The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We found no fault on Mr B’s complaint about the Council failing to help him after it removed his vehicle from the public highway. The Council’s actions did not cause his homelessness. It correctly carried out a homeless assessment, decided it owed him the Relief Duty, and offered to refer him to support.
The complaint
Mr B complains the Council failed to help him when he became homeless after it took his vehicle: as a result, he was left to sleep rough in the open during winter despite being vulnerable because of his mental health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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) 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) When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
Relevant law and guidance 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.
Councils have to secure accommodation is available for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. It would then provide interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188 (1)) The law sets out which groups of applicants have a priority need for accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2) and the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2022). The categories include: a pregnant woman; someone with dependent children who lives with them; a person who is vulnerable because of old age, mental illness, learning disability or physical disability, or other special reason; If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, a council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18) Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. This is the Relief Duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. Applicants in priority need include victims of domestic abuse. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
Council Housing Allocations policy (August 2022) The Council uses a banding system to prioritise need. The bands range from A (the highest) to D (no particular need).
The banding system also takes account of the statutory requirements of reasonable preference categories and codes of guidance. This includes those who are homeless under the Housing Act 1996, Part VII and those owed a statutory duty under homelessness legislation.
Band C includes those in the following groups: homelessness prevention (those threatened with homelessness regardless of priority need); homelessness relief.
What I have not investigated I have not investigated: any complaint Mr B has against the Council before February 2023. This is because he complained to us in February 2024. The law says 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. Any complaint he has about the Council’s actions before February 2023 is, therefore, late; and any complaint he might have about the decision that he had no priority need. This is because he had the right to ask for a review of it and if he remained dissatisfied, he could have challenged it through the courts.
How I considered this complaint
I considered all the information Mr B sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr B and the Council. I considered Mr B’s response.
What I found
Mr B had a vehicle which he claimed he lived in until the Council removed it from the public highway. He said he then slept rough for three weeks in local woods during a period when he struggled with his mental health and stormy weather. He complained the Council gave him no help after making him homeless.
What happened In October 2023, the Council received a report of an abandoned vehicle on a public highway.
The following month, officers from its Greenspace Action Team (GAT) visited with the Rough Sleepers’ Team and took photographs of the vehicle, copies of which I have seen. They found no evidence of anyone living in it. Its tax and MOT had expired several years before.
The Council heard nothing from Mr B until November when he wanted to update his housing register application. The records show he told the Council he started living in the vehicle that month after sofa surfing for several years. He also explained what medication he took and had no allocated mental health worker.
In December, GAT sent Mr B a letter about the vehicle. A week later, Mr B emailed the Council saying he had called as the vehicle was not abandoned. He was waiting for a part for the engine and said he visited the vehicle every day.
The Council replied noting it had not been taxed since 2020 and had no MOT since 2017. This meant it was not allowed to legally park on the highway. It told him officers had placed an Abandoned Vehicle Notice on the vehicle and caravan. The notice warned the Council would remove the vehicle within 15 days.
Towards the end of December, an officer called and emailed Mr B asking him to return his call.
In January 2024, he contacted the Council about his housing account logging in and was advised to make a new housing register application. There was nothing in the records showing he told the Council he was homeless at this point. He told the Council he was still waiting for an engine part and claimed the caravan was not his.
Officers from GAT again visited the vehicle a few days later. This was after a report of someone dismantling a caravan in front of the vehicle. Officers visited and spoke to Mr B who said he was trying to find a battery for the vehicle. Officers went inside the vehicle and noted the bed appeared unused. Mr B told officers he was living round the corner with a friend and wanted to repair the vehicle and go travelling in it. Officers told him the Notice period had passed and they could remove his vehicle. He was given six days to move it. He failed to do so.
The Council confirmed there was no reason to consider Mr B would be made homeless after its removal. Its Rough Sleepers’ Team tried to confirm its use as a place to sleep but could not do so after visiting and making enquiries in the area.
An email from one officer to another officer set out the recollection of visits to the vehicle and to neighbours. During visits, nobody was in the vehicle and neighbours said nobody slept in it. Neighbours told officers Mr B only visited it every now and then to run its engine before leaving.
After seven days passed, officers instructed recovery agents to remove the vehicle. The records show the vehicle was placed into storage and he was sent a letter explaining what he had to pay for its return.
Mr B contacted officers who said while he wanted help, he did not want to live in a house or flat. Records show him saying he did not know where he would sleep that night, but it would likely be in the open.
A week after its removal, Housing Solutions Service offered to contact him to assess his homelessness and any duties owed. Mr B refused to say where was sleeping when the Council explained it needed to confirm his claims. He was asked to provide supporting information. Mr B did not want a referral to the Rough Sleepers’ Team.
The Council received some information, but no documentary evidence, from Mr B about his health problems. He gave contact details for his mental health worker who said he was not under anyone at that time and nor had he been.
In February, the Council accepted it owed him a duty to help him take reasonable steps over the following 56 days to secure accommodation. This was the Relief Duty. It sent him his Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) which set out what he had to do. It decided he did not have a priority need. This meant it did not need to provide interim accommodation for him. He was awarded Band C under its housing allocation scheme.
An officer called Mr B, leaving a message about the mental health service having no record of him. He was also told about the need to engage with the Council and to call the officer back.
Mr B began to bid for accommodation advertised under the Council’s allocation scheme.
The Council spoke to Mr B as he previously gave the wrong email address for correspondence which was why emails to him were returned undelivered. He again did not want the Rough Sleepers’ Team involved. Nor would he share his location.
Mr B told the Council he had a new doctor but refused to give the GP consent to speak to them. He has since given consent.
The Council sent him the Relief Duty letter again by email. It also confirmed he was in Band C. This band is for those who are homeless but, where the Council does not owe a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
In March, the Council contacted Mr B as it was still waiting for his GP to respond to its query and asked if he could chase them about it.
The Council was unable to verify he was a rough sleeper, and he would not agree to a referral to the Rough Sleepers Team. It is trying to gather more information from his GP to check nothing was missed when it decided he had no priority need.
Mr B has since paid for the recovery of the vehicle which he has now sold.
My findings
I found no fault on this complaint for the following reasons: Mr B’s main argument was the Council made him homeless after removing the vehicle he slept in.
On balance, I am satisfied this was not the case. There was no evidence Mr B was sleeping in his vehicle at the point of its removal. Visiting officers saw no evidence of him sleeping in it. Neighbours told them Mr B was not sleeping in it. Mr B told officers he visited the vehicle every day but did not say he was sleeping in it. Visiting the vehicle daily was evidence of him sleeping elsewhere, not in the vehicle. In support of this conclusion was his own statement to officers when he said he was ‘living around the corner’.
The Council carried out an initial assessment of Mr B following his online homeless application. It decided promptly, on the evidence and information it had, that it owed him the Relief Duty and there was not enough information to conclude he had a priority need. The Council confirmed this decision to Mr B shortly after making its inquiries.
When reaching its decision, the Council took account of the following factors: Mr B’s refusal to tell, or show, the Council exactly where he was rough sleeping.
His initial refusal to allow his GP to disclose information to it.
Information from the mental health services confirmed he was not receiving help at that time, and nor had he before.
I note the Council tried to help Mr B by suggesting he agree to it making a referral to the Rough Sleepers’ Team, which he refused to allow.
I also note the Council is still waiting for information from his new GP after he agreed the GP could disclose information to the Council. It is looking at whether it missed any information when it reached its decision.
Final decision
I found no fault on Mr B’s complaint about the Council.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman