Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council decided it would not offer him accommodation while he was homeless. The Council took too long to act when it owed Mr X the relief duty and too long to decide whether to offer Mr X interim accommodation. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty for which the Council will apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council decided it would not offer him accommodation while he was homeless. He also complained the Council did not support him to keep his belongings safe while he was homeless. Mr X said the Council’s actions meant he had to sleep rough, pay for a hotel to keep off the street, pay for storage and had a medical procedure delayed.
2. Mr X also complained the Council did not respond to his subject access request until he complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

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. 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. 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.
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). Mr X complained about matters dating back to 2021. I have chosen to investigate his complaint because Mr X experienced poor health in the intervening years which I am satisfied was a good reason for not complaining earlier.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed responding to his subject access request. The ICO is the body set up to consider complaints about how councils respond to information requests. If Mr X felt the Council unreasonably delayed, he could raise it with the ICO.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered:
• all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
• the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
• the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
10. 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

11. 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.
12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils 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 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)
13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is the relief duty. Councils do not have to provide accommodation directly, but should agree reasonable steps for it and the homeless person which may result in identification of suitable accommodation.
14. 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)
15. 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
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, has a priority need, and is not intentionally homeless, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. Councils will often arrange temporary accommodation for the person to stay in while it arranges permanent housing.
17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. Councils should complete reviews about priority decisions within eight weeks. (Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, regulation 9)

Belongings

18. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Everyone In

19. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic the government introduced arrangements to ensure people who were street homeless were provided with housing. This was called the ‘Everyone In’ scheme.

What happened

Homelessness

20. In late January 2021, Mr X told the Council he was homeless. The Council asked him to submit any recent medical letters or doctors notes and records of any diagnoses and medication he took.
21. The Council concluded Mr X was homeless and eligible for assistance. This meant it owed him the relief duty.
22. Mr X uploaded some documents to the Council’s housing system. They were a letter from his GP which explained Mr X was homeless and a letter from an outpatient’s hospital clinic. Mr X told his housing officer he had uploaded some documents to its system but could not upload any more. He asked if he could send his evidence by email. The Council did not respond.
23. In early February 2021, an organisation the Council uses to carry out medical assessments for homelessness applications noted the information Mr X had supplied showed he had a history of mental health issues and had a condition which caused immune issues, although recent tests showed his immune system was not compromised. The assessor concluded Mr X’s health conditions did not show he was particularly vulnerable.
24. On late March, Mr X contacted the Council about his homelessness again. The Council’s records show it asked a senior officer to review Mr X’s case and respond urgently.
25. A senior officer contacted Mr X several times that day but was unable to get through to him. The officer decided that based on current evidence, including Mr X’s medical information, there was no reason to believe he was in priority need. Therefore, the Council did not owe Mr X interim accommodation.
26. A few days later the Council issued Mr X’s PHP.
27. In early April 2021, the Council concluded that Mr X did not have priority need, so it did not owe him the main housing duty. It issued a decision letter stating this.
28. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision in late April 2021. He enclosed new medical information dating from March and April from a local hospital which explained he had been due to have surgery that month, but it had been cancelled because he was homeless. The information confirmed the surgery was necessary and would result in at least a four-week recovery period.
29. The Council sent Mr X’s evidence to the medical assessments company. The assessor concluded Mr X’s medical needs were not of “particular significance compared to an ordinary person”. But they nonetheless recommended the Council find Mr X short-term accommodation for the four weeks after their surgery.
30. Because the Council had not given him accommodation, Mr X applied as homeless to another council nearby (Council B). Council B put him in interim accommodation by the end of April 2021.
31. Council B referred Mr X to the Council in early June.
32. In early July 2021, the Council told Mr X it had ended the relief duty because it decided it owed him the main housing duty. It did this because Mr X’s need for surgery meant he was in priority need.
33. The Council began paying for Mr X’s accommodation and he has remained there since.

Belongings

34. Mr X said he told the Council about his need for help with his belongings during the initial phone conversation he had with the Council in January 2021.
35. In his request for a review of the Council’s ‘no priority’ decision in late April, Mr X asked it to help him secure his belongings.
36. Mr X later complained to the Council and said it had not helped him store his belongings. The Council responded to say Mr X’s belongings were already in storage when he presented as homeless and he had not asked for help at that time. The Council said the evidence at the time was that Mr X’s belongings were not at risk.

Everyone In

37. I asked the Council why it did not house Mr X under the Everyone In initiative. It told me it did not have the resources to house every rough sleeper in its area during the COVID-19 pandemic. It had decided it would only house single applicants who did not have priority need where their health was at risk because of COVID-19. This included people with Mr X’s immune disorder, where the symptoms were severe, and testing showed the person’s immune system was comprised. Mr X did not meet this criteria.

Findings

Homelessness

38. The Council acted appropriately when Mr X presented as homeless in late January 2021. It made enquiries into Mr X’s circumstances and invited him to submit relevant information.
39. Mr X was able to upload two documents to its system but could not upload any other files. The Council did not respond to his request to send the files by email, which was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration. However, given that when Mr X made his review request in April 2021, he only submitted new documents dating from March onwards, the fault did not mean the Council missed information that could have changed its decision.
40. The Council accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty (to take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation) in late January 2021 but did not do anything to meet that duty until late March 2021, when it issued Mr X’s PHP. This was fault. The fault caused Mr X further frustration and uncertainty about whether he could have obtained housing sooner if he had more of an opportunity to carry out the steps in the PHP.
41. The Council also unreasonably delayed in making its decision that it would not arrange interim accommodation for Mr X. It had the outcome of the medical assessment in early February but did not come to its decision until late March, after Mr X contacted it again. This was also fault. This again caused Mr X frustration.
42. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it was made without fault. In deciding it did not owe Mr X the duty to arrange interim accommodation or the main housing duty, the Council considered relevant information, including the files Mr X submitted and the relevant law and guidance. The Council followed the decision-making process we would expect so it was not at fault.
43. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s main housing duty decision in late April. He sent new information which the Council considered as part of its review. The Council completed the review just outside the timescale set out in the Regulations, but this does not amount to fault. The new information led the Council to decide it owed Mr X the main housing duty and it began paying for Mr X’s accommodation.

Belongings

44. The Council was not at fault in how it decided it would not protect Mr X’s belongings. Mr X had already arranged storage when he told the Council he was homeless. That meant his belongings were not at risk and therefore the Council was not under a duty to protect them.

Everyone In

45. The Council was not at fault in how it decided whether to house Mr X under the Everyone In scheme. The Council was entitled to decide how it would use the scheme funds to house rough sleepers. It decided to prioritise more vulnerable individuals and applied its criteria for support to Mr X’s case fairly.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty he felt as a result of the faults identified in this decision. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
47. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman