Summary: Mr X complained about delays in dealing with his homelessness application and the suitability of accommodation he was offered. We do not find fault with the process the Council followed when making its decisions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delays in dealing with his homelessness application and that the accommodation he was offered was unsuitable. Mr X says the Council failed to properly consider his medical evidence, or a disclosure of domestic violence and prevented him from seeking a review of its decisions. Mr X says this has left him homeless for months, meaning he has been unable to see his children.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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. We cannot usually investigate complaints unless we are satisfied the Council has had a chance to look into them first. This includes events that are linked to or ongoing from the complaint that has been brought to us.
7. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint from the point he made his homeless application in November 2023, up until the Council accepted a main homelessness duty to him in May 2024. If Mr X wants us to investigate events that have taken place since that time, he would first need to raise them with the Council to give it an opportunity to respond.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

10. 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.
11. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
12. 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 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)
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. 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)

What happened

14. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
15. Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council in November 2023. Mr X explained he was about to be divorced and had been asked to leave the family home. Mr X’s application said he had a history of mental health problems and had previously experienced non-domestic abuse. The application indicated Mr X was the only member of the household who needed to be treated as homeless.
16. A homeless prevention adviser attempted to reach Mr X by phone. They then emailed him asking him to get in touch and explained they needed further documentation to support his application. The adviser said they would close Mr X’s application if they did not hear from him in the next three days.
17. Mr X next contacted the Council by visiting its offices in January 2024. Mr X explained he was now divorced, and his ex-wife had told him to leave the family home. The Council contacted Mr X’s ex-wife that day and she confirmed she had asked him to leave with his dog.
18. The Council asked Mr X for further documentation to support his application and held an assessment meeting.
19. The Council accepted Mr X was homeless and it owed him a relief duty. It arranged a meeting with Mr X to discuss his PHP and complete suitability and income forms. The Council also made enquiries as to whether Mr X’s dog was a licensed assistance dog, and Mr X confirmed it was not, but was an emotional support dog. The Council’s medical adviser confirmed as Mr X’s dog was not a registered assistance dog, it would be treated as any other pet, but the Council would seek properties that allowed pets to accommodate this.
20. In February 2024, the Council offered Mr X temporary accommodation at a local hotel. The Council explained Mr X would have a self-contained room and would be able to bring his dog.
21. Mr X initially refused the Council’s offer based on location, size and how it would affect his mental health. The Council liaised with its medical adviser and asked them to consider whether the accommodation was suitable based on the information it held for Mr X. The Council then told Mr X it had reviewed his concerns but believed the accommodation was suitable for him.
22. Mr X agreed to accept the accommodation but left almost immediately and told the Council he was refusing the offer based on his medical needs. Mr X explained he could continue sofa surfing with family in the short term while he awaited a different accommodation. The Council informed Mr X it had discharged its interim duty to him as he had refused an offer of suitable accommodation but agreed it would continue to work towards finding settled permanent accommodation that was suitable for Mr X’s needs.
23. Mr X asked the Council to provide him with relief accommodation in a supported hostel, but there were no vacancies at that point.
24. In May 2024, the Council accepted a main housing duty to Mr X. At this point, the Council liaised with its medical adviser again and offered Mr X another room at a hotel, but he refused this again because he felt it was not suitable for his mental health.

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Our role is not to consider what decisions the Council should have reached or whether a particular property was suitable for Mr X. Rather, we consider whether the Council had regard for the key factors and policies which are relevant when making its own decisions. If we consider the Council followed processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.
26. The Council responded promptly to Mr X’s application and let him know what information it needed to progress this. There was a delay of several months between Mr X first submitting his application and the Council accepting a homelessness duty and offering accommodation, but I do not find the Council at fault here. The reason I say this is the Council attempted reach Mr X to get the information it needed to progress his application, and it informed him it could not take this forward until it was received. The Council then progressed Mr X’s application promptly once he provided the information it had asked for.
27. Once it received Mr X’s information, the Council made further enquiries as it felt necessary and consulted with the relevant parties, including doctors and medical advisers to aid its decision-making. The Council also made further enquiries about the status of Mr X’s dog and sought advice about how this would apply to properties it looked at for him. The Council then offered Mr X accommodation that it deemed to be suitable based on all the information and evidence available to it and made him aware of the consequences of refusing this. I appreciate Mr X disagrees and says the offered properties were not suitable, but the Council has followed the right process in its decision-making, and I cannot find it at fault.
28. Mr X has said the Council failed to properly consider his disclosure of domestic abuse and questioned why it contacted his ex-wife as part of his application. Having considered Mr X’s initial application and the information he supplied prior to the Council contacting his ex-wife, I cannot see any evidence he informed the Council of domestic abuse. I could not find the Council at fault here.
29. Mr X has said the Council prevented him from seeking a review of its decisions, but I have seen no evidence to find the Council at fault here. The Council appears to have kept Mr X informed correctly at each stage of the process and made it clear what options were open to him, including his review rights.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find no fault with how the Council considered Mr X’s homelessness application or considered the suitability of the properties it offered to him, and I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman