Summary: Miss X complains the Council placed her son, Mr Y, in unsuitable accommodation following his discharge from hospital. We have found fault in the way the Council made its decision to place Mr Y in a hostel when he was threatened with homelessness. There was also poor communication with Miss X and Mr Y about a proposed move to an alternative temporary accommodation. These faults caused serious injustice to Mr Y who is vulnerable because of his mental health issues. We have also found fault in the Council’s communication with Miss X and the handling of her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and service improvements for the injustice caused to Mr Y and Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council placed her son, Mr Y, in a hostel following his discharge from hospital. Miss X says:

• the hostel accommodation was unsuitable;
• the Council said Mr Y would only be at the hostel for two weeks;
• the Council failed to take action when Mr Y was almost attacked at the hostel;
• the housing officer(s) failed to respond to her phone calls and emails and lied about referrals for alternative suitable accommodation for Mr Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
5. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness applications

6. 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.
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 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)

Relief and main housing duties

8. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. It lasts for 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
9. At the end of the relief duty, a council must decide if it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, in priority need, and unintentionally homeless. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Interim and temporary accommodation

10. While a Council is carrying out inquiries in an applicant’s case it must also secure accommodation for the applicant 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)
11. If a council has accepted the main housing duty, the accommodation it provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation, but councils are encouraged to carry out a non-statutory review in those cases.

What happened

13. Below is a chronology of key events. It is not meant to show everything that happened.
14. Mr Y has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder and psychotic symptoms.
15. On 6 September, Mr Y was admitted to hospital. At the time he was living at the YMCA.
16. On 20 September 2022, Mr Y was discharged from a mental health hospital into bed and breakfast accommodation funded by the NHS. The accommodation was available for two days.
17. On 22 September, Mr Y completed a homelessness application. Mr Y said he had left the bed and breakfast and was temporarily living with his mother who had a heart condition. Mr Y said he had to leave his mother’s property by 26 September. The Council requested further information about Mr Y’s medical condition and medication from the hospital.
18. On 26 September, the Council determined Mr Y was homeless and eligible for housing assistance. It stated the YMCA had provided low to medium level support and Mr Y had support needs that were above the level of support YMCA could provide. The Council said Mr Y was in priority need.
19. On the same day, the Council offered Mr Y interim accommodation in a hostel. Mr Y moved in the next day. The Council issued a personalised housing plan which accepted a duty to relieve homelessness. The plan stated that Mr Y required a room in a shared house or a one-bedroom property.
20. On 28 October, Miss X contacted the Council and said Mr Y was almost attacked by another occupant at the hostel. Miss X said Mr Y has suffered a psychotic breakdown as a result. Miss X said the accommodation was unsuitable for Mr Y given his mental health condition. Miss X said she also had a heart condition. Miss X requested an urgent call back.
21. On 9 November, Miss X contacted the Council again. She said a housing officer (Officer A) had spoken to Mr Y on 28 October and told him that he would be moving out of the hostel but had not provided any further details. Miss X said she had sent several emails to Officer A but had not received a response.
22. On 12 December, Officer A spoke to Miss X and requested copies of Mr Y’s bank statement, benefit award and letters. Officer A told Miss X that a referral for supported accommodation had not been actioned. On the same day the case was allocated to another housing officer (Officer B), as per Miss X’s request.
23. On 22 December, Officer B contacted Miss X. Miss X confirmed that Y was still residing at the hostel, but it was not safe, and he needed to move.
24. On 26 January 2023, Miss X contacted the Council about the homeless prevention team. Miss X said the team had ignored important emails and lied about procedures taken to rehouse her son. Miss X said she had been informed by Officer A that Mr Y would be accommodated at the hostel for two weeks and a referral for sheltered accommodation would be made. Miss X explained that Mr Y was almost attacked at the hostel and his mental health had deteriorated. Miss X said the Council failed to respond to her emails and request for support. Miss X said Officer B had also ignored her emails about Mr Y’s mental health and urgent need to move him out of the hostel.
25. On 7 February, the Council wrote to Mr Y ending the relief duty. The Council sent another letter to Mr Y accepting a main housing duty.
26. On the same day, Miss X complained to the Council, as set out in paragraph 24 above. Miss X said the situation had caused her distress and anxiety and she had lost weight. Miss X said she was seeking compensation.
27. Two days later the Council spoke to Miss X and sent her a follow up email. The Council apologised to Miss X and advised her of the next steps it would take. The Council signposted Miss X to its website if she wished to make an official complaint.
28. On 9 February, the Council’s case records show it intended to complete a suitability assessment of the hostel accommodation.
29. On 28 March, a housing manager spoke to Miss X. The manager told Miss X that it was waiting for an updated risk assessment from Mr Y. Miss X said Mr Y had a mental health breakdown over the weekend and was showing new patterns of behaviour. The manager offered to move Mr Y into a hotel. Miss X refused. The manager sent an email to the housing allocations team asking for the case to be progressed and for the suitability assessment to be completed.
30. On 14 and 17 March, the Council attempted to contact Mr Y about completing a suitability assessment.
31. On 18 April, the Council completed the suitability assessment which stated that Mr Y had mental health needs and was eligible for self- contained accommodation.
32. On 3 May, the Council offered Mr Y temporary self-contained accommodation. Miss X told the Council that Mr Y would not be accepting the offer of accommodation.
33. On 12 May, Mr Y was admitted to hospital.
34. On 18 May, the Council spoke to Miss X about the offer of temporary self-contained accommodation. Miss X said she had visited the area with Mr Y. Miss X said Mr Y required supported accommodation due to his mental health needs. On the same day, a housing officer visited Mr Y in hospital. Mr Y said he was able to live independently and complete all daily activities without support. The hospital confirmed Mr Y’s comments and said there was no evidence that suggested Mr Y required supported accommodation. The hospital advised Mr Y would most likely be discharged following a medical review on 23 May.
35. Mr Y signed a temporary tenancy agreement for the self-contained accommodation and moved on 29 May.
36. On 26 June, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure. The Council concluded that Officer A erred in failing to communicate with Mr Y or Miss X following the referral to the hostel in September. The Council partially upheld the complaint about the failure to respond to Miss X’s concerns for the period of 26 September until 30 November 2022 and for the likely failure of the case officer to undertake referrals as agreed. The Council offered Mr Y a payment of £150 in recognition of the stress caused.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

37. In addition to its complaint response to Miss X the Council provided the following response to our enquiries.
38. The Council said the secured hostel accommodation was the most suitable emergency accommodation available given the single days’ notice the Council had to work with and considering Mr Y’s medical information and need to remain local for support. The Council confirmed the priority for Mr Y to not become homeless was the overriding factor in its decision.
39. The Council has acknowledged that Miss X informed them that Mr Y was almost attacked in the hostel. There is no evidence that this was followed up by the Council.
40. The Council explained that when Miss X raised concerns about the suitability of the accommodation at the end of January 2023, it requested a suitability assessment in February. The assessment was completed ten weeks later.
41. The Council said there was no evidence it said Mr Y would only be in the hostel for two weeks. The Council explained this was not a timescale or expectation it would typically convey.

Analysis

42. The Council accepts in its complaint response the initial housing officer failed to communicate properly with Mr Y and Miss X. This is fault and caused Mr Y and Miss X avoidable frustration. The Council also accepts the housing officer suggested they would undertake referrals or other activities which were then not followed up. This is fault causing distress and uncertainty to Mr Y and Miss X.
43. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for their needs. Mr Y was vulnerable as he had recently been discharged from hospital and had mental health needs which the Council was aware of. The Council did not complete a suitability assessment to decide what type of accommodation would be suitable for Mr Y’s needs before it placed him in a hostel in September 2022. This is fault.
44. While there is no right to a statutory review of accommodation provided under Section 188, it is good practice for councils to conduct a non-statutory review and this is what we expect them to do when a complainant raises concerns. Miss X first raised concerns about the hostel in October 2022. These concerns were not followed up by the Council. Miss X raised further concerns about the suitability of the accommodation in December 2022 and January 2023. But the Council did not complete a suitability assessment until April 2023. This is fault. The absence of a non-statutory review is also fault.
45. On the balance of probabilities, if the Council had completed a suitability review in October 2022, it would have reached the same conclusion that Mr Y required self-contained accommodation. On this basis, Mr Y would have moved to more suitable accommodation sooner. I note the Council provided temporary accommodation which Mr Y accepted in May 2023. However, for seven months, Mr Y was inconvenienced by not having suitable accommodation.
46. The Council offered Mr Y accommodation in a commercial hotel at the end of March 2023. Miss X declined this offer. However, there is no evidence the Council tried to contact Mr Y at the time to understand his needs and ascertain his wishes. This is fault. The Council then offered Mr Y suitable accommodation in early May 2023. Miss X declined this offer. Once the Council spoke to Mr Y, he confirmed that he could support himself independently. Mr Y accepted the offer of accommodation at the end of May 2023. I find the lack of communication with Mr Y about alternative accommodation creates uncertainty about whether he could have moved out of the hostel sooner.
47. I have also found fault with the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint. Miss X first complained to the Council at the end of January 2023. There is no evidence the Council responded to Miss X. Miss X complained again on 9 February. Miss X made it clear this was an official complaint. The Council spoke to Miss X and sent her a follow up email but did not address Miss X’s issues of complaint. Instead, the Council signposted Miss X to its website to register a formal complaint. As a result, Miss X did not receive a final response to her complaint until mid-June 2023. This is fault and caused Miss X avoidable distress and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. In addition to the £150 already offered by the Council to Mr Y, within one month of my final decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr Y and Miss X for the distress and inconvenience caused by the faults we have found;
2. pay Mr Y £1750 for the seven months he spent in unsuitable accommodation. This is a monthly rate which is towards the upper range for financial remedies for unsuitable placements in our published Guidance on Remedies. The higher monthly figure is appropriate because there are aggravating factors in this case: the Council was aware the YMCA had provided low to medium level support and Mr Y had support needs that were above the level of support YMCA could provide and Mr Y had just been released from hospital after a mental health breakdown.
3. pay Mr Y an additional £150 for the uncertainly and distress caused by poor communication and likely failure of the Council to make referrals for alternative accommodation and support; and
4. pay Miss X £300 for the lack of communication and failure to respond to her emails and poor handling of her complaint.
49. Within two months of my final decision the Council will:
1. remind officers of the need to carry out a suitability assessment before placing a homeless applicant in shared or other interim accommodation; and
2. remind officers of the need to investigate complaints once they are submitted in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have found fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mr Y and Miss X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman