Summary: Mr D complained how the Council handled his case when he approached it for housing assistance. He says the Council failed to take his disability and mental health issues seriously, its communication was poor, and it failed to provide him with adequate support. We do not find the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained how the Council handled his case when he approached it for housing assistance. He says the Council failed to take his disability and mental health issues seriously, its communication was poor, and it failed to provide him with adequate support. He also says the Council failed to provide him with reasonable adjustments and there was a lack of clarity about what documents he had to provide for the valuation of his houseboat.
2. Mr D also complained about the Council’s decision on his homeless application.

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. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s decision on his homeless application. Mr D had a right of appeal to the county court, and it was reasonable for him to use this appeal right.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Mr D. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
8. Mr D 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

Homelessness

9. 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.
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. An applicant can ask a council to review a decision on their homelessness application. If the applicant disagrees with the council's review decision, they have a right to appeal to the county court on a point of law.
13. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. This is called the prevention duty(Housing Act 1996, section 195)

Allocations

14. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
15. The Council’s allocations policy says owner occupiers or those with a financial interest in a property usually do not qualify to join the housing register.

Reasonable adjustments

16. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 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.
17. 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.

What happened

18. This chronology provides an overview of key events and does not detail everything that happened.
19. Mr D approached the Council for housing assistance in November 2023. It is not his home authority, but he has a local connection as his sister lives in the area. He said he owned a houseboat, but it was in poor condition. He said he had no bathing facilities, running water, electricity and cooking facilities. He also said he had no power because his generator had been stolen in a violent incident. He said he had applied to join the Council’s housing register.
20. The Council asked Mr D for further information including bank statements and proof of his benefits. It also said he could approach his home authority and ask for grant payments to improve his living conditions. It signposted him to an association that provides help and support for people living on a boat.
21. Mr D provided the Council with details about his health. He has a history of borderline personality disorder and other health issues. He also had a telephone call with an officer and provided further information about his case. He said during the call he felt suicidal. The officer advised him to contact his GP or visit Accident and Emergency.
22. Mr D called the Council several times to speak about his case the following day. The Council’s notes of the calls state Mr D used intimidating language and was raising his voice. An officer emailed Mr D after the calls. She said the Council was assessing his request to join the housing register, but it needed a valuation of his boat. She said Mr D had spoken to staff in an inappropriate manner. She added the Council would not tolerate abuse, and therefore it would not accept further telephone communication from him, but he could send emails.
23. Mr D emailed the Council and asked what it needed for the boat valuation. He said he did not have any documents, and the only way to get it valued was by a professional. This was unaffordable. The Council responded and said he could contact a boat broker to give him a guide price. It provided with a company he could use. However, it sent the information to an incorrect email address, and so Mr D did not receive it.
24. Mr D emailed the Council in early December and provided screenshots of similar houseboats to his. He asked if it was sufficient to show the market value. The Council responded and said it still required an independent valuation and repeated its suggestion of a boat broker.
25. A representative from an advice agency called the Council about Mr D’s case. She said Mr D believed the Council should have done more to help him when he said in a previous telephone call that he was suicidal. She also asked for an update on Mr D’s case. The Council said it still needed information from Mr D.
26. Mr D emailed the Council and said he had contacted the boat broker and they would do a valuation via video for £200. The Council responded and said it needed a written valuation. It told Mr D it was his responsibility to find a suitable company. It said if he was struggling with his mental health, he could contact his GP or a mental health charity.
27. Mr D continued to raise concerns with the Council about the cost of getting his houseboat valued. The Council responded and said it was his responsibility to prove his eligibility to join the housing register.
28. Mr D provided the Council with some further information for his housing register application in January 2024. He called the Council the following week about his case. He said it was unfair it refused to deal with him over the telephone as he was having a mental health crisis. He said he did not want all ongoing contact to be via email.
29. The Council sent a letter to Mr D and said he was not homeless because he had somewhere reasonable to occupy. Mr D challenged the Council’s decision and provided further information for it to consider.
30. Mr D sent an email to the Council at the end of January and said its decision to stop any contact with him on the phone was disproportionate, and it put him at a disadvantage. He said he has uncontrollable mood swings. He sent a complaint to the Council the following week. He said it failed to take his disabilities and mental health seriously, it failed to implement reasonable adjustments for him, and it gave him conflicting information about the valuation of his houseboat.
31. The Council responded to Mr D’s complaint. It said it disagreed that as a reasonable adjustment it had to take telephone calls from him. It said it was for his benefit it assessed his circumstances through emailed correspondence because of the difficult and abusive conversations he had with officers. It said officers exercise professional judgement and decide when it is appropriate to end certain types of communication. It said it provided him with reasonable adjustments by providing with him additional time to provide information and adjusting the contact arrangements so it could assess his circumstances. It said it needed the valuation of his houseboat for his housing register application.
32. Mr D provided the Council with a valuation of his houseboat. The Council reviewed the information and accepted Mr D onto the housing register.
33. The Council reviewed its decision on Mr D’s homeless application. It decided he was threatened with homelessness. It opened a case and awarded him the prevention duty.

Back to top

Analysis

34. The records show the Council dealt with Mr D’s contacts professionally and within a reasonable timescale. I do not accept its communication was poor.
35. The Council signposted Mr D to his GP and a mental health charity when he said he was feeling suicidal. This is an appropriate response which shows it was taking Mr D’s mental health issues and disabilities seriously. It also provided him with advice on contacting his home authority about grant payments to help improve his living conditions. I am satisfied the Council provided Mr D with adequate support.
36. Mr D says the Council failed to consider his borderline personality disorder and implement reasonable adjustments because it restricted his communication to emails and refused to accept telephone calls from him. While Mr D provided the Council of his health conditions at the outset, he did not ask it to make any reasonable adjustments for him. He did not state he had difficulties communicating in writing because of his borderline personality disorder. He was communicating with the Council by email before it decided to restrict communication to email only. The Council’s decision to restrict communication to email was because of several difficult calls with Mr D and the abuse to its staff. While Mr D was unhappy with this decision, the Council explained why telephone calls were unhelpful, and why email communication was more productive in progressing his housing matter. That was a decision it was entitled to take. I am satisfied the Council properly considered and responded to Mr D’s requests for telephone calls. I do not find fault.
37. Mr D says the Council told him photographs of his houseboat would be sufficient for the valuation, but then it later changed its mind. I have not seen any evidence the Council told Mr D it would accept photographs. It told him repeatedly it needed a valuation. It tried to help him by providing an example of a brokerage he could contact for the valuation. The valuation was necessary because the Council’s housing allocations policy states owner occupiers or those with a financial interest in a property usually do not qualify to join the housing register. The Council therefore needed to find out the value of Mr D’s houseboat to satisfy itself he did not have a significant financial interest in a property. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

38. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman