The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide her with sufficient help in finding suitable accommodation since she presented as homeless. Miss X complained the Council has provided unsuitable temporary accommodation where she has experienced anti-social behaviour and threats from other residents and it is unsafe for her to return. The Council’s failure to review whether Property 1 was, and remained, suitable accommodation for Miss X is fault. As is the failure to properly inform Miss X of the withdrawal of the decision to end the homeless duty towards her and the subsequent decision to re-accept this duty and the implications of this. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X complained the Council has failed to provide her with sufficient help in finding suitable accommodation since she presented as homeless. Miss X complained the Council has provided unsuitable temporary accommodation where she has experienced anti-social behaviour and threats from other residents and it is unsafe for her to return. As a result she has been staying in hotels. Miss X is unable to continue to fund this.
Miss X also complains that Council officers regularly do not return her calls or hang up on her.
What I have investigated I have investigated the Council’s actions and events since January 2021.
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) 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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended 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)
How I considered this complaint
As part of the investigation, I have: considered the complaint and the documents provided by Miss X; made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided; Miss 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
Homelessness 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.
If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for them. I will refer to this as the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39) The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) Homeless applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer. Applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193).
What happened here Miss X presented as homeless in August 2018. The Council accepted her application and provided temporary accommodation. The Council then accepted a main housing duty in January 2020 and continued to provide temporary accommodation.
In November 2020, following an incident at the temporary accommodation, the Council provided alternative temporary accommodation at Property 1. Property 1 is a six-bedroom, female only, House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). Miss X has her own bedroom on the ground floor and shares the kitchen and bathroom facilities.
Miss X complains that this accommodation is unsuitable. In January 2021 Miss X raised concerns about intimidation and anti-social behaviour from another resident at Property 1 and told the Council she did not feel safe there. She said this was affecting on her mental health.
The accommodation provider also contacted the Council regarding Miss X’s behaviour and the impact this was having on other residents and staff. They suggested Miss X was not equipped to live in shared accommodation and asked the Council to remove her by 29 January 2021. On 21 January 2021 the accommodation provider served Miss X with a final warning notice to cease any anti-social behaviour. It advised that if Miss X failed to comply with the notice, it would issue an eviction notice.
On 28 January 2021 the Council offered Miss X accommodation in the private rental sector to discharge its homeless duty. It advised Miss X that it considered the accommodation was suitable and reasonable for her to accept and that its duty to house Miss X would end whether she accepted or rejected the accommodation.
Miss X rejected the accommodation on the basis it had a bedsitting room, was too small, and did not have a bath. The Council did not accept Miss X’s reasons for refusing the accommodation. It stated it was a self-contained studio flat of sufficient size for Miss X’s household and that a bath was a preference, rather than a necessity. The Council advised Miss X it had discharged its duty and would close her homeless application. It also informed Miss X of her right to request a review of this decision.
The Council’s records show that Miss X’s social worker contacted the Council in early March 2021 to discuss her housing situation. They noted Miss X would be homeless at the end of the week. Following a meeting with the social worker the Council wrote to Miss X withdrawing its decision to end the housing duty. It advised it would reconsider this decision once an assessment of Miss X’s needs, mental health and capacity had been carried out.
In addition, the Council confirmed that in the meantime it would continue to provide the temporary accommodation at Property 1. Miss X told the Council she had recently been assaulted at Property 1 by a resident who had also assaulted her in the past. She stated the police were involved and there was CCTV footage of the incident. Miss X asked the Council to move her to alternative temporary accommodation.
The Council contacted the accommodation provider regarding the incident who confirmed they had spoken to the police and provided the CCTV footage requested. They said they had checked the CCTV and could not see an assault during the timeframe provided by the police but could see Miss X shouting abuse up the stairs to another resident.
In April 2021 the accommodation provider informed the Council Miss X had physically attacked another resident and the police had attended. The accommodation provider asked the Council to rehouse Miss X. The Council’s records show it received further allegations and counter allegations regarding assault and harassment between Miss X and other residents.
A multi-agency professionals meeting took place in late April 2021. The notes of this meeting record there was a discussion regarding Miss X’s accommodation, and it was raised that Property 1 may not be suitable.
The social care needs assessment was completed in May 2021 and identified Miss X has struggled to make more complex decisions regarding her housing. The offer of permanent accommodation was made by telephone and email which Miss X struggled to engage with. Miss X was much more able to deal with decisions and interactions with professionals face to face rather than by telephone or email.
Having considered the care assessment, the Council determined that although the accommodation offered in January 2021 was suitable, the way it was offered was not. It would therefore make one further offer of accommodation. I have not received any evidence the Council informed Miss X of this decision.
In July 2021 Miss X told the Council she had stayed in a hotel for a couple of nights as she was not able to cope with a resident who had recently returned to Property 1. The Council provided Miss X with her housing register log on details so that she could bid on permanent accommodation. Miss X continued to fund hotel accommodation rather than return to Property 1.
In December 2021 Miss X wrote to the Council asserting it had failed to keep her safe from harm and that she had had to fund a hotel as a place of safety. There is no record the Council responded to Miss X’s concerns.
According to the Council’s records Miss X contacted the Council again in March 2022 as she could no longer afford to stay in the hotel and would need to leave. The accommodation provider also informed the Council that Miss X had indicated she would shortly return to Property 1. Council officers were unwilling to speak with Miss X on the telephone as she was live streaming their calls.
The Council wrote to Miss X advising her that she did not have the consent of the Council or council officers to live stream or otherwise record them and that she must stop with immediate effect. It also asked Miss X to remove the videos and recordings from the social media platform.
Miss X considered the Council was acting unlawfully in terminating her calls. She asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. Miss X felt the police and the Council had been working together and withholding services. She complained she had been given shared temporary accommodation where she was assaulted; physically and verbally attacked; suffered vandalism and theft; and had her bedroom window smashed. Miss X is a vulnerable adult and complained the Council had not provided her with any support. She stated a social worker had offered her a one-bedroom flat, but this had never manifested.
We referred the complaint to the Council to investigate under its own complaints procedure. The Council investigate Miss X’s complains and wrote to her in early May 2022. It disputed that services had not worked together to support her and confirmed it has liaised with adult social care services and the police.
It noted that although Miss X had chosen not to stay at Property 1, the placement had remained open to her throughout out. The Council considered Property 1 was a suitable and reasonable offer of accommodation until longer term accommodation could be found.
The Council acknowledged Miss X would prefer self-contained one bedroom accommodation, rather than shared accommodation, but there were limited options available. It confirmed it would not be arranging alternative temporary accommodation for Miss X. The Council also noted it was Miss X’s responsibility to ensure she was bidding on available properties on the housing register.
It also stated adult social care had advised the Council they had not offered Miss X housing, but did attempt to offer supported accommodation, which Miss X declined.
In relation to Miss X’s reports of assault and abuse, the Council confirmed there was no CCTV evidence to substantiate her allegations, but the police had been informed and recorded her reports. The Council noted the outside of the double-glazed pane of Miss X’s window was cracked, but there was no evidence the window was smashed as part of an attack or assault. In addition, the Council confirmed there had been some changes in terms of the residents staying at Property 1. It therefore hoped Miss X’s previous concerns would no longer apply.
Miss X disagreed with the Council’s response and asked for her complaint to be reviewed. Miss X maintained that as an individual with complex needs, she should not have been placed in temporary accommodation and the Council should have provided her with a safe space.
The Council investigated Miss X’s complaint at stage two of its complaint process and responded in late June 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding.
It stated emergency accommodation was always a last resort and that all applicants who are placed in emergency accommodation are considered vulnerable for some reason. The Council completes a detailed risk assessment to establish an applicant’s needs and the type of accommodation they would require.
The Council also noted that where it accepts a duty to an applicant, they have a right to request a review of the suitability of their placement within 21 days of the offer of accommodation being made.
It acknowledged temporary accommodation can be challenging and that issues can arise. The Council maintained Property 1 was a suitable and reasonable offer of accommodation.
The Council also reiterated that Miss X did not have the Council or council officers consent to live stream or otherwise record conversations with them. It considered an officer was within their rights to end the call with Miss X.
In relation to the housing register, the Council acknowledged there was high demand and low supply and that the wait could be considerable. It advised Miss X it was vital she bid on all suitable properties advertised. The Council noted it had advertised 69 one-bedroom properties since it accepted a homeless duty to Miss X in January 2020, but Miss X had not placed any bids.
As Miss X remains dissatisfied, she has again asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. Miss X says she is still too scared and traumatised to return to Property 1 but in any event the locks have been changed so she would not be able to get in. Miss X is currently staying at her partner’s friend’s property, but this is not a long-term option.
In response to my enquiries the Council states the accommodation providers do weekly checks at Property 1 and have been very pro-active with regards to any issues raised. Where necessary the police have been called. The Council states Miss X has caused issues with other residents in the past and residents have moved out because of her behaviour. It states the accommodation team has liaised closely with Miss X’s housing manger to manage the placement and to maintain Miss X’s mental health in the accommodation. The Council asserts Miss X has not been pro-active in engaging with its partners who are open to supporting her.
The Council would encourage Miss X to bid on social housing properties to increase her housing options, and could set up assisted bidding if this would help Miss X.
Analysis Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review and to respond to relevant changes in circumstances which may affect the suitability.
Miss X has repeatedly complained that the accommodation at Property 1 was unsuitable and not safe for her to occupy. The Council maintains the accommodation is suitable, but there are no records of how it reached this decision or how it was reviewed.
The documentation provided shows that other agencies questioned the suitability of shared accommodation and whether Miss X could cope in this type of accommodation. There is no record of whether, or if so how, the Council determined shared accommodation was suitable for Miss X, taking account of Miss X’s specific needs and medical conditions.
Nor is there any evidence the Council reviewed the suitability of the accommodation when Miss X informed officers she had been assaulted or that she had left the accommodation for her own safety and was staying in a hotel.
The Council notes that Miss X had review rights about the suitability of the temporary accommodation but did not exercise them. We usually expect people to use this route if it is available to them. But to do so they must be aware of them.
The Council notified Miss X of her right to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation when it accepted a housing duty in January 2020. It has not provided evidence of the information it provided when it offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation at Property 1 in November 2020. It is unclear whether Miss X was informed of her right to request a review of this accommodation.
There is also a lack of clarity in the Council’s communication with Miss X regarding the implications of the Council withdrawing its decision to discharge the homeless duty in March 2021 and then re accepting it owed her this duty in June 2021.
The Council’s letter in March 2021 advises Miss X it has withdrawn the decision to end the duty to allow for an assessment of her mental health and capacity in relation to decisions about her housing. It also confirmed it still had a duty to provide Miss X with temporary accommodation until a new decision had been made. But does not expressly state it continues to owe her a homeless duty or refer to any rights associated with this duty.
It is also of concern that although the Council advised Miss X’s social worker in June 2021 that it had reinstated the homeless duty, there is no record it informed Miss X of this, or what this would mean. Nor did it advise her of her rights of review arising from this new decision.
I consider the failure to review whether Property 1 was, and remained, suitable accommodation for Miss X is fault. As is the failure to properly inform Miss X of the withdrawal of the decision to end the homeless duty towards her and the subsequent decision to re-accept this duty and the implications of this.
I do not however consider it was fault for the Council to refuse to accept or continue with calls from Miss X which she live-streamed or recorded and potentially shared later. It was appropriate for the Council to write to Miss X asking her to stop the streaming and to remove this content from her social media account.
This failure to review the suitability of Property 1 has caused Miss X unnecessary distress and uncertainty. I do not intend to speculate on what the outcome of the review would have been. Irrespective of the outcome, a properly conducted review, which set out the reasons for the decision, could have reassured Miss X that her safety concerns, personal circumstances and the suitability of shared accommodation had been considered.
Agreed action
The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £250 to recognise the distress and uncertainty she has experienced, and the time and trouble she has been put to as a result of the Council’s failings.
The Council has agreed to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation provided to Miss X. It has arranged for an independent review by another local authority. The Council will notify Miss X of the outcome of this review in writing, setting out the reasons for its decision.
If the review determines Property 1 is not suitable the Council will consider the impact being deprived of suitable accommodation has had on Miss X and take appropriate action to redress this.
The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint.
Final decision
The failure to review whether Property 1 was, and remained, suitable accommodation for Miss X is fault. As is the failure to properly inform Miss X of the withdrawal of the decision to end the homeless duty towards her and the subsequent decision to re-accept this duty and the implications of this. This fault has caused Miss X an injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman