Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application. It offered suitable interim accommodation that Mr X refused. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his homelessness application, after he moved to the area following a domestic abuse incident. He said he was unable to manage shared accommodation due to his mental health and the Council did not consider this when offering interim accommodation.

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. 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

4. I have considered Mr X’s complaint and have spoken to him about it.
5. I have also considered the Council’s response to Mr X and to my enquiries.
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

The law and guidance

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.
8. A council must secure 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. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
9. Applicants in priority need include people who are homeless because of being a victim of domestic abuse.

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)
11. A council can refer an applicant to another council after accepting the relief duty if:
1. The applicant does not have a local connection to its area; and
2. The applicant has a local connection to the area referred to; and
3. The applicant will not be at risk of domestic abuse or other violence in that area. (Housing Act 1996, section 198).

The main housing duty

12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Decision letters

13. After completing inquiries, 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)

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a decision including the decision:
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Suitability of accommodation

15. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
16. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
17. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

What happened

18. After fleeing domestic abuse, Mr X moved into the Council’s area. Six months later, Mr X suspected the perpetrator had located his accommodation and despite a non-molestation order, began to harass and threaten Mr X.
19. Mr X approached the Council. He said he was at risk of becoming homeless due to his address being compromised. The Council attempted to contact Mr X to arrange a housing needs assessment. After several calls and voicemails and no contact, the Council closed the case.
20. Three months later, Mr X contacted the Council again. The Council carried out an assessment. It accepted the relief duty, identified Mr X as having a priority need and issued Mr X with a personal housing plan (PHP).
21. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation. This was shared accommodation. The Council informed Mr X this was only for a few days then alternative accommodation where residents have their own bathroom (and shared kitchen) would be available. Mr X said he could not live in shared accommodation due to his mental health needs. The Council said Mr X needed to provide evidence as to why shared accommodation was unsuitable.
22. A few days later, an MP contacted the Council on behalf of Mr X to ask what evidence was needed. The Council said it needed confirmation from Mr X’s GP that he cannot live in shared accommodation. It explained that Mr X should accept any accommodation offered to him as a single person would not normally be offered self-contained accommodation unless they provided medical evidence.
23. Mr X’s GP provided a medical summary and a covering letter. The letter relayed that Mr X said he would not manage well in shared accommodation. The Council did not take this as the GP saying Mr X’s medical conditions would prevent him living in shared accommodation. The Council followed up with the GP and asked specifically for their opinion as to whether shared accommodation was suitable for Mr X. The GP would not provide an opinion.
24. The Council was not persuaded the GP letter amounted to evidence that shared accommodation was unsuitable for Mr X on medical grounds. On these grounds, the Council decided that interim accommodation with shared facilities was suitable for Mr X.
25. The Council made one more offer of interim accommodation. This again was shared accommodation. The Council called, emailed, and left messages for Mr X with the accommodation details. Mr X did not arrive at the accommodation. After trying to call Mr X again, the Council ended its S188 duty.

My findings

26. The Council accepted the relief duty and identified Mr X as homeless, eligible for assistance and with a priority need.
27. The Council offered him interim accommodation which it deemed as suitable.
28. When Mr X said shared accommodation was unsuitable, the Council gave him several opportunities to provide evidence to support his argument. The Council even contacted Mr X’s GP itself to try and obtain the relevant information.
29. The Council was not persuaded by the information provided by Mr X’s GP. This just relayed Mr X’s opinion rather than confirming that shared accommodation was unsuitable on medical grounds.
30. The Council decided that shared accommodation was suitable for Mr X. The Council was entitled to make this decision on the suitability of accommodation provided it considered all the information.
31. I cannot question the Council’s decision if it was reached without fault. I have found no fault with the Council’s actions leading to its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault with how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman