The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate housing support to her adult son Mr Y, a care leaver. The Council was at fault when it delayed reviewing the decision Mr Y was intentionally homeless, failed to offer him temporary accommodation and failed to support him with accessing other housing authorities. This caused Miss X and Mr Y uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and write setting out his options. It has also agreed to remind staff of the need to keep accurate records and of the need to work cooperatively to address the housing needs of care leavers.
The complaint
Miss X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate housing support to her son Mr Y who is a young adult. She says it delayed reviewing its decision to end its housing duty when he refused an offer of accommodation and evicted him during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, it failed to support him to find accommodation in another council’s area. This left Mr Y ‘sofa surfing’, which has impacted on his mental health.
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) When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
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 have considered the information provided by Miss X. I have considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.
What I found
The Council has duties under the Children Act 1989 (‘The Act’) and Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 to support care leavers. The aim is to make sure care leavers are provided with comprehensive personal support so that they achieve their potential as they make their transition to adulthood.
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 occupation by the applicant’. Generally, the Council carries out the duty by arranging temporary accommodation until it makes a suitable offer of social housing or private rented accommodation (Housing Act 1996, section 193) There is a right to request a review of the suitability of any accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty (Housing Act 1996, section 202) Section 213 of the Housing Act 1996 provides for co-operation between councils. A council can ask another council to assist them in the discharge of their functions under the Housing Act. The council to whom the request is made must co-operate in providing such assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances.
What happened Mr Y suffers with anxiety and has autism and learning difficulties. In 2017 the Council placed Mr Y in temporary accommodation after he left care when he turned 18. Mr Y has a personal assistant (PA) from the County Council’s care leavers’ team and his mother, Miss X, is his financial appointee.
In 2018 the Council offered to house Mr Y permanently in his temporary accommodation. Mr Y was unsure whether he wished to remain living in the Council’s area and did not want to make a decision on the accommodation. Mr Y wanted to live in a different council’s area, but the notes record he did not want the Council to make a referral to another council unless it could guarantee the property he would be offered was what he wanted. The Council was unable to guarantee that. Mr Y continued to live in the temporary accommodation.
In June 2019 the Council spoke with Mr Y’s PA who advised Mr Y was having difficulties at the property with his neighbours and with his girlfriend who appeared to be staying there. In September 2019 Mr Y told the Council he did not want to remain in the property and wanted support to find a property in another council’s area. The notes record Mr Y said it was affecting his mental health, he did not have a good relationship with neighbours and felt isolated. The Council officer noted ‘maybe some partnership working is needed to find the most appropriate option for [Mr Y]’. I have seen no evidence the Council took any action to address Mr Y’s concerns at this point.
In April 2020 an officer from the Council’s Housing Options Team contacted Mr Y’s PA. They noted the Council still owed Mr Y a full homeless duty and Mr Y had said the current accommodation was unsuitable. The officer met with Mr Y and following the meeting bid on a property which Mr Y and his PA were aware of. Mr Y viewed the property but decided to refuse it. The Council explained if he refused it, it would discharge its homelessness duty and he would be given notice to leave the temporary accommodation. Mr Y continued to live in the temporary accommodation. Miss X says on police advice Mr Y later stayed away from the property for a few weeks due to anti-social behaviour.
The Council wrote to Mr Y in September 2020 ending its homelessness duty as he had refused a suitable offer of accommodation. It explained he had the right to accept, move in and seek a review of the offer. The letter also explained the Council was satisfied Mr Y ‘was fully aware that the consequences of refusing the offer would be that the duty we owed you, including our duty to provide temporary accommodation, would end’. The letter set out Mr Y’s right to request a review. At the time the Council understood another council was carrying out a homeless assessment of Mr Y although it says this did not progress due to Mr Y’s non-engagement.
In October 2020 Mr Y’s PA contacted the Council. They said the police had been involved regarding threats to Mr Y and they considered Mr Y should no longer live in the Council’s area. The Council advised the PA that Mr Y could make a homeless approach to a neighbouring council or request a review of the decision to discharge the duty. If the appeal was upheld the Council could make a s213 referral to another council. The Council says the officer explained Mr Y could request temporary accommodation pending the review though this is not recorded in the notes. The PA submitted a review request to the Council.
Also in October 2020, the Council contacted Mr Y to advise him he had to leave his temporary accommodation. It noted Mr Y had not been living at the property but his ‘on-off girlfriend’ was staying there. Miss X says this was due to anti-social behaviour from his neighbours, which meant Mr Y did not feel safe there. Mr Y’s licence to live at the property ended in October 2020.
Miss X complained to the Council in April 2021 about the decision to evict Mr Y from his temporary accommodation and about the delay in completing the review of the decision.
The Council responded to Miss X in May 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said officers had agreed to help Mr Y resolve his housing situation and would contact his personal assistant.
In May 2021 the Council completed the review and overturned its decision that Mr X was intentionally homeless. It has been unable to provide me with a copy of the review decision. The reviewing officer emailed Mr Y’s personal assistant and the newly appointed manager in the homelessness service. They advised they had overturned the decision that Mr Y was intentionally homeless and asked the manager to do their best to resolve the situation. In the email they stated ‘we all know how long it can take care leavers to settle down once they leave the care system and I am worried [Mr Y] could be in a similar situation unless we take a step back and develop a plan to get his issues resolved. They suggested the manager liaise with Mr Y’s PA and with another officer who ‘will also be able to advise on referrals out of area etc’.
In June 2021 the manager exchanged emails with Mr Y’s personal assistant. The PA advised Mr Y did not want to live in the Council’s area. They explained other authorities kept pushing him back to the Council as it owed him the main homelessness duty and asked how best they could get Mr Y taken seriously outside of area. The manager advised Mr Y to withdraw his homeless application if he wanted to approach other authorities as homeless.
The Council wrote to Miss X in July 2021 in response to her complaint. It: set out the history to the point the temporary accommodation ended in October 2020; confirmed Mr Y was aware he could ask for a review of its decision to end the main homelessness duty and it said he was aware he could ask for the temporary accommodation to be extended pending the review decision; said it understood Mr Y had approached another council area for assistance but did not find out until later that this had not progressed and the other council did not contact it formally; accepted the review of the decision to end the homelessness duty took longer than it should have, for which it apologised; and accepted it had agreed to assist with Mr Y’s housing situation and with accessing support from other authorities following the review but did not follow this up. The Council noted that, as it had overturned its decision, it still owed Mr Y a homelessness duty but that Mr Y did not want to live in the Council’s area. It said Mr Y could not have two parallel homeless applications with two authorities. It said Mr Y could consider the options available in the Council’s area or could withdraw his application and apply elsewhere. It added if Mr Y was currently homeless he could request temporary accommodation.
The Council says Mr Y did not contact it again after June 2021 when it liaised with his personal assistant and Mr Y has not withdrawn his homeless application.
Findings
The Council first offered to make Mr Y’s temporary accommodation his permanent offer in 2018. Mr Y did not make a decision about this and the Council let the situation drift. This was fault. In 2019 an officer noted Mr Y’s case potentially needed partnership working to find the most appropriate accommodation for Mr Y. I have seen no evidence this happened. This was fault. However, as Mr Y was housed at the time I cannot say this caused a significant injustice.
In 2019 Mr Y had issues at the temporary accommodation and raised his concerns with the Council. There is no evidence the Council considered whether this was still suitable accommodation or explained to Mr Y he could request a review of its suitability. This was fault. There is no evidence it took action to address the concerns about his neighbours, including any anti-social behaviour. This was fault.
There is no evidence the Council sought to work in partnership with another council to try and resolve Mr X’s housing situation. This was fault. I cannot say these steps would have changed the outcome, but Miss X and Mr Y are left with uncertainty about whether Mr Y’s housing situation could have been resolved sooner if the Council had been more proactive.
Mr Y’s personal assistant requested a review of the Council’s decision to end it homeless duty in October 2020. This was not completed until May 2021. This took significantly longer than the statutory timescales of eight weeks and was fault.
Mr Y has been without temporary accommodation since October 2020. Miss X says he has been staying between friends and this has been particularly difficult during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Mr Y repeatedly stated he does not want to live in the Council’s area. In its response to Miss X’s complaint, in July 2021, the Council set out it was open to Mr Y to request temporary accommodation now and he has not done so. I therefore cannot say with any certainty that Mr Y would have accepted temporary accommodation from the Council had it been offered sooner.
After it overturned the decision that Mr Y was intentionally homeless, the Council failed to properly explain the options open to Mr Y. The reviewing officer had suggested the involvement of a colleague to consider whether a referral to another authority was appropriate and there is no evidence this was followed up. This was fault. The Council was aware Mr Y had approached another council for assistance but made no attempt to follow this up or to work with the other council to ensure Mr Y was housed. Given Mr Y’s status as a care leaver I would have expected the Council to have taken a more proactive approach to addressing his housing needs and it did not do so.
Even so, I cannot say with any certainty whether Mr Y would have engaged with the Council to address his housing needs.
The Council delayed responding to Miss X’s complaint. This was fault. The Council apologised to Miss X and offered assurance complaints and reviews were now being dealt with in line with legal and policy timeframes following a restructure and recruitment. This was appropriate.
Agreed action
Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to: apologise to Miss X and Mr Y for the uncertainty and confusion caused by its delays and failure to communicate clearly with Mr Y; remind relevant staff of the need to keep accurate records of discussions and of review decisions; remind relevant staff of the need to work cooperatively with other councils to ensure it meets its responsibilities as a housing authority to care leavers; write to Mr Y setting out the current position on his homeless application, his options for temporary accommodation and how and when the Council could or would make a referral to another authority for its assistance with housing Mr Y.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice and to service improvements to prevent recurrence of the faults.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman