Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his son, Mr Y, that the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he presented as homeless. We found the Council was at fault in failing to offer Mr Y interim accommodation pending the outcome of its inquiries to ascertain whether he was vulnerable. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr Y and Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his son, Mr Y, that the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he presented as homeless because it decided he was not in priority need. Mr X says the Council failed to consider all the information held by its various teams when reaching this decision. As a result, he and Mr Y suffered distress and he incurred expenses in providing emergency accommodation for Mr Y.
2. Mr X also says the Council failed to respond to emails and was defensive when responding to his complaint. This put him to avoidable time and trouble.

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 considered all the information provided by Mr X and by the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. 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.

Applications

8. 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. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. They 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)

The relief duty

10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. 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

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

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. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.

Priority need

14. 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

Key facts

15. On 14 August 2023 Mr Y, a young adult, was evicted from his supported living accommodation with immediate effect for assaulting another resident. He asked the Council for help.
16. On 16 August Mr Y was released from custody and the Council completed a telephone assessment. It accepted a relief duty but decided Mr Y was not in priority need so it did not offer him interim accommodation. The Council wrote to Mr Y explaining its decision.
17. On 18 August Mr Y’s caseworker, Officer A, contacted the youth offending team to obtain further information. The team explained that, until recently, Mr Y had had a social worker and was working with the child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS). The team then sent an email to Officer A providing reasons why Mr Y should be treated as vulnerable. The email explained that he had been diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder (ODD) and attachment disorder and that there had been recent incidents of self-harm.
18. On 22 August the team manager contacted the youth offending team requesting further information on Mr Y.
19. On 8 September Officer A made enquiries of Mr Y’s GP.
20. On 18 September Mr Y told the Council he had been sofa surfing, but the situation was now untenable. Mr Y was unable to stay with his parents because his bail conditions prohibited this. He had nowhere else to stay so Mr X paid for hotels and other short-term accommodation for him to prevent him becoming street homeless.
21. On 29 September Officer A sent an email to Mr Y saying she had made referrals to two supported living schemes who had been trying to contact him to offer him an assessment.
22. On 5 October Mr Y told Officer A he had visited one of the supported living schemes but felt it did not meet his needs. He suggested an alternative provider that he felt was more suitable. He said he had heard nothing from the second provider mentioned by the Council.
23. On Sunday 15 October Mr X sent an email to Officer A asking for an update. He also asked the Council to re-assess Mr Y’s vulnerability.
24. On 17 October Mr Y chased up a response to Mr X’s email.
25. On 18 October Mr X chased up a response saying the delay was causing Mr Y stress and anxiety. He received an automatic response stating Officer A was out of the office until the end of the month.
26. On 20 October Mr X sent an email to the team manager saying he had received no response to his emails. He requested an update from the supported living providers. The manager accepted the effect that the lack of contact had caused and said she would contact the supported living provider for an update. The following day the provider confirmed it could not offer Mr Y a placement.
27. On 24 October the manager sent an update to Mr X. She also said that, as Officer A was on leave, the case would be managed by another caseworker, Officer B. She said Officer B would speak to Mr Y and complete a personalised housing plan (PHP) outlining the steps he and the Council would take to secure alternative housing.
28. The same day Officer B contacted Mr Y and completed a PHP. She said his priority need status would be reviewed. She also chased up the information from the GP.
29. The manager sent an email to Mr X further explaining the decision made in August that Mr Y was not in priority need. She said a re-assessment of vulnerability and priority need was being undertaken and the Council had requested a medical summary from the GP. She said, “The decision will be finalised when all enquiries have been completed and the council has considered any further evidence”.
30. On 25 October Officer B made a referral to the Tenancy Sustainment team explaining Mr Y had been evicted from his previous supported living placement and could not find another placement. She said he had previously been ‘non-priority’ but she thought he should be ‘in priority need’ and was looking into this further.
31. On 30 October Officer B spoke to Mr Y’s GP who provided vague information and agreed to pass the enquiry on to another GP who knew him better.
32. The following day Officer B contacted another supported living provider. She said Mr Y had been diagnosed with ODD and attachment disorder and was on medication prescribed by his GP to help with depression and anxiety.
33. Mr X sent an email to the Council saying Mr Y was struggling. The manager responded on 2 November explaining the teams had been working collaboratively to progress Mr Y’s application. She again explained that the decision not to provide interim accommodation was an interim decision pending further inquiries to determine whether Mr Y was vulnerable. She said that, currently, the enquiries of clinicians had not revealed definitively the diagnoses of ODD or attachment disorder but there was a confirmed diagnosis of an anxiety disorder and officers were seeking further advice from the GP. Officers were also liaising with the youth offending team to see whether there was any information which was not already on the file which may be relevant to the assessment of vulnerability.
34. On 6 November Mr Y was offered a placement by a supported living provider.
35. On 8 November the relief duty was discharged when the Council made a final offer of accommodation to Mr Y.

Analysis

Failure to provide interim accommodation

36. Section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 says a council must secure interim accommodation if it has ‘reason to believe’ a person ‘may be’ homeless, eligible based on their immigration status and in priority need. The threshold for triggering the section 188 duty is low as the council only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
37. The caseworker’s decision dated 16 August states that she did not have reason to believe, “based on the information available” that Mr Y would be at any greater risk of harm when faced with homelessness than any other person. She therefore concluded he was not in priority need.
38. Mr Y had explained that he suffered from depression but was not in receipt of any treatment or medication. However, the Council had other information available to it about Mr Y’s health issues and support needs from his previous homeless applications and from the youth offending team, children’s services and CAMHS. The caseworker had discussions with the youth offending team and made enquiries of Mr Y’s GP.
39. As the Council continued to make inquiries about Mr Y’s vulnerability, I am satisfied that, on balance, the low threshold ‘reason to believe’ he ‘may be’ vulnerable and in priority need was met in August 2023. Accordingly, the Council had a duty to arrange interim accommodation for Mr Y while it made inquiries. Failure to do so was fault.
40. The failure to provide Mr Y with interim accommodation caused him distress and uncertainty about whether the Council would help him. It also caused Mr X distress and anxiety. In addition, Mr X paid for hotel and other short-term accommodation for Mr Y between 20 September and 11 November 2023 to prevent him from becoming street homeless. This was a quantifiable financial loss that would not have been incurred by Mr X but for the Council’s fault.
41. I consider the Council should reimburse Mr X for the expenses he incurred for the period 20 September to 6 November inclusive. Mr X has provided receipts for accommodation he booked between 20 September and 12 November. However, the Council’s case notes show that Mr Y moved into the supported living accommodation on the evening of 7 November 2023 having been contacted about the placement the previous day. Unfortunately, Mr X had already booked accommodation for a week beginning on 5 November. While I understand Mr X’s reasons for booking accommodation for a whole week as this would provide Mr Y with some certainty, I do not consider it appropriate to recommend that the Council reimburses the costs for the accommodation after 7 November when the supported living accommodation was available to Mr Y.

Personalised housing plan

42. The Council completed a telephone assessment with Mr Y on 14 August 2023 but did not complete a personalised housing plan (PHP). It did not do so until 24 October 2023.
43. We expect councils to complete an assessment and PHP soon as possible to maximise their value to the applicant, particularly if they are already homeless. I therefore find the Council was at fault in failing to complete a PHP until almost two months after the assessment was completed on 16 August. The PHP should have been completed following the initial assessment. Mr Y was already homeless and the lack of a PHP caused him uncertainty about what help the Council would provide.

Communication

44. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his emails.
45. I am satisfied that the Council did generally respond to Mr X’s emails. However, there was a delay in responding to his email dated 17 October and he was put to time and trouble in pursuing the issue with Officer A and her manager. The manager apologised and appointed another caseworker to manage the case while Officer A was on leave.
46. In the stage 2 response the Council accepted there were periods where there was a lack of engagement because Officer A was on leave. It apologised for any delays in communication caused by her being out of the office. I am satisfied that the Council’s apology represents a satisfactory remedy for any injustice caused.
47. Mr X also says the Council’s response to his complaint was defensive. I have considered the Council’s Stage 2 response. I find no grounds to criticise it.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. The Council has agreed that, within one month, it will:
• apologise to Mr Y for the fault identified above and pay him £300 in recognition of the distress and anxiety he suffered;
• apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 in recognition of the distress he suffered and the time and trouble he was put to; and
• pay Mr X £3,234.84 to reimburse him for the expenses he incurred for the period 20 September to 6 November 2023 inclusive.
49. In the Council has also agreed that, within three months, it will issue a reminder to relevant staff that ‘reason to believe’ is a low threshold and, if they need to make enquiries about vulnerability, this will usually mean that threshold is met.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I find fault causing injustice.
52. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman