Summary: Mr D complains about how the Council dealt with him when he approached it as homeless. His view is it should have found him in priority need and found him a property. He also complains the Council did not check with him about how his disabilities affected his communications. The Ombudsman’s decision is the Council is at fault as it did not ask Mr D about any adjustments he needed in its communications with him, despite this being a requirement of the Equality Act. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I shall refer to as Mr D), complains about how the Council dealt with his homelessness application. He complains:
• the Council should have found him in priority need due to all his health issues and how these and other pressures affected him;
• the Council did not offer him any accommodation, temporary or otherwise;
• the Council did not ask him whether any of his disabilities might lead him to having problems accessing the Council’s service;
• he told the Council about his mental ill-health. But the Council did not contact the mental health services he was using for evidence.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

The Housing Act

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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

7. 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 threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
8. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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)
9. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure accommodation (which can be in the private sector).
11. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

12. 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)
13. But, if, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible or in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• 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;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate.

Following a review, a complainant can exercise their right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.

The Council’s Find Your Own scheme

15. The Council runs a scheme to assist people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness to secure accommodation. The scheme offers:
• help with one month's rent and one month's deposit;
• some financial help to rent a property in an area of choice.
• any payments made directly to the agent/landlord of the property.

The Equality Act

16. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance 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.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

17. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.

What happened

Background

20. Mr D left his family’s home following a relationship breakdown. After that he was sleeping in his van.

Mr D approaches the Council

21. Mr D first contacted the Council’s homelessness team in February 2023. The Council gave him an appointment to complete an initial telephone assessment for two days later. The Council completed an initial assessment and made an appointment for around two weeks later for a full assessment. Its initial assessment was Mr D was not in priority need.
22. While awaiting the appointment the Council says it:
• gave Mr D advice about a night shelter, although Mr D reported it was not suitable for him, due to his working hours;
• was contacted by a homeless charity who advised it Mr D was struggling with his mental health and had an appointment to see someone soon.
23. The Council says that at the assessment meeting, Mr D walked out. Mr D said he did this as he had a panic attack. The form the Council completed notes Mr D did not have a disability. But under a section about help he would need, it says ‘ADHD’ (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).
24. The personal housing plan the Council completed following the assessment with Mr D is unsigned. But it notes:
• he was not in priority need. Mr D had advised he had ADHD, but he was not on any medication for this;
• he should seek to identify suitable private sector accommodation;
• the Council asked Mr D to complete some affordability (of housing) assessment;
• the Council could provide a rent deposit, subject to the affordability assessment.
25. Over the following two months Mr D was in contact with the Council about a series of private rented properties that the Council had put him forward for, or he had found. Mr D was not successful in getting the tenancy for any of these properties. During this time the Council was advising Mr D of information it needed from him before it could assist him under its Find Your Own scheme. Mr D continued to advise the Council about his poor mental health, but noted he had not been diagnosed with anything.
26. At the end of April Mr D complained. The Council’s response advised:
• its officer was still working with Mr D to try to identify accommodation in the private sector;
• it reiterated it would help Mr D with a deposit and rent in advance if he found a property.
27. At the end of May the Council wrote to Mr D advising its duty had ended. It had worked with him for an initial 56 days and extended that for a further 56 days. It noted he was eligible and homeless. But he was not in priority need. It explained the reasons why it had reached its view on priority need. It advised him of his right to ask for a review of its decision.
28. Mr D complained to the Ombudsman. He advised me:
• how difficult it had been for him to engage in the process. He mentioned mental health issues, suspected ADHD, dyslexia, addiction, alcoholism. He said his life at the time was chaotic;
• he was not sure what action he had taken at the time – including whether or not he had asked for a review of any of the Council’s decision.
29. In response to my enquiries, the Council advised it did not:
• have a record that it had checked whether Mr D needed any adjustments in its communications with him due to his disabilities, because “[t]here was no documentation to suggest reasonable adjustments were required”;
• contact mental health services as it did not have consent from Mr D to do so, as he walked out of the assessment meeting.

Analysis

30. During my investigation, I asked the Council if it had asked Mr D whether adjustments in its communication might be necessary. The Council says it had no evidence Mr D might need any reasonable adjustments.
31. The Equality Act places a duty on local public services to “anticipate” the needs of people with disabilities accessing their services. The Ombudsman’s view is it is good practice to routinely ask everyone who accesses a public service whether the service needs to make changes to the way it communicates with them at every stage of a process, whenever they interact with service users,
32. By asking service users if they need to make any changes to how they communicate, local services can provide people with disabilities an opportunity to discuss any barriers they might face accessing the service and possible solutions. This is particularly important with hidden disabilities where people may feel unable to volunteer their need for an adjustment until asked.
33. A charity had contacted the Council alerting it to concerns about Mr D’s mental health. The Council’s own assessment form is contradictory on whether Mr D might have a disability (ADHD). So the Council had information that suggested the possibility Mr D might have a hidden disability. The fact the Council had a record of concerns about Mr D’s health should have been enough to alert it that it needed to explore this issue with Mr D. My decision is that to not do so was fault.
34. The Council says it did not contact any professionals about Mr D’s situation because he left the assessment without signing a consent form. Mr D says he left due to a panic attack. Mr decision is to have not tried again to seek consent was fault. And this situation would likely been avoided if the Council had asked Mr D about any adjustments he needed.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

35. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine if the Council had any duties under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments to the way it communicated with Mr D. That was an assessment for the Council to decide. But it did not ask Mr D about this, so “did not turn its mind” to the issue.
36. This leads to some uncertainty about whether Mr D was hindered in his ability to participate in the assessment process. In turn that leads to uncertainty about whether he could have fully considered his options; including about seeking a review of any of the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council:
• contact Mr D to explore with him whether he is still homeless or at risk of homelessness. If it concludes Mr D still meets the threshold, it should carry out a fresh assessment;
• ensure this contact includes discussion with Mr D of whether he has any disability that requires the Council to make adjustments in its communications with him. The Council should keep a record of this issue consider whether any adjustments are needed and/or reasonable.
38. I also recommend that, within three months of my final decision, the Council should also take the following action to ensure it is meeting its legal duties under the Equality Act 2010:

• update its homelessness assessment form to add a standard question about reasonable adjustments, with accompanying guidance for staff about the legal basis for asking the question.

39. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I uphold the compliant. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman