The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained that he was bullied and abused by staff providing the Council’s Rough Sleeper Programme and that accommodation the Council provided was unsuitable. We found there was a failure to formally respond to complaints in 2019. However, there was no evidence Mr X was treated improperly.
The complaint
Mr X complains that he was bullied and abused by staff providing the Council’s Rough Sleeper Programme. He complains that his mental health needs were ignored, and he was moved to other accommodation following the complaint which caused distress and isolated him.
Mr X says his complaints about the issues he had at the rough sleeper programme were ignored and brushed over and his mental health worsened as a result.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 we are satisfied with a council’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)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X and considered the issues he raised in his complaint. I asked the Council to provide information. I considered the information provided, government guidance and the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
The Council’s Rough Sleeping Pathway The Council partners with an external organisation to provide support and assistance to those on the Rough Sleeping Pathway. I have referred to the organisation as Company A in this statement.
The Council’s Rough Sleeping Pathway is based on the 2017 government commitment to halve rough sleeping over the course of the parliament and eliminate it by 2027. It has three stages.
Stage One This is outreach work to identify and contact rough sleepers. Officers will make contact with rough sleepers and with their consent, offer temporary accommodation. The Council will carry out a homelessness assessment and work with the individual to create an action plan with objectives. These may be registering with health services and ensuring appropriate benefits are being claimed. The individual has the freedom to choose how they prioritise their objectives but they are asked to sign a behaviour contract.
Stage Two Once stage one objectives have been completed, stage two accommodation will be sourced for them. A new set of objectives will be drafted. The Council provides intense support to address challenges experienced by service users which they identified during stage one of the Pathway. This might include, but is not limited to, support with substance or alcohol misuse, access to counselling, education or employment training. The main objective of work at stage two is support an individual to return to meaningful community-based living.
Stage Three Once objectives at stage two have been met, the Council will look to identify and offer them longer term community-based accommodation. The Council continues to provide support for up to six months.
What happened Mr X told us that he suffered a number of traumatic experiences in his past which have affected his mental health.
In December 2019 Mr X approached the Council when he was sleeping rough. As Mr X had identification, benefits and access to healthcare he entered the rough sleeping pathway at stage two, being supported by Company A. The Council provided temporary accommodation at a homelessness shelter. It moved Mr X to alternative accommodation in January 2020.
In March, Company A raised concerns about some of Mr X’s behaviour and stated he was not engaging and wanted to be left alone. Mr X also asked how to make a complaint.
At the end of March 2020, because of the COVID 19 Pandemic, the Council closed the accommodation Mr X lived in. This followed government advice to close all shared living spaces. The Council moved all residents to other temporary accommodation. It says it decided where to move people on the basis of a risk assessment and their support needs. Mr X was considered low risk with low support needs.
Mr X was moved to a hotel which was near to where, in the past, Mr X had suffered traumatic experiences. The Council told us that alternative accommodation was in short supply because it had been forced to close accommodation with shared space due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although Mr X later considered the location was unreasonable, the Council told us welfare checks were being carried out daily by telephone and weekly face‑to‑face visits took place. The Council stated during these contacts Mr X did not raise concerns about the new placement, other than difficulty in washing clothes.
In April Mr X complained about Company A. I understand Mr X complained that staff from Company A were bullying and pushing him to engage with support staff and to pursue training that he did not consider appropriate.
In May the Council’s complaints team told officers dealing with Mr X no further action was required on Mr X’s complaint.
In June 2020 Mr X viewed and accepted a room in a shared house at stage three of the rough sleeping pathway. The Council funded his deposit and supported Mr X to move into this property at the end of June. It told us Mr X did not raise concerns about the property at that time. The Council also supported with food and agreed to fund and order a laptop for Mr X.
In August Mr X complained further about Company A’s approach. On 21 September Mr X told officers he no longer wished to be supported by the Council.
In October Mr X’s landlord contacted the Council with concerns over some of Mr X’s behaviour while he was drinking heavily. Mr X told council officers he was in a bad place. At a welfare visit Mr X declined a referral to the Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) but he later agreed to a referral for mental health support.
In November the Council’s complaints team told officers dealing with Mr X that there was no complaint to investigate.
When an officer called to carry out a welfare check in November, Mr X told them he had moved out of the shared property he lived in. He was now living with his mother. Mr X told the Council he had been diagnosed with depression, personality disorder, anxiety and paranoia. However, he did not agree with the diagnoses which he was pursuing with the mental health team. An officer assisted him to move his belongings out of the shared house. He also assisted Mr X to apply for social housing. Mr X presented as homeless because he considered the shared property was unsuitable.
In June 2021 the Council established that Mr X had not ended the tenancy in his shared house. The landlord confirmed Mr X had not been seen for some time. However, Mr X was still receiving benefits to pay his housing costs at the property. The Council says it advised Mr X to cancel this claim to avoid him being overpaid benefits.
I understand Mr X’s application to present as homeless and join the housing register was declined because he still had a tenancy and that Mr X is making a separate complaint about this.
Mr X’s complaint in 2021 Mr X complained that Company A’s approach had been to bully and abuse him. He considered his mental health had been ignored and the Council should not have placed Mr X in the town where traumatic events had occurred in his past. He stated this caused his mental health to worsen.
In February 2021 Mr X asked for his complaint to be escalated. The Council sent its final response to the complaint in May 2021.
As part of its response to the complaint the Council provided case notes showing contacts between Company A’s staff and Mr X carrying out welfare checks and providing support. I have not repeated the content of the case notes in this statement as they contain detailed information about Mr X’s circumstances.
Was there fault by the Council or Company A on its behalf The information the Council provided to me indicated Mr X had raised some concerns in 2019 about being pushed to engage and that he was bullied. I have not seen any formal response to these concerns. The Council says officers were told no further action was required. It is not clear why a formal response was not provided to Mr X at that time. On the basis of the information the Council provided to me it would appear there was a failure to provide a formal response, this was fault.
However, the issues were later responded to and the Council and Company A provided records and explained the support it had provided to Mr X. I recognise that Mr X may not have agreed with all the advice and support he was given by the Council or Company A on its behalf. I understand that he may have found contacts with staff difficult. However, I found that the encouragement to engage with support sessions, attend meetings and pursue opportunities was part of the Council’s programme to help support people out of homelessness and rough sleeping and to effect changes that would help them long term. There is no evidence the approach taken was bullying or abusive.
The Council should have responded in 2019, but I do not consider there is evidence of bullying, so the failure to respond did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.
I note that Mr X found the new placement in March 2020 difficult. However, government guidance dictated that all shared accommodation had to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is what prompted a move. I found no evidence Mr X raised concern at the time this accommodation was proposed or at welfare checks the Council continued to carry out. I do not consider the Council ignored any evidence that the placement would be harmful or inappropriate, so I do not have grounds to question their decision to move Mr X there.
I understand Mr X has struggled with his mental health during the period the Council supported him. However, I found no evidence to conclude the Council’s or Company A’s actions had been the cause of this. As a result, I intend to complete my investigation and close my file.
Final decision
There was a failure to respond properly to complaints raised in 2019. However, these have been addressed since. I do not consider the fault we identified caused Mr X a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman