Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with appropriate support with his homelessness and to complete a Care Act assessment. He also complained the Council did not properly consider his complaint about these matters. We did not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with appropriate support with his homelessness. He also complained the Council did not meet its legal duty under the Care Act 2014 because it did not carry out a Care Act assessment. Mr X also stated the Council did not investigate his complaint about these matters properly.
2. Mr X stated the Council’s actions have resulted in him being without housing and other support.
3. Mr X also complained about the actions of other organisations and bodies including government departments, the National Health Service, the Police and other Ombudsmen services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application and of his request for a Care Act assessment. I have also investigated its handling of his complaints about these matters.
7. I cannot investigate the matters set out in paragraph 3. This is because they are about organisations we cannot investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of my investigation I:
• discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered information he provided that is relevant to the matters I am investigating:
• made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and information it provided:
• had regard to the relevant law, guidance and council polices: and;
• set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision statement and invited Mr X and the Council to comment. I considered the comments I received from Mr X and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Duty to make enquiries

10. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184).

Personalised Housing Plans

11. 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 chapter 11)

Interim accommodation

12. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide interim accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it. “Reason to believe” is a low threshold.

Priority need

13. 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.

Reviews and rights of appeal

14. Homelessness applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions including a decision that they are not in priority need.
15. The Council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30).

Relief Duty

16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless then the council will owe the ‘relief duty’. This requires the council to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person for at least six months. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days.
17. After this period, the council should decide whether it owes the applicant the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty if it is satisfied the applicant is eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
18. The Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 14:18 to 14:20 says:
• Housing authorities should not have blanket policy of ending the relief duty after 56 days where they have discretion to continue it; instead they should take the each applicant’s circumstances into account.
• During the relief stage, where an applicant does not have priority need, the authority may want to consider continuing the relief duty for longer.
19. The Council can bring the relief duty to an end because of the applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate.

Relevant law and guidance Adult Social Care

20. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
21. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
22. An adult with possible care and support needs may choose to refuse an assessment. In these circumstances councils do not have to carry out an assessment.

Wiltshire Council Complaints Procedure

23. This explains how the Council will consider complaints made to it. The policy says that receipt of a stage one complaint should be acknowledged within two working days. The acknowledgement will say who is replying to the complaint. The service complained about will respond to the complaint. The timescale for responding to a housing complaint is 10 working days but the Council has the right to extend this by a further 10 working days.
24. If the complainant is unhappy with the outcome of their stage one complaint they can request it be considered at stage two of the complaints process. A stage two complaint will be responded to by a complaints officer. The timescale for responding to stage two housing complaints is 20 working days but the Council can extend this by a further 10 working days.

What happened

25. In June 2023 Mr X told the Council he was homeless and sleeping in his car.
26. The following day the Council completed an initial assessment. During the assessment Mr X told the Council:
• he has kidney stones.
• he has a diagnosis of Dyslexia.
• he had undiagnosed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
• he is not receiving any support from Community Mental Health services nor are there any pending referrals.
• he refutes the NHS’s possible diagnosis of Psychosis or Schizophrenic disorder.
27. The Council gathered further information to help it decide if Mr X was homeless. Mr X gave verbal consent for his brother to act as his advocate on housing matters.
28. In late June the Council wrote to Mr X explaining it did not consider he was in priority need and so it will not provide him with interim accommodation. The letter said if Mr X did not agree with its decision, he could challenge the decision by judicial review only.
29. The letter also said it was not the Council’s final decision on priority need and this would be taken when all enquiries and statutory tests are complete. It invited Mr X to provide further information.
30. Also, in late June the Council wrote to Mr X saying it owed him the Relief Duty. The letter explained what this meant, what it would do next, and that Mr X would have the right to request a review of its decision.
31. At the end of June Mr X revoked consent for the Council to discuss medical matters with his brother. He said the Council could contact his brother to get a copy of his long birth certificate.
32. In early July Mr X attended an appointment about his Universal Credit (UC) claim with his Rough Sleeper Outreach Worker. He says during the appointment he was locked out of the UC system, and this was witnessed by his Rough Sleeper Outreach Woker.
33. Also in early July the Council completed a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) for Mr X.
34. In July and August Mr X’s Housing Caseworker and the Rough Sleeper Service helped Mr X with his homelessness. This included supporting him making claims for UC.
35. In early September the Council decided to extend the relief duty to Mr X as he was yet to find secure housing.
36. Following its decision Mr X’s Housing Caseworker asked him to attend a meeting to discuss his case. Mr X declined and asked for a new caseworker.
37. Also, in September Mr X said a Hot Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (H-SWEP) was triggered but he received no help.
38. Also in early September Mr X told his Housing Caseworker he was revoking consent for the Council to speak with his brother about his homelessness case. He also revoked consent for the Council to make medical enquiries, except to one doctor.
39. In mid-September Mr X’s case was transferred to another caseworker.
40. In late September Mr X met with his new caseworker and his Rough Sleeper Outreach Worker. At the meeting Mr X told officers that he did not consent to them speaking with his brother. His caseworker explained she would disclose nothing about his case to his brother, but she would need to make enquiries of him to find out if Mr X had a local connection to the area.
41. Also in late September Mr X was allocated a Social Worker to complete a Care Act assessment. An assessment was arranged for October.
42. In October the Council established Mr X was staying at a campsite and so he was no longer considered a rough sleeper. It updated his PHP to reflect this and allocated him a new caseworker.
43. In early October Mr X made a stage one complaint about the following matters:
• his Housing Caseworker was reluctant to accept documents about his income when she met with him in a non-confidential area of the Council’s offices.
• his Housing Caseworker spoke with his brother, and other family members, after he revoked consent to do so.
• he works in the local area and thus meets the local connection criteria.
• the Council is using information from his medical records that he disagrees with.
• his Social Worker has not meet with him since he told the Council he was homeless.
• the Council had failed to protect him as person with a recognised learning disability, when requesting he register with the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to make a UC claim. It has not taken into account that he is a victim of abuse by the DWP, which has acted unlawfully towards him.
• the Council has failed to ensure the DWP systems comply with the relevant laws and regulations before insisting he use it to make a UC claim.
• the Council’s officers have not helped him make a UC claim. He stated officers saw him being locked out the UC systems and that his claim did not recognise he has kidney stone or a recognised learning disability.
• the Council’s officers have not referred his concerns about illegal activities by other organisations including the DWP, to the Police or relevant authorities.
• the Council left him to live in a tent during a HSWEP, despite it being aware he has a kidney stone.
44. In mid-October Mr X told the Council’s Housing and Adult Social Services departments to stop all activities until his complaint is resolved. Mr X did not attend his Care Act assessment, for this reason.
45. In early November the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• it was sorry if Mr X felt officers were reluctant to accept documents he provided, and the meeting was not in a confidential place.
• file notes show Mr X gave verbal consent for his brother to advocate on his behalf. This was revoked in June when he said officers could only contact his brother to obtain a copy of his long birth certificate to support his homelessness application.
• it will consider if Mr X working in the area confers a local connection but will need evidence of his employment to do so.
• its officers have tried to help Mr X with his UC claim, in line with the steps in his PHP.
• it arranged for Mr X to speak with his doctor about his concerns about information on his medical records. It also advised him to engage with Adult Social Services.
• medical information obtained by the Council in response to its enquiries showed nothing of medical significance. A letter from one doctor said a scan found two left kidney stones which are not obstructive. The evidence did not show he has a priority need. It will consider any new information he provides to see if this alters its decision.
• a HSWEP was not triggered in September 2023.
• its investigations have found he is living at a campsite and no longer rough sleeping.
• it has reallocated his housing case to a new caseworker and remains committed to supporting him with his housing.
46. Later in November Mr X’s Housing Caseworker contacted him to discuss his housing application but he refused to engage in the process.
47. In early January 2024 Mr X asked for his complaint to be considered at stage two of the Council’s complaints process. He said the Council did not answer all parts of his complaint and attempted to change his complaint.
48. The Council replied in mid- February. It said:
• its stage one complaint response addressed all the concerns raised in his complaint.
• it has supported Mr X with his UC claim. Its complaints procedure cannot be used to consider issues with other organisations such as the DWP.
• it is not the Council’s role to monitor the legality of the DWP’s processes or systems.
49. Mr X remained unhappy and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.
50. We made enquiries of the Council. It told us:
• HSWEP was not triggered in its area between June and October 2023.
• there is no evidence officers discussed Mr X’s homelessness application with his brother or other family members after he withdrew consent.
• Mr X declined a Care Act assessment appointment with his social worker and will not engage further until his complaint is addressed to his satisfaction.
• it is aware of Mr X’s kidney stone and has not sought to deny or misrepresent it. His refusal to engage with his Housing Caseworker since he made his stage one complaint means there has not been further consideration of his case.
• for the above reason a decision on Mr X’s homelessness remains outstanding.
51. In September 2024 the Council decided Mr X’s homelessness application. It told him about his right to request a review of its decision and the timeframe for doing so.

Finding

Homelessness

52. The Council had a duty to assess what housing duty it owed Mr X when said he was homeless. The Council did this. It found Mr X was not in priority need and so, it did not have a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. I do not find the Council at fault.
53. The Council told Mr X about its decision in a letter. The letter told Mr X how to challenge its decision not to provide him with interim accommodation. A decision on whether Mr X is in priority need is made when the Council decides his homelessness application. Therefore no reviewable decision about whether Mr X was in priority need was made at this time.
54. The Council decided it owed Mr X the Relief Duty but did not decide his homelessness application until September 2024. This is longer than 56 days. However, the Council told Mr X it would extend the relief duty beyond 56 days because he had not secured accommodation at that time. The Code says the Council should not routinely end the relief duty after 56 days but should consider the applicant’s circumstances. The Council did so and therefore, I do not find it at fault.
55. The Council’s efforts to decide Mr X’s application were hampered by his decision to ask it to stop doing so until his complaint is resolved. The Council acted as Mr X requested and so I do not find it at fault for not reaching a decision on his application sooner.
56. In Mr X’s PHP the Council set outs what it will do to help Mr X find accommodation. This includes helping Mr X obtain UC. Officers endeavoured to do so.
57. Mr X says the Council discussed his homelessness application with his brother after he withdrew consent for it to do so. I have seen no evidence the Council discussed Mr X’s application with his brother after he withdrew consent.
58. Mr X says the Council’s housing officers did not ensure the systems used by the DWP for UC claims meet the required standards. It is not the role of council officers to do so. It is for the DWP to check its systems meet the required standards.
59. Lastly Mr X says the Council’s housing officers did not report his concerns about possible unlawful activity by other organisations including the DWP. It is not for the Council’s officers to do so. If Mr X thinks organisations are acting unlawful it is for him to report using the appropriate channels.

Adult Social Care

60. Mr X says the Council failed to complete a Care Act Assessment. I agree that a Care Act assessment has not been completed. The Council made an appointment for Mr X to have such an assessment in October 2023. He cancelled the appointment and asked the Council not to take any further action, including rearranging the assessment. Therefore, I do not consider it is the Council’s fault that an assessment has not been completed.

Complaints

61. Mr X says the Council attempted to change his stage one complaint. I have considered Mr X’s stage one complaint and the Council’s response. I do not consider the Council has altered Mr X’s complaint in any substantive way.
62. Mr X also says the Council’s stage one complaint did not address all his complaints. I agree the Council’s response did not directly address his concerns about whether it had referred his allegations of unlawful activities by other organisations or to his concerns the Council had failed to ensure the DWP’s UC system’s meet the required standards. The Council’s reply should have done so. The Council’s stage two response addressed these matters.
63. Mr X says the Council’s complaint response omitted to include details of his 7mm kidney stone when it explained the medical information received by the Council. The response refers to Mr X being diagnosed with kidney stones and so I do not agree the response does not include them. If Mr X is concerned the Council has not properly considered, his diagnosis when making decisions about his homelessness application he can provide further information about this to it and the Council can see if the information changes its view on his application.
64. The Council’s responses to Mr X’s complaints were sent to him within its published timescales for replying to housing complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

65. I have completed my investigation. I do not find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman