The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s homelessness. It offered her suitable interim accommodation and was entitled to end its duty when she refused it.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness. In particular, she says the Council: failed to provide suitable interim accommodation wrongly ended its duty to provide interim accommodation when she refused an offer of unsuitable accommodation wrongly referred her to another council in a different area was rude and dismissive about her disabilities and made her recount distressing details of domestic abuse.
As a result, Ms X is living in her car and has experienced avoidable distress.
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 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) 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
I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Homelessness law and guidance Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
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, the 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) If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) The duty to provide interim accommodation will end if an applicant refuses an offer of interim accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.22) A council can refer applicants who do not have a local connection to their district to another housing authority in England where they do have such a connection. Before making a referral, a council must be satisfied the applicant is eligible and homeless and so owed the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996 s198 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 10.37) A person has local connection to the area where they are normally resident, work, or have close family association. Normal residence is usually defined as having lived somewhere for six of the last 12 months or three of the last five years. (Housing Act 1996 s199(1) and Homelessness Code of Guidance 10.7) What happened In late December 2023, Ms X approached the Council for help with housing. She said she could no longer live with family because of domestic abuse from her ex-partner and other relatives.
The Council had reason to believe Ms X was homeless and might be in priority need because of her physical health conditions. It identified a self-contained property which would be available the following day. It provided a room in a hotel for one night and invited Ms X to an appointment to sign up for the self-contained accommodation the following morning.
Ms X did not attend this appointment. In correspondence with the Council, Ms X expressed concerns that the property was unfurnished and so would be unsuitable. The Council offered a further appointment that afternoon. It said it would arrange to extend the hotel booking by a week to give Ms X time to source essential furniture. It explained it could refer Ms X to a local charity to help with this. The Council explained to Ms X that if she refused the accommodation, it would no longer have a duty to provide accommodation.
Ms X refused the interim accommodation. She told the Council she was living in her car.
In early January, the Council accepted the relief duty and referred Ms X to a different council because it decided she had no local connection to its area. The other council rejected this referral as it said Ms X had no local connection to its area either.
In January, Ms X complained to the Council. She said a housing officer had made discriminatory comments about her disabilities.
In late January, Ms X went to the Council’s offices in person to meet with a housing officer and a representative from adult social care. The Council asked Ms X about an incident she had reported to the police the night before. Ms X said she didn’t want to talk about it. The Council asked Ms X for basic details so it could support her. Ms X told the Council she had returned to her ex-partners house but was then physically assaulted. She said the police arrested him but he was released the same day, so she went back to sleeping in her car.
The officer told Ms X her complaint had been passed to the complaint team. The officer told Ms X she had asked about her disability to “try and accommodate her needs and progress her case as she had had to cancel several appointments due to ill health and not physically being able to get to the office.”
The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in February. It said there was no evidence the Council had discriminated against Ms X. It had sought to establish whether she was in priority need and how best to communicate with her.
My findings
I set out my findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.
Interim accommodation The records show the Council provided interim accommodation in a hotel as soon as Ms X said she needed it. The Council had identified self-contained accommodation for Ms X from the following day. Ms X chose not to take up this interim accommodation. There is nothing to suggest it was unsuitable in terms of location or size.
The Council recognised the lack of furnishings and white goods would make it difficult for Ms X to manage. It therefore agreed to extend the hotel booking and support Ms X to get the necessary furnishings before moving in.
There is no fault in the Council’s offers of interim accommodation.
Ended interim accommodation duty Ms X refused a suitable offer of interim accommodation. The Council provided Ms X with a further opportunity to sign up for this and explained the consequences if she refused. The Council was entitled to end its duty to provide interim accommodation and did not have to make any further offers. The Council was not at fault.
Referral to another council Ms X had not lived in the other council’s area for more than three years. She therefore did not have a local connection to it. However, there is no injustice to Ms X from this referral. It was refused by the other council and this Council continued to owe her the relief duty.
Officer conduct Ms X says an officer was rude and dismissive about her disability. The records show the Council asked Ms X for medical information to help it decide whether it had reason to believe she was in priority need. It also wanted to make sure it was communicating with Ms X in the ways that worked best for her.
In its response to her complaint, the Council acknowledged that Ms X found the way the Council raised this distressing. However, it was not fault.
The notes of the meeting in late January show Ms X did not want to talk about the domestic abuse incident the day before. However, it was not fault for the Council to ask Ms X for basic details so it could support her.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman