Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application and placement at unsuitable accommodation. This caused frustration, distress and significant impact on his vulnerabilities. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to our further recommendations to remedy Mr X’s injustice with an apology, symbolic payment, and to highlight this as a case study to relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his homelessness application, including his priority status, delays, and the suitability of accommodation it placed him in between August and October 2023. He says this caused him significant frustration and distress due to his vulnerabilities.

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 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)
3. 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
7. 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

Law and administrative background

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance (“the Code”) for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code is not legally binding, but councils must have regard to it. It is good administrative practice for councils to follow the advice in the Code unless they have good reasons to depart from it.
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (Housing Act 1996, section 188). Applicants with mental health conditions or care leavers may be in priority need.
10. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a priority need decision. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

Corporate parenting duties and care leavers

11. Local authorities have duties and powers to assist young people who are leaving and have left local authority care.
12. The Code expects all housing authorities and children’s services authorities to develop joint housing protocols and procedures to ensure collective responsibility from each department in providing corporate parenting support to care leavers (Paragraph 22.6). Each department should adopt a shared strategic approach to the provision of suitable accommodation for care leavers (Paragraph 22.25).
13. The Code says a joint protocol should cover arrangements for identifying homelessness risk early on and acting to prevent it, and providing a quick, safe, joined up response for care leavers who do become homeless (Paragraph 22.7).
14. Bed and breakfast accommodation, including hotels and nightly let accommodation with shared facilities, is not considered suitable for care leavers aged under 25 and should only be used in exceptional circumstances and for short periods (Paragraph 22.28).
15. The specific needs and circumstances of care leavers should be taken into account in determining suitability of accommodation in relation to its location (Paragraph 22.29).
16. Housing authorities may want to involve Personal Advisers in decisions about the suitability of accommodation and inform them prior to making an offer of accommodation (Paragraph 22.30).

What happened – summary of key relevant events

17. Mr X is a care leaver, vulnerable, with medical and mental health conditions. He had support from professionals and services.
18. In early August 2023, Mr X approached the Council as homeless.
19. Two days later, the Council’s Housing Service issued a decision. It considered he was homeless, eligible for assistance, but not in priority need. It decided it had no duty to provide interim accommodation.
20. Three days later, following a meeting, as the Leaving Care service had nominated Mr X for housing for potential final stage accommodation by the end of the year, Children’s Services agreed it would accommodate him. It placed him in a hotel.
21. The next day, the Council’s Housing team placed Mr X in a hostel. Three days after this, Mr X requested a review of the Council’s non-priority decision. The Council acknowledged his request.
22. Mr X contacted the Council a number of times about the unsuitability of the hostel.
23. In mid-September 2023, the Council accepted the relief duty. A week later, Mr X formally complained to the Council. He was significantly distressed with the hostel due to the anti-social behaviour of other occupants, he did not feel safe, and the environment had severely impacted his mental and physical well-being.
24. At the end of September 2023, Mr X accepted a permanent accommodation offer from the Council. At this point, the Council also offered him an emergency bedspace in the meantime. Mr X refused, preferring to wait until he moved.
25. At the start of October 2023, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at Stage One. It acknowledged a one month delay with accepting the relief duty and one week delay with his complaint. It recognised Mr X’s unhappiness with the hostel but as it was commissioned on behalf of Children’s Services, he could not challenge the suitability. It apologised and offered £50 for the administrative delays. It partially upheld his complaint.
26. In mid-October 2023, Mr X’s tenancy in his current property began. The Council ended the relief duty as he had suitable accommodation.
27. In May 2024, Mr X made further contact with the Council about his complaint. He did not accept the remedy.
28. In June 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at Stage Two. In its view, it had already addressed its fault in its first complaint response. Mr X then complained to us.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

29. The Council sent me the case records. It appeared at one point Housing Services may have agreed the hostel was unsuitable due to Mr X’s vulnerabilities. Children Service’s told Mr X it was up to Housing and contacted Housing to ask if alternative accommodation could be found.
30. I have seen also emails between the Council and Mr X’s Personal Adviser about his homeless situation. His Personal Adviser said he could not be accommodated in a hostel due to his mental health.
31. The Council said it was restricted as to where Mr X could be placed due to areas he was at risk in. It was only able to offer him the hostel property at the time.

Analysis

Initial approach and homeless application

32. The law says if a council has “reason to believe” an applicant “may be” homeless, eligible and in priority need (it is a low threshold), it has a duty to provide interim accommodation while it carries out enquiries into their situation. I cannot see evidence the Council turned its mind to this duty when Mr X approached the Council as homeless. On balance, I consider it had sufficient information that he may have met each criteria. It failed to provide interim accommodation at this point. This is fault.
33. However, two days later, the Council decided he was not in priority need and issued a decision letter explaining why. If it had provided interim accommodation, it would have ended its duty with this. But Mr X exercised his right to review this, and he could have asked the Council to provide accommodation pending the outcome. In any event, the Council’s Children’s Services accommodated him three days later, so injustice is limited here.
34. Mr X complains the Council’s not priority decision was wrong. He used his review right. This is the correct way to challenge the decision. The Council accepted his request but did not complete it as Mr X accepted permanent accommodation before the eight week timescale. I cannot add further to this.
35. The Council should have accepted the relief duty when it made that decision, as it decided he was homeless and eligible. I agree with the Council’s view it was at fault with delay until mid-September 2023. This caused uncertainty and frustration to Mr X.

Joint working and protocol

36. The Code (statutory guidance) emphasises joint working in relation to care leavers. The Council is corporate parent, and this includes both Housing and Children’s Services.
37. The Code expects councils to have a joint housing and care leaver protocol. At the time of events with Mr X’s complaint, the Council did not have one. This was fault. But the Council has confirmed since June 2024, a joint protocol has been in place and provided a copy to me. It is not publicly available but is used internally by officers. I welcome this positive action and would expect this to go towards preventing future recurrence of faults identified in Mr X’s case and improvements in the service.

Unsuitable accommodation

38. The Council said it did not carry out a suitability assessment for Mr X’s hostel accommodation as it was not made under a homeless duty, but on behalf of Children’s Services. However, the Code expects collective responsibility, and it still had an overall duty to Mr X as a corporate parent. Accommodation should still be suitable. Regardless of which department provided it, it should have evidenced how it satisfied itself the accommodation was suitable for Mr X. It did not do this. This is fault.
39. The case notes showed at one point when Mr X said the hostel was not suitable, it appeared either Housing and/or Children’s Services accepted this, but Mr X remained there. It appears each passed responsibility to the other department, rather than working together as recommended in the Code, leaving Mr X in the middle. The lack of joined up approach for a vulnerable care leaver is fault.
40. I appreciate the Council had some regard to location as it avoided areas of risk; it said the hostel was all it could offer at the time. But it did not say how it was suitable. It did not demonstrate how it considered Mr X’s other relevant individual circumstances about his needs and distance to networks of support, or if it considered his Personal Adviser’s view that he could not live in a hostel due to his mental health, or how the type of accommodation may impact on him. This is fault.
41. I also recognise there is large demand on the Council’s housing services and a shortage of accommodation options, but it had duties and responsibilities as a corporate parent and Mr X’s vulnerabilities. On balance of probabilities, had it properly turned its mind to the above along with guidance in the Code (referenced in Paragraphs 13-17), it is likely to have decided the hostel placement was unsuitable for Mr X.

Remedy

42. The above faults caused Mr X significant distress, uncertainty, and frustration over two months. He was a vulnerable young adult, and this impacted on his mental and physical wellbeing at the time. I have noted there was a short period when the Council did offer an alternative pending his permanent move which he did not accept.
43. It is positive the Council offered a remedy for its fault with delay, however £50 does not go far enough to sufficiently recognise the injustice. I have found further fault causing injustice, so I recommended a remedy in line with our Guidance on Remedies below.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
45. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified,
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise his injustice of uncertainty and frustration with the administrative delays; and
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £400 to recognise his injustice with the unsuitable accommodation he was placed in.
46. Within two months of the final decision:
• Share a copy of the final decision to relevant staff in Housing and Children’s Services, as a case study. It should highlight the relevance of the joint protocol for care leavers that is now in place, and reminders to act in line with it for future.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. I uphold the complaint. I found fault with the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed with my recommendations to remedy this, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman