Summary: Mr X complained about the Council placing him in unsuitable interim accommodation. He also complained that it would not offer him interim accommodation until he rehoused his emotional support dog and that a housing officer was rude and dismissive towards him. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make him symbolic payments in recognition of the injustice caused to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for help with his homelessness. He complained the Council placed him in unsuitable interim accommodation and would not assist him until he gave up his emotional support dog. He also complained a housing officer was rude to him during a conversation on 17 July 2024.
2. Mr X stated the Council’s actions resulted in him having significant physical health issues and caused his mental health to decline.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

8. 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.

The prevention duty

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195).

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 make accommodation available (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)

Closing homelessness applications due to a lack of contact from the applicant

12. The Homeless Code of Guidance is statutory guidance housing authorities must take notice of. It says that is reasonable for a homelessness application to be closed when an applicant has not responded to any form of contact for 56 days or longer.

Interim accommodation (section 188)

13. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
14. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
16. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601).

Considering pets

17. The Homeless Code of says the Council:

“…will need to be sensitive to the importance of pets to some applicants, particularly elderly people and rough sleepers who may rely on pets for companionship. Although it will not always be possible to make provision for pets, the Secretary of State recommends that housing authorities give careful consideration to this aspect when making provision for applicants who wish to retain their pet”.

(Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.69)

What happened

18. Mr X lived in shared accommodation with his emotional support dog. He has Type 1 diabetes and is an amputee.
19. In February 2024 Mr X had to leave his shared accommodation. He slept on the streets with his emotional support dog for four days before approaching the Council.
20. On 12 February Mr X told the Council he was homeless. He explained he has Type 1 diabetes. He also told the Council he had mental health issues and a dog which offers him emotional support. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation but said it could not accommodate his emotional support dog. Mr X accepted the accommodation.
21. However Mr X was unable to find a place for his emotional support dog to stay and so he did not go to the interim accommodation.
22. On 13 February a housing officer met with Mr X. During the meeting:
• Mr X explained he did not stay at the interim accommodation because he could find anyone to look after his emotional support dog.
• the housing officer asked Mr X to complete forms and provide evidence to support his homelessness application. The officer also made a referral to a homelessness hostel.
23. Following the meeting Mr X told the Council that he would not be able to move into the interim accommodation until he could rehome his emotional support dog.
24. On 14 February Mr X provided the documentation requested by the Council.
25. On 15 February a housing officer tried to find Mr X private rented accommodation but was unsuccessful.
26. On 26 February a housing officer called Mr X, but he did not answer. The officer left a message for him.
27. On 28 February a housing officer spoke with Mr X. He told the officer he was waiting to rehome his emotional support dog. He said he would call the Council to arrange accommodation once he had done so.
28. On 12 March a housing officer tried to call Mr X but there was no answer. The officer left Mr X a message saying his case was being closed due to no contact.
29. On 8 May Mr X approached the Council again. He said he had been sleeping on the streets and had been unable to access his phone. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation, but he declined as he was still waiting to rehouse his emotional support dog.
30. Following Mr X’s contact the Council:
• made a referral to its homelessness outreach service to support him.
• issued a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP)
• updated the referral to the homeless hostel.
31. The Homelessness Outreach Team contacted Mr X on several occasions during May and early June but received no reply.
32. On 6 June a housing officer emailed Mr X to ask for an update on his situation.
33. Mr X replied the same day confirming he was still sleeping on the streets. He said he had rehoused his emotional support dog.
34. On 7 June the Council offered Mr X interim accommodation in a hotel. Mr X accepted the accommodation. The accommodation did not have a fridge for Mr X to store his insulin or kitchen facilities for him to make meals to manage to his diabetes.
35. On 10 June the Council accepted the Relief Duty to Mr X and updated his PHP.
36. Throughout June and July the Council made enquiries as part of its consideration of Mr X’s homelessness application.
37. On 17 July Mr X spoke with a housing officer at his interim accommodation about it being unsuitable for his needs. He states the officer was abrupt, rude and dismissive of his concerns. The officer did not identify themselves.
38. On 23 July Mr X made a complaint to the Council about his accommodation being unsuitable for his needs. He also complained about the conduct of the officer he spoke with on 17 July.
39. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• it spoke with officer who talked to Mr X on 17 July and they had a different recollection of the conversation. It said it there was not enough evidence to uphold this part of his complaint, but it accepted Mr X’s perspective of the conversation was negative, and it apologised.
• it accepted Mr X’s interim accommodation did not have a fridge and this was required. It apologised. It offered Mr X a fridge following his complaint, but he said he had found one himself.
• it cannot always provided cooking facilities in interim accommodation but considers Mr X could maintain an appropriate diet without cooking facilities.
40. On 30 July Mr X was offered permanent accommodation by the Council. He accepted the accommodation.
41. On 5 August Mr X moved into his new home and the Council ended its relief duty to him.
42. Meanwhile Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. His grounds of complaint were unchanged.
43. The Council replied in September. It said:
• it is satisfied Mr X’s concerns about the conduct of a housing officer on 17 July had been investigated. It apologised again for Mr X’s experience and said training is in place to ensure staff communicate appropriately and provide good customer service.
• a fridge was not provided to Mr X and his concerns about this were not followed up until he complained. It upheld this part of his complaint.
44. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. He told us:
• he had severe hypoglycaemic episodes whilst staying in the interim accommodation provided by the Council.
• he had to walk 30 minutes to his mother’s home to get his medication and eat appropriate food. This was difficult because he is an amputee.
• his mental health has declined because of the problems with his interim accommodation, having to give up his emotional support dog and the conduct of the housing officer he spoke with on 17 July 2024.
• the unsuitable accommodation also negatively impacted his physical health.
45. We made enquiries of the Council. It told us:
• Mr X’s case file note does not contain any details of how it considered Mr X’s wish to keep his emotional support dog when he approached the Council for help with his homelessness.
• It accepts it has not always properly considered applicants keeping their animals in interim accommodation. It had recently introduced a new policy and given staff training on this matter. This was in response to a finding of fault in another investigation by the Ombudsman.
• when Mr X approached the Council in February 2024 there were no placements available in hostels.
• a fridge was requested for Mr X’s interim accommodation by his housing officer. The officer acted when advised Mr X did not have fridge. However it accepts there is insufficient recording of the officer’s actions in Mr X’s case notes.
• when Mr X was placed in interim accommodation it did not have any accommodation with cooking facilities available.
• Mr X’s current home is not part of the Council’s interim or temporary housing stock. Therefore it could not have offered him this accommodation when approached the Council in February 2024 and May 2024.
• the officer who spoke with Mr X on 17 July was identified and spoken to but had a different recollection of the conversation. Therefore it cannot verify what was or was not said. It discussed the matter with staff as a learning point.

Finding

Consideration of Mr X’s homelessness application

46. Mr X approached the Council for help with his homelessness in February 2024 and in May 2024. On both occasions he told the Council he was sleeping on the streets, however the Council did not accept the relief duty to him. This is fault.
47. The failure to accept the relief duty to Mr X caused him avoidable uncertainty about what action the Council would take to help him with his homelessness. It also did not make a referral to its Homeless Outreach Service following his initial approach to it. This is injustice.
48. The Council closed Mr X’s homelessness case in March 2024, one month after he contacted the Council. It did so because he did not respond to its messages. This is fault by the Council. The Homelessness Code of Guidance states that is would be reasonable for a homelessness application to be closed when an applicant has not responded to any form of contact for 56 days or longer.

Unsuitable interim accommodation

49. Mr X is a Type 1 diabetic. He needs a fridge to store his insulin in to ensure he does not become seriously ill. The Council accepts the interim accommodation it provided did not have a fridge and without a fridge the interim accommodation was not suitable for Mr X’s needs. This is fault.
50. I note the Council requested a fridge be provided for Mr X prior to him moving into the interim accommodation but this was not provided. The Council should have ensured Mr X had access to a fridge when he moved in.
51. The Council did not act on Mr X’s initial reports that he did not have access to a fridge. This is also fault. The Council should act promptly to reports that interim accommodation is unsuitable. The Council did not offer to provide Mr X with a fridge until he made a formal complaint, by which time he had sourced a fridge himself.
52. During the period Mr X did not have a fridge he stored his insulin at this mother’s home. This is a 30-minute walk from his interim accommodation. Mr X has an amputation so walking such a distance is difficult for him. I consider this caused Mr X significant inconvenience. This is injustice.
53. Mr X’s interim accommodation did not have cooking facilities. The Council has not provided any evidence demonstrating it considered whether accommodation without cooking facilities would be suitable for Mr X. This is fault.
54. People with Type 1 diabetes need to eat carefully controlled food at regularly intervals. Therefore I consider that on the balance of probabilities, if the Council had considered the lack of cooking facilities when determining if the interim accommodation would be suitable for Mr X, it would have found it was not.
55. Mr X raised concerns with the Council about the lack of cooking facilities when he moved in and as part of his complaint to the Council. It did not act on his concerns and its complaint replies did not consider the specifics of Mr X’s personal circumstances. This is fault.
56. Mr X has explained he had hypoglycaemic episodes while living at the interim accommodation offered by the Council. He was also caused worry and distress about managing his diabetes without access to cooking facilities. This is injustice.

Consideration given to Mr X having an emotional support dog

57. The Council accepts it did not consider Mr X’s request to be housed with his emotional support dog. The Homelessness Code of Guidance states housing authorities should give “careful consideration” to the reasons an applicant may wish to be housed with their pet. The Council’s failure to do so is fault.
58. I do not know if, save for the identified fault, the Council would have found interim accommodation that accepted Mr X’s dog. Therefore I cannot say he was without accommodation for longer than necessary. However the Council’s failure to consider if it could have found such accommodation causes Mr X uncertainty as he cannot know if he would have been offered interim accommodation sooner and been able to keep his emotional support dog. This is injustice.
59. Following an investigation into another recent complaint the Ombudsman made a service improvement recommendation for the Council to publish a policy around the housing of pets with their owners. For this reason I do not consider it necessary to recommend it take further action currently.

Officer actions on 17 July 2024

60. Mr X states an officer was abrupt, rude and dismissive of his concerns during a conversation at this interim accommodation on 17 July. The officer disputes Mr X’s recollection of the conversation. There are no third-party accounts of the conversation and so it I cannot say what happened during the conversation.
61. I note that Mr X stated the officer was dismissive of his concerns including that he did not have a fridge. The officer he spoke with on 17 July did not act on his concerns about not having a fridge. This supports Mr X’s view the officer was dismissive of his concerns.
62. Mr X has expressed concern the Council did not properly investigate this part of his complaint. The Council considered his account and spoke with the officer concerned. I do not see, in the absence of any third-party accounts, it could have done anymore to investigate this part of his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed Action

63. Within in one month of my final decision the Council will take the following action to address the injustice caused to Mr X by the fault I found:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X for the fault we found in its handling of his homelessness application. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £500 for the uncertainty of whether, but for the fault identified in paragraph 58, it would have offered him interim accommodation sooner and been able to keep his emotional support dog.
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £600 in recognition of him being in unsuitable interim accommodation for 8 weeks. This equates to £300 for each month he was in unsuitable interim accommodation.
• Make Mr X a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the distress caused him because of the identified faults.
64. Within three months of my final decision the Council will:
• Remind homelessness staff that a homelessness application should not be closed unless the applicant has not responded to contact from it for 56 days or longer.
• Remind homelessness staff to ensure interim accommodation is suitable for the households’ needs and that any equipment required to make it suitable is provided.
• Remind homelessness staff reports interim accommodation is unsuitable should be investigated. Staff should record what action has been taken and the reasons for any decision on suitability.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman