Summary: Mr B complained the Council did not deal with his homelessness application properly and discriminated against him. There was fault by the Council. It should apologise, take the action specified below and make a payment to Mr B.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainant as Mr B. His complaint concerned his housing situation and applications to the Council as homeless. He complained that the Council:
• failed to make anticipatory reasonable adjustments;
• applied policies, criterion and practices in an inappropriate manner which constituted disability discrimination;
• refused to accept it owed him the full homelessness duty in 2020;
• did not include the Care Act 2014 in its considerations of his applications;
• applied elements of housing legislation inappropriately, in such a way as to constitute unlawful discrimination
• did not follow the requirements of the Equality Act 2010 and he suffered discrimination.

He says that as a result of the failures by the Council he has been living in unsatisfactory conditions since 2020.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated events since March 2023. Mr B considered we should investigate what happened in 2020. I do not intend to do so. The first factor in my decision is that Mr B could have complained at the time, or some point sooner, about what the Council had done. Mr B has said that there were multiple reasons why he could not make the complaint sooner. He has referred to:
• he had too much to contend with simultaneously;
• he was dealing with multiple other claims;
• he did not understand what had happened;
• he was unwell and having therapy which was the priority for him;
• when he had previously complained to us he had had support which was not now available to him.

His overarching point is that the standards of behaviour, communication and social interaction that could be expected of a non-autistic person cannot be applied to him. And we have not had due regards to his disability regarding social communication and processing and the implications regarding the preparation of a complaint. I accept all that Mr B says and I would have been persuaded to take a complaint that was slightly late but it was three years before he raised his complaint with us. Taking into account all the points and factors Mr B makes I still consider a complaint could have been made sooner.

6. There is a further factor in my decision not to extend the investigation to 2020. We will only use our discretion to investigate a late complaint where justice requires that the time be extended and the complaint considered. There was a right of review of the Council’s decision on his homelessness application. We would expect people to use that review to challenge the decision. Mr B said he did not know how to appeal. The Council’s decision letter notifying him of the decision explained the process. So, even if Mr B had complained in 2020 we would have said that the appropriate way to challenge the core issue was by way of review.
7. I have not, therefore, investigated the complaint about events in 2020.
8. I have investigated events from March 2023 to 15 June when the Council accepted it had the relief duty.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the relevant legal and administrative provisions

10. The Equality Act 2010 protects the rights of individuals and supports equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
11. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
12. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:

• age,
• disability,
• gender reassignment,
• marriage and civil partnership,
• pregnancy and maternity,
• race,
• religion or belief,
• sex, and
• sexual orientation.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

13. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
14. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
15. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

Public sector equality duty

16. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
17. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Homelessness

18. 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.
19. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)
20. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
21. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
22. 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. This is referred to as the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
23. 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. This is referred to as the main housing duty. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
24. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions (amongst others):
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Summary of the key events

25. Mr B was living at his father's house. His father asked him to leave and he applied to the Council as homeless in late March 2020. He moved temporarily to his mother's one bedroom privately rented flat. This was just at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council decided it owed him the prevention duty. He applied to the housing register and the Council placed him band C.
26. Over the rest of 2020 and 2021 Mr B made a number of bids on properties but was not successful. In January 2022 the Council ended the prevention duty. Mr B did not receive the letter notifying him of that decision.
27. Mr B made more bids during 2022 but again none were successful.
28. In March 2023 he contacted the Council to say that his mother had been served notice to leave her flat and that he would be homeless within 56 days. He told the Council that he has autism and pointed to the duties the Council had to him because of his condition.
29. Over the rest of March and April there was correspondence between Mr B and various officers at the Council. He made a complaint which the Council considered at stage one of its procedure and then at stage two by the Chief Executive. Mr B also corresponded with the Council’s monitoring officer.
30. In the middle of May the Council offered Mr B interim accommodation. Mr B wrote to the Council explaining why he did not consider it to be suitable for his needs but accepted it because he had no other options and would be street homeless.
31. Mr B could not gain access to the property on the appointed day. There was then correspondence between Mr B and the Council about the property. The Council discharged its duty to provide interim accommodation in the middle of May. It said it considered Mr B had refused an offer of suitable interim accommodation.
32. Correspondence between Mr B and the Council continued. In the middle of June the Council accepted it had the relief duty to Mr B and issued a PHP.

Analysis

33. This is my analysis of what I consider to be the most significant issues. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Approach as homeless

34. Mr B approached the Council in March 2023. He said he was threatened with homelessness within 56 days.
35. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. As long as the communication seeks accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation and includes details that give the housing authority reason to believe that they might be homeless or threatened with homelessness, this constitutes an application. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
36. The Council said it considered the date of Mr B’s homelessness application was 12 May. I do not consider that can be correct. It is clear Mr B approached the Council on 10 March and I can see no good reason why that would not be the effective date of his application taking into account the guidance referred to above.
37. As I say in my summary, there was considerable correspondence between Mr B and the Council over the following months. Much of this was about what duties the Council had to Mr B as a person with autism and generally the Council’s duties under the Equality Act. I refer to this further below. But this correspondence should not have deflected the Council from meeting its duties under homelessness legislation and guidance.
38. It appears the Council was not treating Mr B as someone who had made a homeless application. In its complaint response of 11 April it said that his case had been dealt with by the prevention team as he was at risk of homelessness and he had been advised as to how he should make an application. As I say above there is no required form needed for a homeless application. Moreover, if the case was being handled as a prevention case then the Council should have formally accepted the prevention duty to Mr B, notified him of this and drawn up a PHP.
39. Part of the issue over this period was the Council wanted to have a face to face interview with Mr B about his housing situation as part of its assessment. Mr B needs email communication to meet his needs as a person with autism. He did not consider that he could complete a face to face interview. And that the Council should, as a reasonable adjustment for his disability, carry out its assessment without that. The Council eventually agreed to a telephone interview.
40. The Code of Guidance says that in most cases assessments will require at least one face to face interview. However, where that is not possible or does not meet the applicant’s needs, assessments can be completed on the telephone or internet or with the assistance of a partner agency. The Council was too rigid in its position on how the assessment could be completed and failed to make reasonable adjustments for Mr B.

The offer of interim accommodation

41. The Council offered Mr B interim accommodation on a Friday. He said he would accept it even though he considered it was not suitable so needed an alternative as soon as possible. Mr B went to the property on the following Sunday to move in. He could not gain access.
42. There was correspondence between Mr B and the Council over the next few days. On Tuesday the Council asked Mr B if he would be taking up occupation of the property. It said that if it did not hear from him, or did not receive confirmation he would be accepting it, by noon the next day the Council would consider it as a refusal of the offer of interim accommodation. Mr B replied explaining what had happened when he had gone to access the accommodation. He said he considered the Council had not made reasonable adjustments for his needs. The Council responded the next morning saying that if he still wished to accept the property then he should contact the letting agents by 5pm that day. Mr B replied saying that he was entitled to ask questions and the Council was obliged to respond. He asked about his banding for the housing register. The Council replied saying he would need to complete a change of circumstances form as his situation had changed. Mr B replied referring to his communication needs and that the Council had failed to meet them. Mr B sent further emails. On Friday the Council wrote to Mr B saying the duty to provide interim accommodation had ended as it considered he had refused a reasonable offer.
43. There is no statutory right of review or appeal of the Council’s decision. I can consider whether there was fault in how the Council reached the position it did, but I am not considering the matter afresh on its merits. I have considered the correspondence between Mr B and the Council in the days following the offer of the accommodation and Mr B’s visit to the property. The Council clearly explained what Mr B needed to do to confirm his acceptance of the property. He did not do that. There was not fault in the Council putting a deadline and a requirement on the action Mr B needed to take. I recognise Mr B had complaints and concerns which he wanted the Council to address but they did not need to be addressed before he took up occupation of the property.
44. Mr B considered the property was unsuitable for him. The Council’s decision explained why it considered the property was suitable. It addressed all the points Mr B had made. I am satisfied the Council provided reasons why it considered the property was suitable and there is no fault in how it reached that decision.

Subsequent events

45. Correspondence continued between Mr B and the Council over the end of May and into June. The Council said it was continuing with its enquiries to establish what housing duties it may have to Mr B. It asked him to provide evidence that his mother’s tenancy of the property where he had been living had ended, or her contact details, and a copy of the full autism assessment that was completed at the time of his diagnosis. In responding to my enquiries the Council said that it requests details from medical professionals and uses the information when making and supporting its decisions. It accepted it did not make it clear to Mr B why it had asked for the report. There was no other fault in the Council’s actions over this period in its assessment of Mr B’s homelessness.

Equality Act 2010

46. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
47. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
48. Mr B considered the Council had not provided its staff with sufficient training in autism spectrum conditions and that its policies and procedures do not ensure they are safe for autistic people. I cannot come to a view on the overall approach adopted by the Council in terms of training for its staff or its polices and procedures. That is too wide-ranging and our focus is on what has happened to Mr B. In terms of its handling of Mr B’s homelessness it did initially fail to make a reasonable adjustment in terms of how it could assess his application and the requirement for a face to face interview.
49. There was considerable correspondence between Mr B and the Council and it is not proportionate for me to carry out a detailed examination of all the correspondence. The officers attempted to meet Mr B’s needs in terms of how they communicated with him and provided detailed responses.

Other matters

50. The letter notifying Mr B of the interim accommodation was not clear about any appeal rights. It stated there was no statutory right of review of the suitability of the accommodation. But in a further section of the letter it referred to the right to request a review of it. This was contradictory.
51. Mr B complained the Council did not have regard to the Care Act when considering his homelessness. He has referred to the general requirements in the Care Act in respect of vulnerable people having suitable housing and individuals having control over their own care and welfare when decisions are made. The Care Act was not the primary legislation that was relevant to the Council’s consideration of Mr B’s homelessness. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the Council failed to have regard to any relevant provisions of the Care Act.

Injustice

52. Where there has been fault we have to consider what injustice that has caused to the complainant. I consider the consequence here is that Mr B’s homelessness application was delayed by a month. The Council accepted the relief duty in mid-June but it should have done that by mid-May. It accepted the full housing duty to Mr B and increased his banding on the housing register. The Council should, therefore, backdate that increase in banding by a month.
53. I recognise that this period has been stressful for Mr B. The Council’s requirement for a face to face interview will have caused Mr B distress. And the other faults I refer to above will also have contributed to Mr B’s distress. The only way that can be remedied is by the Council making symbolic payment to him.

Back to top

Agreed action

54. Within a month of the final decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B following our guidance on making an effective apology. It should also make a payment to him £300 in recognition of the injustice I refer to above;
• backdate the increase in banding by a month.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. There was fault which caused injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman