with the landlord issuing Mr W with a notice to quit (in two months).
29. My decision is the Council was not at fault for giving this advice. One of the tests for homeless applicants is that they must be homeless, or threatened with homelessness. If a person has property available to them, which it is reasonable to expect them to occupy, they will fail this test. That was why it was important the Council advised Mr W of his right to remain in the property.
30. This also meant Mr W did not meet the threshold for the Council completing a personal housing plan, as he had accommodation it was reasonable to expect him to occupy for over 56 days. So I cannot uphold the complaint about not completing a housing plan with Mr W.

Later contact

31. In August Mr W emailed Officer 1 asking to complain and advising that continuing to live in the property was harmful to his health and well-being. Officer 1 reiterated his advice to Mr W about his rights to remain in the property. I would have expected to see a record of Officer 1 exploring Mr W’s comments about the effect on his health and whether this meant he needed to revisit an assessment of the property’s suitability. To have not done this then was fault.

Advice

32. In June Mr W noted Officer 1 gave Mr W some advice about his housing rights. He also sent an email link to some information about a discretionary housing payment. Mr W also had significant debts, including rent arrears. The Council’s complaint response accepted that Mr W sought advice about benefit claims. And its officer should have responded. It was not until August that the Council referred him to a support agency.
33. Given the Council’s duties to provide homelessness prevention advice, I would have expected to have seen the Council responding to Mr W’s contact and consideration of whether he needed a referral for advice and support with issues like benefit claims. My decision is to have not considered this in June was fault.

Complaint response

34. I do not agree with Mr W’s concerns the Council’s complaint responses misrepresented what he did. The responses are based on the Council’s records of what happened; although with different emphasises and explanations to Mr W’s. I see no evidence of fault.

Records

35. The Council has not been able to provide me with some records; due to officers leaving the Council’s employment. But one of the reasons why records are important is to provide service continuity, independent of individual officers. So I find the Council has not kept appropriate records.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

36. An earlier referral for support might have led to some different outcomes for Mr W. it would also have likely led to some less stress and frustration during this difficult time for him. That uncertainty and distress are an injustice that demands a remedy.
37. But any support would unlikely have led to a different housing outcome for Mr W. That is because he had a clear unchanging view that he did not want his landlord to have to follow the formal eviction procedure. The Council was correct to advise Mr W that this was contrary to his legal rights. The Council has shown restraint in not discharging its duty on the grounds Mr W was not (legally) threatened with homelessness.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. I recommended that, within one month of my final decision, the Council:
• write to Mr W providing an apology for the fault I have identified;
• make Mr W a symbolic payment of £200 for the distress caused by the lack of an earlier referral for advice and support.
39. The Council has agreed to these remedies. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I uphold the complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman