Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council has handled his homelessness application. He said the Council failed to consider a change in his circumstances and lied and manipulated him. We do not find fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about how the Council has handled his homelessness application. He said:
• in 2023, the Council has failed to consider a change in his circumstances; and
• the Council has lied and manipulated him.
2. Mr X said this has had a significant impact on him and has caused him significant distress.

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. I spoke with Mr X about his complaint. I considered all the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:
• 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)
8. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of their eligibility for assistance.
9. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
10. There is no period of disqualification if someone wants to make a fresh application. Where a person whose application has been previously considered and determined under Part 7 makes a fresh application, the Council will need to decide whether there are any new facts which render it different from the earlier application. If no new facts are revealed, or any new facts are of a trivial nature, the Council would not be required to consider the new application and can instead rely on its previous decision. (The Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 18)
     

Summary of the key events

11. Mr X initially submitted a homeless application to the Council in February 2022. It was noted he lived in a flat and did not feel safe in his home because of his neighbours. The Council decided Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
12. The Council spoke with Mr X’s social worker. They stated Mr X has autism and the noise from the neighbours was impacting his mental health. It was noted Mr X was not at risk of being evicted.
13. The Council spoke with Mr X and advised him to continue to bid for properties on the Council’s housing register, look for accommodation with registered providers of social housing and look into the private rented sector.
14. Mr X told the Council he did not feel safe at the address and said he felt suicidal. The Council contacted the housing register and social worker asking them to contact Mr X. It also advised Mr X to speak with his GP.
15. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision in February 2022.
16. The review decision was issued the same month. It was noted that:
• there were insufficient investigations conducted to confirm Mr X’s rights of occupation at his address or to qualify any possible tenancy issues;
• the officer had not demonstrated any regard to the public sector equality duty in the case notes or decision letter;
• there had been a failure to make sufficient enquiries to determine how Mr X’s disability impacted upon daily living activities; and
• the previous decision was overturned. The case officer would be in touch with Mr X to commence a formal homeless application and complete an assessment.
17. The housing officer made the relevant enquiries. This included enquiring with Mr X, his social worker, GP and landlord.
18. The Council issued its review decision the start of April 2022. It was noted the Council was satisfied Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. It also stated:
• it was satisfied he has accommodation that was affordable;
• it considered it to be reasonable for him to remain living there;
• it considered information provided by Mr X, his social worker, current landlord, adult social care and any medical information or reports;
• it considered the extent of any physical or mental impairments Mr X suffers from; how it impacts on him and how it would impact on him if he were made homeless. But said it did not consider he was threatened with homelessness; and
• despite this, the Council could continue to provide practical help and advice.
19. Mr X responded to this with written abuse. He made a complaint and said:
• the officer had not done their job properly;
• the officer had lied multiple times; and
• officers had failed to reply to his messages.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X and said due to constant verbal and written abuse, it had instructed staff to not answer his calls. All further contact would need to be via email. It was also noted any abusive emails would not be responded to. It said all correspondence regarding the review would be via email.
21. The Council made further enquiries in April 2022 to complete the review. It also advised Mr X it had until the 27 may to respond and arranged an interview with him to discuss his health needs.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in May 2022. It said:
• the decision had been made in line with the law;
• at no point did the case officer intentionally waste Mr X’s time or lie;
• extensive enquiries had been made; and
• given the abuse, the decision to stop phone contact was supported.
23. The Council’s issued its review decision in the same month. It upheld the previous decision and stated Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
24. Mr X questioned why the Council said it could help and asked why he had to provide so much information if it was not considered. The Council explained the information provided had been considered. It also said the Council had a duty to always provide housing advice and assistance to him. It advised Mr X to contact it if his landlord served notice.
25. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council in June 2022. He said the officer had convinced him to continue with the application when he was in doubt at the time. He said this was a further waste of time.
26. Mr X contacted the Council in September 2023 to submit a further homelessness application. He said he had trouble with his neighbour and landlord. He said he could no longer live there and have given his landlord notice to leave. But the Council spoke with Mr X and advised him to withdraw his notice.
27. After speaking with Mr X, the Council said legislation dictates he was not threatened with homelessness. It asked Mr X to put in writing the reasons he did not think it was reasonable for him to remain at the property.
28. The Council said it did not believe there had been a significant material change in Mr X’s circumstances and closed the case. The Council advised him to continue bidding for a property. Mr X responded to this with verbal abuse directed at the officer and said he wanted to make a complaint.
29. The Council told Mr X that due to the abuse directed towards staff, he would have one point of contact at the Council who he could contact via email. He was advised to use the Council’s website to make a complaint.
30. The Council sent Mr X a decision letter. It stated:
• it was satisfied that the substantive facts presented on the new application were the same as the facts from the previous application; and
• it was satisfied that there had not been a change to the household composition, nor has there been any relevant change to Mr X’s physical or mental health or the treatment for it.

Analysis- was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

31. Mr X submitted a further homelessness application to the Council in September 2023. It was noted that he had stated he had trouble with his neighbour and landlord and could no longer live at the property.
32. The Council spoke with Mr X, but said legislation dictated he was not threatened with homelessness. It asked Mr X to put in writing the reasons he did not think it was reasonable for him to remain at the property. From the evidence seen, I have not seen any evidence to suggest Mr X did provide this information.
33. Mr X told us when he approached the Council in September 2023 his mental health had deteriorated, and he said he had a different diagnosis. From the evidence seen, Mr X told the Council he was not happy in the property and said it was impacting his mental health. I have not seen any evidence to suggest Mr X made the Council aware of a different diagnosis.
34. As stated in paragraph 10, guidance states when someone makes a fresh application, the Council will need to decide whether there are any new facts which render it different from the earlier application. If no new facts are revealed, or any facts are of a trivial nature, the Council would not be required to consider the new application and can instead rely on its previous decision.
35. In this case the Council considered the new application. But it stated it was satisfied that the substantive facts presented on the new application were the same as the facts from the previous application. It was also noted there had not been a change to the household composition, nor had there been any relevant changes to Mr X’s physical or mental health or the treatment of it. This is a decision the Council is entitled to take and is in line with the guidance. I therefore cannot criticise it.
36. Mr X said the Council lied and manipulated him. But I have not seen any evidence to support this. From the evidence seen, the Council worked with Mr X to establish whether he was eligible for assistance. This is in line with the guidance, and I cannot criticise the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman