Summary: There was fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s housing situation. It did not address his complaints about discrimination and it did not have proper regard for its duties under the Equality Act 2010. The Councils shortcomings caused Mr X significant distress and is likely to have increased the time he spent in unsatisfactory accommodation. I have recommended the Council take action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response when he became homeless. He also complains about the way the Council handled his housing application.
2. In particular, Mr X complains the Council:
• Turned him away when he approached it as homeless in March 2020, and then delayed handling his application and finding him accommodation when he sought its help again in October 2020;
• Failed to provide him with interim accommodation while it processed his application and sought accommodation to discharge its housing duties;
• Placed him in an unsuitable flat and failed to take action when he reported that he was disturbed by noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB), including failing to move him to interim accommodation; and
• Ignored his emails, failed to address his complaints, and discriminated against him.
3. Mr X says this caused him significant distress and affected his physical and mental health. He says his autism and sensory problems have got worse; he has been kept unfit for work; he was forced to live in unsuitable accommodation; and he has spent thousands of pounds through reckless behaviour caused by the distress. Mr X’s dealings with the Council also led him to go on hunger strike.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. 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)
5. Mr X complains about how the Council dealt with his housing situation in 2020. More than 12 months passed before Mr X made these complaints to the Ombudsman. However, I have considered the impact on Mr X of his ongoing housing difficulties as well as his diagnosis of autism, PTSD and physical disability. Mr X also says that the Council did not process his complaint properly and this meant that he did not follow the process to complain to the Ombudsman. All of these impacted on Mr X’s ability to complain to us sooner, and so I have exercised discretion to investigate the Council’s actions from March 2020 when Mr X first approached it for help with his housing situation.
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
7. The Council’s consideration of adaptations made to Mr X’s accommodation are a landlord function and so are not within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
8. The Council’s decision to offer Mr X the flat is within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s remit, and I have addressed that below. The Council’s response to Mr X’s reports of noise and ASB are also within our remit. The Council went on to move Mr X to a second flat, and to consider adaptations here too. Again, these adaptations are not in our remit. With Mr X’s permission, we have referred this complaint to the Housing Ombudsman for their consideration.
9. I have not investigated the Council’s actions after January 2022. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. We advised Mr X that we would not investigate the Council’s actions after 7 January 2022, unless he made a formal complaint to the Council about this first. Then if he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response, we could consider this as a separate investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

10. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended). If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
11. 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

12. I considered the information from Mr X and the Council with relevant law and guidance.
13. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

14. 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. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the Council:
• he or she is likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• he or she has been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))
15. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must take a homelessness application and make inquiries. The threshold for taking an application is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular council department. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) 
16. 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, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
17. There are no statutory time limits for completing inquiries. However the Homelessness Code of Guidance recommends that councils aim to complete their inquiries within 33 working days.
18. Assessment duty: councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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 should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
19. Prevention duty: councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person (regardless of priority need status, intentionality and whether they have a local connection) who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means either helping them to stay in their current accommodation or helping them to find a new place to live before they become homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless it is brought to an end by an event such as accommodation being secured for the person, or by their becoming homeless.
20. Relief duty: If the applicant is already homeless, or becomes homeless despite activity during the prevention stage, the council’s reasonable steps will be focused on helping the applicant to secure accommodation. This relief duty lasts for 56 days unless ended in another way. If the council has reason to believe a homeless applicant may be eligible for assistance and have a priority need, they must be provided with interim accommodation.
21. If a council is satisfied someone is eligible, homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless it will owe them the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
22. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)

Housing Allocations

23. 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))
24. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
25. The Council’s housing allocations scheme says an applicant can only join the register if they meet certain criteria. These include that that the person has been resident in the borough continuously for the last three years. However, this does not apply to an applicant with a reasonable preference listed above.
26. The Council can also give an applicant additional preference if they have a reasonable preference and an urgent housing need which makes it virtually impossible for them to remain in their current home.

Antisocial behaviour and statutory nuisance

27. Councils have a general duty to take action to tackle ASB. But ASB can take many different forms; and councils should make informed decisions about which of their powers is most appropriate for any given situation.
28. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a mechanism to review the handling of ASB. This is commonly known as the ‘Community Trigger’ process. When a person requests a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether the local threshold has been met.
29. If the threshold has been met, the relevant bodies should undertake the review. They should share information, consider what action has already been taken, decide whether more should be done, and then inform the complainant of the outcome. If they decide to take more action, they should create an action plan. It is for relevant local bodies to agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
30. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. These include noise nuisance. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; and / or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.
31. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils will rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. The officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
32. Councils can also decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance, but is not a statutory nuisance. They may write to the person causing the nuisance or suggest mediation.

Discrimination, the Equality Act and Human Rights

33. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
34. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act include disability and sexual orientation.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
38. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, liberty and security of person, a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from forced labour, and education. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
39. The Human Rights Act does not mean that a council must provide everyone with housing. But a council should consider whether the circumstances of an individual case mean it should satisfy itself that it is acting in accordance with the Act.
40. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether or not a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
41. In practical terms, councils will often be able to show they are compliant with the Human Rights Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and that there is a process for decisions to be challenged by way of review or appeal.

What happened

42. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain all the information I reviewed during my investigation.
43. Mr X approached the Council as homeless in March 2020. He had lost work due to homophobic bullying and he was sleeping on his sister’s sofa. His sister has children with special needs. The Council did not assess whether it had any homelessness duties regarding Mr X. It says it has no record of Mr X’s contact at that time. However, Mr X has provided his phone records which show that he contacted the Council in March 2020.
44. In May 2020, Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register, but despite challenging the Council, Mr X was turned away again because he had not lived in the area long enough. He had explained that he had diagnoses of depression and anxiety, a mood disorder, arthritis and cervical spondylosis, as well as a rare spinal condition. These caused pain and problems in his spine, neck and hand. Mr X was still sleeping on his sister’s sofa and this was impacting on them all, including her disabled children. Mr X also had financial difficulties meaning that it was very difficult for him to find housing in the private rented sector.
45. In October 2020, on the advice of a specialist advice charity, Mr X made another homelessness application. This time the Council accepted Mr X’s homeless application. It requested supporting information to assess his circumstances.
46. Mr X again told the Council about his mental illness and physical disability, but also that he was awaiting an autism assessment. In November, Mr X sent the Council his psychiatrist’s report which included that he had PTSD and suspected autism. Mr X’s psychiatrist said that he would benefit from secure housing. In December, Mr X sent the Council a letter from his psychotherapist talking of suspected autism and also how Mr X’s housing situation was impacting on him.
47. Mr X, and later his advocate, chased the Council in November and December as it had not responded. The Council asked for more financial and medical information.
48. In January 2021, the Council told Mr X that it was working at the prevention stage. He had received no decision letter or PHP. Mr X complained to the Council about the lack of progress with his application. He also asked why the Council owed him a prevention duty when he was already homeless, and at that time had been sleeping on his sister’s sofa for some months. He told the Council that this was making his physical and mental health worse, and that his nephew, who has special educational needs, had begun to attack him.
49. On 18 January the Council accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty and sent him a copy of his PHP. The PHP said the Council had agreed it with Mr X in October 2020. It said he should look for privately rented accommodation, and it would consider his eligibility for the rent deposit scheme. Mr X says the Council had not discussed the PHP with him and it was not personalised to his situation. It did not mention any of his medical conditions or his vulnerability.
50. The Council emailed Mr X to explain that it does not provide Council housing through the homelessness application, but he could contact the Council about that to explain why he needed council housing. In the meantime, it could only help him with private accommodation.
51. There is some evidence that the Council discussed interim accommodation with Mr B, but the Council said it could only offer shared accommodation which he would not manage due to his autism and PTSD. The Council has told me that it understood Mr X would only accept permanent accommodation. It has based this on an email Mr X sent it in November 2020, that stated his psychiatrist had advised he needed secure accommodation.
52. Mr X applied to join the housing register again but was rejected because he still had not lived in the area for long enough.
53. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council apologised for the delay in processing his homeless application. It said it had no record of him making a homeless application in March 2020. It said it had delayed in deciding his homeless application from October to January, but this was out of its control due to COVID-19 difficulties and a lack of staff. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to the next stage, but he says the Council did not do this.
54. On 12 February 2021, Mr X was diagnosed with autism and he shared this with the Council. The Council told Mr X that based on the medical evidence, he was now eligible to join the housing register. It placed him in its second highest priority band. Mr X says the Council should have given him additional preference due to the urgency of his situation, his medical conditions and that he was having to sleep on his sister’s sofa. The Council sent Mr X an updated PHP.
55. Mr X told the Council it should backdate his housing application to May 2020 when he first applied and give him higher priority. The Council agreed that it would.
56. The Council told Mr X that he could only afford a room in a shared house and it would help him to find this. Mr X was distressed at this. The Council had medical information that indicated Mr X would not manage in shared housing, and his advocate was still chasing the Council to accept its main housing duty. Mr X says the Council repeatedly told him it would place him out of the area, and this distressed him because it was away from his support network.
57. The Council referred Mr X for a social care needs assessment. Meanwhile, his advocate continued to chase the Council for a decision on the main housing duty, which was overdue. From April 2021, Mr X was able to bid on properties under the housing allocations scheme. He was not successful on any properties he bid on, and was not able to access the private rented sector due to his income and credit history. Mr X says the Council should have considered a discretionary housing payment to help him access the private sector.
58. Mr X and his advocate contacted the Council regularly pointing out that it needed to decide on the main housing duty. Mr X told the Council that he was getting more ill due to his living conditions. Several times he told the Council that he believed it was discriminating against him on the grounds of his disability and his sexuality.
59. In May 2021, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty. The Council’s letter said that it had owed him the prevention duty and then the relief duty but both had failed and so now it accepted the main housing duty. The Council said Mr X could request interim accommodation. Mr X asked for interim accommodation on 14 June because staying on his sister’s sofa was causing distress to all parties, including that his nephew had attacked him several times, and that Mr X was self-harming and engaging in reckless behaviour. It was also affecting Mr X’s physical health.
60. In June, the Council made Mr X a direct offer of accommodation. My understanding is that in doing so, it took into account that Mr X needed top floor accommodation, so that he was less likely to suffer from noise intrusion (as his autism makes him sensitive to noise).
61. In July, Mr X reported noise issues from children congregating outside his flat, to the Council. Mr X has sent me videos of the children playing. It seems outside his flat was a space children would congregate, sometimes around 20 children for long periods. The space is surrounded by buildings and mainly tarmac. He explained his sensory problems and how much the noise distressed him, affecting his day-to-day life and his mental health. Mr X made clear that the sensory overload also caused him physical pain, including from self harm. Mr X said his neighbours had told him that they had complained about this before he had moved there.
62. Mr X suggested that the Council could modify the housing estate to deter the children from congregating there. The Council said it could request the safer neighbourhood team to patrol the area, but it also told Mr X it could not move him on the basis of noise from children playing. The Council described Mr X’s distress and difficulties as a settling-in issue. In a telephone conversation with a housing officer, Mr X tried to explain how the noise was affecting him, particularly as he is autistic. Mr X found the officer to be dismissive and she did not understand autism. She would not consider a move or adaptations to the flat. Mr X says this is discrimination.
63. In August, the Council met with Mr X to discuss his housing options. It told him that it would be unlikely to move him due to the noise, and that it had no complaints from other residents. Mr X asked the Council officers to call on his neighbours to verify they had complained previously but the officers did not. The Council said it would seek quotes for glazing and soundproofing. Mr X later told the Council that he was also disturbed day and night by chanting and banging from his downstairs neighbour.
64. In August, having taken legal advice, Mr X requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation. He said it was not suitable due to the noise. The Council refused the review request. It said it was too late. Mr X pointed out that the Council’s offer letter had also given an additional three-day grace period to allow for receipt, and this meant that he had raised the issue in time. The Council said that although the letter mentioned the three-day period, this did not apply because it had emailed its offer to him.
65. Mr X instructed solicitors to pursue his review request and said that it was clear that his correspondence complaining about the noise should have been taken as a review request, and that he was within time as the Council’s correspondence said that he had an additional three days. The Council relied on its legal advice to refuse the review as not made clearly or on time.
66. In its response to Mr X, the Council also considered whether his review request would have inevitably succeeded had it been made on time. In other words, the Council considered its discretion to accept the review out of time. The Council decided that the review request would not have succeeded because it considered at that time that the Council could do more to make the property suitable eg, install sound insulation.
67. In September, Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council with a formal letter that he intended to go to court for a judicial review of the Council’s decision not to accept his review request. In October, having taken legal advice, the Council responded to the solicitor. It reiterated its position that Mr X had not requested the review in time, that his earliest emails within the extended period were not a review request, and that it had considered but not exercised its discretion to accept a late review request and given reasons for that. The Council also said it was investigating the noise and ASB issues, and was in discussion with Mr X.
68. In October Mr X emailed the Council again about the noise issues and the effect on his mental health. He said he was now being disturbed by his neighbours on all sides. The Council asked Mr X to complete diary sheets to gather evidence and it gave him details of how to contact the noise team. Mr X made a report to the noise team, but as this was at 5am, it was not witnessed by officers. The Council visited the flat to measure the windows for secondary glazing. Mr X had also requested sound insulation to the floors, walls and ceilings.
69. In October, Mr X complained to the Council. He said:
• The Council had turned him away when he asked for help with his homelessness in March 2020.
• He was still sleeping on his sister’s sofa in October 2020 when it accepted his homelessness application, but it took the Council eight months to decide this.
• During that eight months, Mr X’s physical and mental health was deteriorating significantly. In February 2021 he had been diagnosed with autism. He already had diagnoses of arthritis and PTSD. His sister has disabled children and his nephew had attacked him. He was self-harming with drink and drugs and other risky behaviour.
• In June, the Council put him in a flat, despite knowing that there were problems with noise, and he is noise sensitive. He reported this, and later noise from his neighbour shouting and chanting night and day.
• The Council told him he was too late to request a review of the suitability of the property. They ignored his request for reasonable adjustments, and it took three months to start exploring adaptations to the flat.
• He could no longer live there and was again self-harming.
70. The Council liaised with its adult social care department, and in November a social worker (SW) visited Mr X to assess his needs. Mr X says they told him they would recommend a move to another property. We have investigated Mr X’s dealings with the Council’s adult social care service in a separate investigation.
71. In November, the Council visited Mr X to discuss his housing options. The officer said the SW’s report had not said he should be moved and that he needed to look at coping mechanisms. Mr X has described how he showed the officers videos of the problems he was having and how he became extremely distressed that the Council was not considering reasonable adjustments or considering a move.
72. The Council understood that Mr X did not want to go ahead with any improvement works and wanted to move home instead. It also understood that Mr X could not progress therapy until his housing problems were resolved. The Council agreed Mr X could re-join the housing register so he could bid for other properties. It also agreed to waive the need for a secure tenancy so Mr X could consider a mutual exchange. My understanding is that during this time, Mr X repeatedly asked the Council for interim accommodation due to the distress he was suffering from noise at the flat.
73. The Council spoke to the neighbour but she denied making the noise and she gave an account of her normal activities. The Council asked her to be mindful of making noise. It also checked with Mr X’s neighbours, asking in person those who were available, whether they had experienced problems with noise from the neighbour. Mr X has explained to me that due to the layout of the flats, it is very unlikely that other neighbours would be disturbed by her noise. He has also said the neighbour was lying when she told officers she was out of the flat for long periods at work, and that the working hours she claimed to do were impossible.
74. The Council followed this with a letter to neighbours asking it to get in touch with details of any noise problems. Mr X has said that his immediate neighbour told him they had not received the letter. The Council told Mr X it had no other complaints from his neighbours about noise.
75. Mr X complained again to the Council about how it had handled his housing situation. He set out how the ongoing situation was having a severe impact on his mental and physical health. He said the Council had not had sufficient regard to his autism and the reasonable adjustments he needed to live in his current flat. Mr X told the Council his neighbours had told him they had complained about noise before he had moved there. Mr X again mentioned that he believed the Council to be discriminating against him.
76. The Council gave its final complaint response in January 2022. It upheld his complaints that:
• It failed to make enquiries when he approached it as homeless in March 2020.
• Delayed processing his homeless application in October 2020.
• Failed to properly explain the prevention duty.
• Delayed confirming it had accepted the main housing duty. (The housing services said it had not moved to the main housing duty as Mr X’s sister had not asked him to move and so although it was overcrowded, he was not homeless).
• The Council apologised and offered a financial remedy of £250 in recognition of the uncertainty and distress it caused Mr X. It had also backdated his housing application to May 2020.
77. In January 2022, the Council agreed to make a second direct offer so Mr X could move to a new property. It offered a new flat in March, and Mr X moved in April 2022. The Council agreed make adaptations to the new flat. Mr X has complained about the works. These works, are not within the Ombudsman’s remit, and we have referred these parts of the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
78. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council and what was the impact on Mr X of this?

79. There was fault by the Council, and I have set this out below.

Housing and homelessness decisions while Mr X was staying with family

80. The Council has given me some case notes but these are not complete. It has explained that this is because some notes were contained in emails and those officers have left the Council. The Council’s poor record keeping is fault. It is not good administrative practice for case notes to be kept on individual systems and in any case, these should be available after officers leave.
81. The Council has accepted that Mr X tried to make a homeless application in March 2020 and it should have assessed this at that time. Had it done so it is likely that it would have found that Mr X was homeless.
82. The Council also accepted that it delayed processing his homeless application made in October 2020. The Council did not initially uphold Mr X’s complaint about this because the delay was due to the impact of COVID-19 on resources. While we recognise that it is under pressure during this time, the Council still had to meet its statutory duty under homelessness legislation. It should have upheld Mr X’s complaint as the Council had clearly delayed.
83. The Council’s complaint response says that it apologises if the prevention stage was not explained properly to Mr X, following the October 2020 application. However this understates what happened. The Council failed to send him a decision letter that it accepted the prevention duty. In any case, the Council has not shown that it clearly assessed his homelessness or why it considered it owed a prevention duty rather than the relief duty at that stage. It seems likely that had the Council assessed this properly, it would have decided that Mr X was homeless when he first applied and was staying on his sister’s sofa and it was not reasonable to expect him to continue to do this.
84. The Council took too long to send Mr X the PHP and there is no evidence that it agreed this with him.
85. The Council took too long to accept that it owed Mr X the relief duty and the main housing duty.
86. The Council cannot show that it properly considered Mr X’s medical information and housing situation when he applied to join the housing register. Although an accurate picture of all of Mr X’s health needs was emerging, it was clear that he had chronic mental illness and physical disability. It was also known that he was in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation. As such, I would have expected the Council to assess whether Mr X had reasonable preference. Under its housing allocations policy, this may have allowed the Council to dispense with the requirement to have been resident in the borough for three years.
87. Mr X was entitled to interim accommodation, arguably from when he first approached it. Mr X is clear that he cannot manage in shared accommodation. The Council has relied on a much earlier email stating that Mr X’s psychiatrist recommends he has stable accommodation, to mean that he has refused interim accommodation. I am not persuaded by this.
88. Interim accommodation has to be suitable for him and so the Council should have also taken into account his specific needs. I appreciate the Council normally offers an applicant without children shared interim accommodation. However, given Mr X’s specific needs, I would have expected the Council to explore with him what interim accommodation might be suitable.
89. The Council has committed to developing a new way of recording calls to the homeless team. It has explained that a lack of experience staff and capacity contributed to its shortcomings. It says it has since developed a comprehensive manual for staff. It will review this in light of the agreed remedy set out below. It will provide the Ombudsman with the updated manual.

The Council’s noise nuisance and ASB investigation

90. I cannot investigate how the Council dealt with adaptations to either flat. However I have considered how the Council dealt with Mr X’s reports of noise and ASB. I appreciate that it was very distressing for Mr X and he was clear about how it was impacting on him. Overall, the Council had to explore the various options, and it took reasonable steps to investigate the problems.
91. It first considered improvements to the estate, then explored improvement works, it then considered whether to allow a suitability review, and investigated the noise problems. The Council considered support from adult social care, housing options and then finally made a direct offer of a new flat when one became available.
92. I accept that Mr X’s neighbours told him they had reported issues with children congregating before he moved there, but we don’t know when or to whom these reports were made, or even if they were made.
93. Mr X says that when he started to complain about noise from the children playing, the Council did not refer him to its noise nuisance or ASB service. But children playing is unlikely to be nuisance or ASB, and so this kind of investigation may not have been effective.
94. In August, Mr X started to complain about noise from his neighbours. This has the potential to be noise nuisance or ASB. The Council did not explain how it could deal with this or give him details of the noise or ASB service until October. Although Mr X said he would not complete diary sheets to inform the Council’s investigation, the Council missed the opportunity to explore reasonable adjustments here that might have allowed Mr X to give the information the Council needed. The Council was considering how to respond to Mr X’s concerns, but the noise from his neighbours was a new issue and the Council took too long to address this.
95. However, there is no fault in how the Council decided that it could not use enforcement powers with regard to noise nuisance or ASB. Mr X’s neighbours told him they were disturbed by the noise from the children and had previously complained. However, as already mentioned, noise from children playing was unlikely to be nuisance or ASB, and so there seems little merit in the Council asking the neighbours about their experience.
96. The Council properly considered Mr X’s reports of ASB and noise from his neighbour. It investigated whether the neighbour had been making noise and based on the information it had, it was open to the Council to decide that it could not evidence that.
97. Mr X was clearly complaining that the Council was not taking action to deal with noise from the children and from his neighbours. The Council should have given him details of the ASB review process. In response to my enquiries, the Council says he had not met the threshold for a review because he had only complained once to the noise team. However, Mr X complained numerous times about noise and ASB. The statutory guidance sets the maximum complaints made to reach the threshold. ASB takes many forms, and the Council should consider all complaints made and not just those to the noise team.

Housing and homelessness decisions while Mr X was housed in his flat

98. As the extent of Mr X’s distress became clear, the Council should have considered whether it was reasonable for him to remain there. It should have considered its homelessness duties again therefore. This also means that the Council should have again considered whether it should offer Mr X interim accommodation despite his tenancy. The Council fettered its decision-making by concluding too early that it could not move Mr X because of the children playing. It was slow to consider its Public Sector Equality Duty and Mr X’s particular circumstances here. These homelessness decisions are for the Council to make but it did not give this due consideration and this is fault.

The suitability review

99. Mr X says that the first flat was not suitable. A specialist has advised him that given his disability, the Council should be able to show that it has had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty to eliminate discrimination. Mr X says that the Council failed to make sure the flat was suitable given his disability and sensory needs and so it has not complied with the public sector equality duty.
100. I agree that the Public Sector Equality Duty is relevant to whether the Council offered suitable accommodation. However, Mr X had the right to ask for a review and he did so. This allowed Mr X to challenge the suitability of the flat and whether it had taken proper account of his needs.
101. There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s suitability of accommodation review request. It took legal advice, considered whether it was made on time and explained why it was not. The Council also considered its discretion to accept the request as late and whether there was any merit in the review request. It is for the Council to make these decisions. As there is no flaw in its decision making, there is no basis for me to question the outcome.
102. The Council has however, committed to making sure that it views accommodation offered to those with protected characteristics, and the reasons for refusal discussed and properly recorded before it explores other options. The Council has also committed to further training on suitability of its housing offers and this includes how to apply the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Complaints about discrimination, Equality Act duties, and the Council’s communication

103. Several times, Mr X complained the Council was discriminating against him on the basis of his disability and sexuality, and that it failed to make reasonable adjustments. I cannot see that the Council properly addressed Mr X’s complaints about this. In addition, I am not persuaded that the Council met its duty to anticipate Mr X’s reasonable adjustments for his protected characteristic of disability in its communications with him. It knew he is autistic and did not check with him what this meant in terms of communication with him, or what adjustments it might make (such as a single point of contact, or a regular updating mechanism).
104. The Council did not always respond to Mr X in a timely manner and did not always address his concerns, or properly explain its actions, decisions and policies. Mr X and his representative had to chase the Council for clear decisions on significant matters. The Council also did not escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage two when he asked it to in early 2021. It may have missed the opportunity to act then.
105. The Council’s shortcomings in how it dealt with Mr X’s housing problems suggests that it also failed to consider whether it had due regard to the Human Rights Act, given Mr X’s particular circumstances.

The impact on Mr X

106. Mr X has described the deterioration in his physical and mental health during this time. He also says that his autism regressed so that his daily functioning became more difficult, he was forced to destructive behaviours which cost him significant money and also made him unable to work. Mr X says that the prolonged stay on the sofa caused his arthritis to spread to his lower back and knees. The Council’s position also appears to be that although it took too long to process his application, Mr X was not homeless in this time because his sister had not asked him to leave. This minimises the impact of this prolonged period and the lack of clear communication from the Council, on all members of the household who were coping with overcrowded conditions and competing social care needs. The impact of this on Mr X is likely to have been significant.
107. An accurate picture of Mr X’s health was still emerging when Mr X approached the Council in March 2020, but at the very least, the Council’s failure to assess his situation caused Mr X grave uncertainty about whether he would get any housing assistance, and given that he was sleeping on a sofa in an overcrowded situation with family members with special needs, as well as what was known of Mr X’s health needs at the time, the impact of the Council turning him away at that time cannot be underestimated.
108. This was compounded when the Council later refused to let Mr X join the housing register without proper assessment; took too long to process the homeless application taken in October 2020; failed to explore interim accommodation with Mr X; and did not properly explain to him what assistance he could expect. We cannot say for certain what would have happened had the Council acted without fault. However, had it processed his application from March 2020, properly considered the housing register application in May 2020, or processed the homeless application in October 2020 without delay, it is likely the Council would have accepted a housing duty sooner, he would have been more assured of its assistance, and on balance, may have been housed sooner, or at least in suitable interim accommodation.
109. The Council’s failure to consider whether it was reasonable for Mr X to remain in the flat or whether new homelessness duties had arisen, including for interim accommodation again caused Mr X uncertainty and distress.
110. I acknowledge the Council was looking for solutions including looking at adaptations, allowing a mutual exchange and liaising with adult social care. But given Mr X’s particular vulnerability, it is fair to say that the uncertainty and distress the Council’s failings here caused him were significant.
111. I note that Mr X had the benefit of representation on some aspects of his dealings with the Council for short periods of time, but the Council failed to take into account that Mr X’s autism and mental illness makes the poor communication more distressing than for someone without those challenges.

Back to top

Agreed action

112. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the following actions, within one month of the date of this decision:
• Provided Mr X with a written apology for the faults identified above. The apology should be made by an officer of appropriate seniority;
• Paid to Mr X £3600. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the significant avoidable distress and uncertainty it caused him. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. It represents that the Council took approximately ten months longer to house Mr X initially, than had it acted without fault; and a further four months when the Council decided to move him from his flat but did not properly consider interim accommodation;
• Paid Mr X £300. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the additional time and trouble he was put to in pursuing matters with the Council, that it did not always address his complaints properly or take account of his disabilities; and
• Shared this decision with relevant staff.
113. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the following actions, within three months of the date of this decision:
• reviewed the complaint and identified the lessons learned in terms of:
1. Record keeping;
2. Clarity about homelessness decisions and issuing decision letters;
3. Agreeing PHPs with the applicant;
4. How it explains to applicants their right to interim accommodation and more specifically how it explores the suitability of this with disabled applicants; and
5. How it meets the duties of the Equality Act 2010 including the Public Sector Equality Duty with regard to its homelessness duties.
• Shared these lessons learned with relevant staff.

Back to top

Final decision

114. I have to completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman