Summary: Mr C complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless applications. We did not find fault with the Council’s actions which caused Mr C an injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained that North Yorkshire Council (the Council) in connection with his homeless applications:
• failed to properly consider his first homeless application including a failure to properly consider his health problems;
• failed to offer him suitable interim accommodation in August 2022;
• failed to formally notify him or give him a right of review against the Council’s decision in September 2022 that the relief duty had ended;
• delayed for two weeks in offering him temporary accommodation, after accepting the main housing duty towards him on 4 January 2023; and
• overlooked him unfairly when he bid on accommodation where he met the age and medical conditions.
2. Mr C says he has been caused distress and inconvenience and has had to live in his car for extended periods of time.

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 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. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

7. 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 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)

The prevention duty

8. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to ensure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Interim and temporary accommodation

10. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
11. 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)
12. If, having made enquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
13. 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)
14. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Review rights

15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of decisions on their application including the following :
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

What happened

16. In May 2022 Mr C was living in a caravan. His landlord served him with a section 21 notice requiring him to leave. Mr C approached the Council for help. He provided a letter from his GP confirming he has osteoarthritis and would benefit from warmer accommodation. The Council contacted Mr C's landlord who said they wanted to carry out repairs to the caravan and had offered Mr C an alternative which he had refused. Mr C denied he had been offered an alternative and he had been illegally evicted. The Council gave Mr C advice about the Council’s housing register system and links to properties available in the private sector.
17. In July 2022 Mr C approached the Council again as he was now homeless and living in his car. The Council started an assessment including consideration of his financial situation and medical condition. The Council was satisfied he was not eligible for housing benefit, and he could afford to pay for temporary accommodation. It confirmed this in writing to him and Mr C confirmed he would rather stay in his car than pay for a hotel.
18. It initially accepted the prevention duty towards him but then decided that he was actually homeless so ended the prevention duty.
19. At the beginning of August 2022, the Council confirmed it had accepted the relief duty towards him, but after talking to his GP it decided he was not in priority need so did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation. The letter notifying of this decision gave him a right of review if he disagreed with it.
20. In September 2022 the Council offered assistance in finding accommodation in hotels from £35 to £50 a night which it considered was affordable for him.
21. On 21 September 2022 Mr C was offered a property in a different area via the home-choice system. Mr C rejected the offer as unsuitable due to the stairs, and the Council confirmed it had ended the relief duty towards him because he had suitable accommodation available to him. Mr C remained in silver band on the Council’s housing register and able to bid for properties.
22. The Council closed his homeless application in October 2022 and Mr C made a formal complaint. The Council allocated the complaint to a senior officer who spoke to Mr C by telephone to discuss the concerns raised.
23. On 1 November 2022 the Council agreed to reopen his case and reconsider new medical information from Mr C. The Council accepted the relief duty towards him and sent him a personal housing plan. It provided advice on social and private rented sector housing and confirmed he was in silver band able to bid for properties through the home-choice scheme. The Council wrote to his GP for up-to-date information about his medical condition.
24. He had contact with the rough sleeper coordinator who discussed housing options with Mr C. Mr C confirmed he was trying to secure private rented properties in the surrounding area but had not been successful.
25. On 22 November 2022 his GP sent a letter to the Council along with his medical history confirming that he was wating for a surgical review and scan for a back condition which caused him pain. He had also developed a tremor in his right hand which needed investigation. He was still living in his car and staying in hotels sometimes.
26. At the end of November 2022 the Council finished its enquiries. It concluded Mr C was now in priority need. It placed him on the list for a direct offer of housing and increased his priority on the housing register to gold band.
27. The Council also sent a response to his complaint in which it accepted that the Council had not properly explained the issues to Mr C. It apologised for this.
28. He continued to have discussions with the rough sleeper co-ordinator about possible properties in the private rented sector, but he had been unsuccessful possibly due to some county court judgements against him for debts. He discussed temporary accommodation but considered it was too expensive.
29. Mr C complained to the Council that he had been overlooked for a bungalow. The Council investigated and replied to Mr C explaining that he had not met the age criteria for the property.
30. At the beginning of January 2023, the relief duty came to an end. The Council confirmed it owed him the main housing duty and again offered to arrange temporary accommodation in a hotel, but Mr C declined saying it was too expensive. On 17 January 2023 Mr C viewed a temporary accommodation property and the Council offered it the following day. Mr C refused it as unsuitable.
31. On 25 January 2023 the Council made him a final offer of accommodation and explained the consequences of refusing the offer to Mr C. Mr C refused the offer saying it was unsuitable. The Council confirmed on 31 January 2023 that its homeless duty had ended, and Mr C’s application had been downgraded to silver band on the housing register. Mr C requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation on the grounds that it was too far away from his medical and support networks.
32. The Council acknowledged the review. Mr C then made a formal complaint on 9 February 2023 about the way the Council had handled his housing applications. The Council replied on 16 February 2023. It said it had initially considered he was not in priority need and found hotels for him between £35 and £50 a night which it considered were affordable to him based on his financial circumstances. He had refused a suitable property in September 2022 and had not appealed against the decision to end the relief duty towards him. Following his complaint and new medical information the Council accepted the relief duty and agreed Mr C was in priority need.
33. The Council confirmed he had not been overlooked for the bungalow: it had been allocated in accordance with the criteria. The Council had offered Mr C various bed and breakfast options which Mr C and rejected due to the area or cost. It had also offered him a self-contained property for £114 a week which Mr C had rejected as too expensive. It had made an offer of permanent accommodation which Mr C had rejected, and the review was ongoing.
34. The Council sent Mr C its decision on the review on 15 February 2023. It considered the property was suitable for Mr C and as he could drive it did not consider he was isolated. It gave him a further right of review to the county court.
35. Mr C escalated his formal complaint on 10 March 2023. He said the Council:
• had not given him any information about the affordability of hotels or clear information about what was offered.
• it had delayed from 4 to 18 January 2023 in offering him temporary accommodation.
• communicated poorly with him, dismissed his situation and his vulnerability.
• failed to formally notify him in October 2022 that its homeless duty had ended because he refused a property.
36. The Council responded at stage two of its complaints procedure on 27 March 2023. It said:
• staff had made Mr C aware by email in September 2022 that he would be responsible for the cost of temporary accommodation and provided links to possible properties.
• the Council has made other offers of assistance over the phone or by the rough sleeper co-ordinator.
• it carried out a financial assessment on 26 July 2022. Mr C had said he was managing financially and had provided bank statements which confirmed he could afford temporary accommodation. The housing benefit team confirmed this on 23 August 2022.
• The Council made Mr C aware of the shortage of temporary accommodation on 9 January 2023 and offered a property as soon as one became available, which Mr C rejected as being too far away.
• The offer of the property at the end of September 2022 was not a final offer and the Council ended its relief duty incorrectly. But as Mr C was not considered to be in priority need at that point the outcome would have been the same.
• It sent him four letters between 26 July and 22 September 202 notifying him of decisions on his case, all of which included a right of review.
37. Mr C then complained to us.

Analysis

failed to properly consider his first homeless application including a failure to properly consider his health problems

38. When Mr C made his first homeless application in July 2022, the Council had two letters from his GP confirming osteoarthritis and how it affected him. The Council also spoke to the GP by telephone and on the basis of the information provided concluded that Mr C was not in priority need. The Council notified Mr C in writing of the end of the prevention duty, the start of the relief duty and the fact he was not in priority need. The notifications gave him a right of review against the decisions. I have not identified fault with the Council’s actions.

failed to offer him suitable interim accommodation in August 2022

39. The Council decided at this point that Mr C was not in priority need and so he was not eligible for interim accommodation. It also gave him a right of appeal against this decision.

failed to formally notify him or give him a right of review against the Council’s decision in September 2022 that the relief duty had ended

40. The Council sent Mr C a written decision on 22 September 2022 ending the relief duty towards him saying it was satisfied Mr C had suitable accommodation available to him.
41. The Council later accepted this decision was wrongly made. I agree that it did not explain to Mr C why the accommodation was suitable even when he raised medical difficulties with stairs and failed to make clear it was a final offer of accommodation. This was fault.
42. It did however offer him a right of appeal against the decision. Mr C complained rather than appealing. The Council reviewed the case and just over a month later re-opened Mr C’s application at the relief duty stage and agreed to obtain new medical information. Given that the Council reopened his case, increased his priority on the housing register and referred him for direct offers, I do not think the fault caused Mr C a significant injustice. It also apologised and continued to offer him interim accommodation which he did not accept, due to either cost or location.

delayed for two weeks in offering him temporary accommodation, after accepting the main housing duty towards him on 4 January 2023

43. Once the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mr C it had an immediate duty to provide temporary accommodation. It did not offer him a property until 18 January 2023. During this period Mr C slept in his car. This was fault.
44. However, Mr C refused the offer of temporary accommodation and the Council had offered hotels or bed and breakfasts in the interim. It also gave him a right of appeal against the temporary accommodation which he did not use. So, I do not consider the delay caused Mr C a significant injustice.
45. The Council shortly afterwards made a permanent offer of accommodation to Mr C which he refused. He requested a review of the suitability and the Council considered this promptly. The Council upheld its offer was suitable and gave Mr C had a further right of appeal to the county court. I cannot decide if the property was suitable for Mr C, but I have not identified fault in the way it made its decision.

overlooked him unfairly when he bid on accommodation where he met the age and medical conditions

46. The Council has explained that the bungalow was for people over 60 and Mr C does not meet those criteria, so if any other bids were made from applicants who were over 60 they would take priority. I have not identified fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman