Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it ended Mr X’s accommodation. It did not give him the opportunity to respond to allegations made against him before it decided to end his accommodation. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to him for the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains on behalf of Mr X that he was not given the opportunity by the Council to respond to allegations about his behaviour before the Council told him to leave his 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of this investigation I discussed the complaint with Ms Y and considered the information provided by Ms Y and the Council. I sent a copy of this decision to Ms Y and the Council for comments.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

6. 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)
7. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
8. The courts have held that the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 does not apply to interim accommodation provided under section 188. So, generally, it is not unlawful for applicants to be evicted without four weeks’ notice and a court order. The Supreme Court endorsed this view in [R (on the application of ZH and CN) v LB Newham and LB Lewisham] where the applicants were provided with self-contained accommodation leased from a private owner. But the applicant is still entitled to receive notice in accordance with the terms of any tenancy or licence granted. And the authority must give “reasonable notice” of the cancellation.

What happened

9. In November 2020, Mr X applied as homeless to the Council. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation while it looked into his homelessness situation. This accommodation was shared accommodation. Mr X had his own room but shared cooking and washing facilities with other residents.
10. In January 2021, a female resident at the property reported allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr X. In late January 2021, another female resident made allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr X.
11. The Council arranged to hold a meeting with Mr X and an interpreter, so he could understand and discuss the allegations against him. The Council cancelled the meeting due to adverse weather conditions. The Council re-arranged the meeting for later in February 2021.
12. On 19 February 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X and said it was ending its duty to provide him with interim accommodation as vulnerable female residents were feeling harassed by Mr X. The letter told Mr X to leave the accommodation with immediate effect.
13. On 22 February 2021, Mr X moved out of his accommodation. The Council also completed an approval form to serve notice on Mr X to leave the accommodation with an interpreter, however he had already left before it could serve this notice on Mr X.
14. After leaving the accommodation Mr X said he was street homeless.
15. In July 2021, the Council provided Mr X with further temporary accommodation.

Mr X’s complaint

16. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council with the help of Ms Y who worked for an advice centre. Ms Y said the Council did not give Mr X the opportunity to discuss the allegations before requiring him to leave the property.
17. The Council did not uphold the complaint and its final position was that Mr X left the accommodation before the Council could re-arrange the meeting to discuss the allegations.

Analysis

18. The Council was at fault for not giving Mr X the opportunity to discuss the allegations before asking him to leave. The Council initially arranged a meeting to discuss the allegations on 8 February 2021, but this was cancelled. The Council then sent Mr X a letter telling him it was ending the duty to accommodate him and telling him to leave the property with immediate effect, before discussing the allegations with Mr X or re-arranging the meeting. As a result, Mr X left the property shortly after receiving this letter.
19. While I have found the Council at fault, I need to consider what injustice this caused to Mr X. Mr X relied on the Council’s letter on 19 February 2021 telling him to leave the property with immediate effect. As a result of this he moved out and did not have anywhere else to live. Ms Y reported that Mr X was street homeless until the Council provided further interim accommodation.
20. I cannot say whether the allegations were true or whether Mr X would have been able to disprove the allegations had he had a chance to respond to the allegations. However there is uncertainty here about what would have happened had the Council arranged a meeting with Mr X to hear his side of things, before ending its duty to accommodate him and telling him to leave the property.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within one month of my decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Provide a written apology to Mr X for not giving him the opportunity to respond to the allegations before telling him to leave his property.
• Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the uncertainty caused by not allowing him the chance to discuss or disprove the allegations against him. In coming to this figure I have considered that Mr X spend a period of time without any accommodation and needed an interpreter to communicate in English.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation and found the Council was at fault and Mr X suffered injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman