Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the housing support provided to her by the Council. This is because we consider it unlikely an investigation would find fault by the Council. In addition, Miss X has a right of appeal by which she can challenge the decision to detain her under the Mental Health Act 1983.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Miss X, is complaining about the care and support provided to her by Liverpool City Council (the Council) and Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Miss X complains that:

• the temporary accommodation the Council provided for her was unsuitable;
• the Council refuses to accept that she has a priority need for support under key homelessness legislation: and
• the Trust detained her under the Mental Health Act 1983 without good reason.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
3. The Ombudsmen provide a free service. However, they must use public money carefully. This may mean the Ombudsmen decide not to start an investigation if they believe it is unlikely they would find fault. They Ombudsmen may also decide not to investigate a complaint if the complainant had a right of appeal and it was reasonable to expect them to use it. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In making my final decision, I have considered the information provided by Miss X and the Council. I have also carefully considered Miss X’s comments on my draft decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Immigration status and entitlements

5. Non-UK nationals are required to obtain leave to enter or remain in order to live in the UK. A person who does not have any leave to enter or remain when they are required to will have the ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition imposed. This limits that person’s entitlement to publicly funded services.

Housing Act 1996

6. The Housing Act 1996 places a duty on local authorities to try to prevent, or relieve, homelessness for all applicants who are eligible for assistance and are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
7. Homelessness assistance under the Housing Act 1996 is classed as ‘public funds’. A person who is subject to the ‘no recourse to public funds’ condition will not be eligible for homelessness assistance, therefore.

Emergency powers

8. In March 2020, the government asked local authorities to accommodate all people sleeping rough in their area. This included people with no recourse to public funds. The purpose of this was to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The initiative was known as ‘Everyone In’.

Mental Health Act 1983

9. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, when someone has a mental disorder and is putting their safety or someone else’s at risk they can be detained in hospital against their wishes. This is sometimes known as ‘being sectioned’. Admission should be in the best interests of the person, and they should not be detained if there is a less restrictive alternative.
10. A person who has been detained under the Mental Health Act can apply to the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) to be discharged.

Housing support

11. Miss X requested a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation in which the Council placed her. She said she was subjected to unsolicited visits from health professionals during her time in the accommodation. Miss X also complained that the Council refused to house her as someone with priority need under homelessness legislation.
12. In its complaint response of 1 April 2020, the Council explained that it had placed Miss X in temporary accommodation using the emergency powers granted to it by the ‘Everyone In’ initiative. The Council said this was separate from its standard homelessness duties as set out under the Housing Act. As a result, the Council said it could not review the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation.
13. The Council also acknowledged that health professionals (including an optician and mental health professionals) held ‘drop in’ sessions at the accommodation. However, it said these services were not mandatory.
14. In a further complaint response in November 2021, the Council explained that a person who is subject to the NRPF condition is not eligible for homelessness assistance.
15. The evidence I have seen suggests Miss X was subject to the NRPF condition at the time of the events she is complaining about. This means the Council did not owe her a homelessness duty under the Housing Act. The Council is therefore correct to say that it had no duty to provide Miss X with accommodation under that Act at this.
16. I understand Miss X has now been granted pre-settled status as a European Union citizen. However, this does not alter my decision. This is because Miss X had no recourse to public funds at the time of the events she is complaining about.
17. In addition, I note the Council subsequently decided in December 2021 that it does not owe Miss X a homelessness duty under the Housing Act 1996.
18. I do not propose to investigate this aspect of Miss X’s complaint as it is unlikely an investigation would identify fault by the Council. This is because the Council did not have a duty to accommodate Miss X. Furthermore, I consider the Council’s response to Miss X about the availability of health services to be appropriate.

Detention under the Mental Health Act

19. Miss X complained about the decision to detain her under the Mental Health Act.
20. In its complaint response of November 2021, the Council noted Miss X had appealed her detention to the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in October 2021. The Council said the Tribunal upheld the decision to section Miss X.
21. The Ombudsmen cannot overturn the decision to detain someone under the Mental Health Act. The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) is the correct route to appeal a detention. I note Miss X has already appealed to the Tribunal and is aware of the process for doing so. I consider it reasonable to expect her to submit a further appeal to the Tribunal if she wishes to challenge her detention. We will not, therefore, investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons I have explained above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman