Agenda item

This report provides details of a complaint raised about the Council which was upheld and fault and injustice was found.

Purpose of report

To consider the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) Findings Report which provided details of a complaint raised about the Council which was upheld and fault and injustice found.

Decision

That Cabinet had confidence that officers always dealt with homelessness issues with compassion, care and justice. It had seen no evidence that officers had acted inappropriately in this case or that their judgment was flawed.

Having considered the report presented by the Ombudsman and the evidence presented by officers, Cabinet resolved that no further action be taken and they endorsed the considerations with regard to the complaint.

Alternative options considered and rejected

There were no other options available as Cabinet was required to discuss the findings and recommendations of the LGO

Reasons for the decision

Through this homelessness complaint the Ombudsman found fault and injustice on the part of the Council. SKDC did not agree with all findings/ recommendations, which were:

1. Apologise to Mr B for the lack of accommodation and the distress this caused him in early 2024;
2. Pay Mr B £875 to recognise the lack of that accommodation;
3. Pay Mr B a further £300 to recognise the added distress caused by him being avoidably street homeless during that time.
4. Remind its homelessness staff of the correct test and threshold for the interim accommodation duty, in particular that the threshold for this is a low one;
5. Review its standard homelessness letters to ensure these comply with the requirements of the Housing Act 1996, in particular about explanations of review and appeal rights; and
6. Remind its homelessness staff of the requirements for homelessness decisions including when these should be made and what such decisions must contain.

The Council had actioned recommendations 5 and 6. However, it had not taken action on recommendations 1- 4 because it believed the correct test had in fact been applied. The team understood the threshold for interim duty accommodation was low, but a review of the information provided as part of the homelessness application determined the criteria for the provision of temporary accommodation was not met.

As the Council had not accepted all LGO recommendations, the LGO had now issued a report under section 30 of the Local Government Act 1974 which required the Council to:

1. Share the draft report with the Council’s Chief Executive or equivalent, and relevant members or officers;
2. Place two public announcements in local newspapers and/or newspaper websites;
3. Make the report available free of charge at one or more of its offices;
4. Discuss the findings and recommendations at a high decision-making level, such as Full Council or Cabinet, after the publication of the report; and
5. Formally report back to the LGO the Council’s intended course of action.

The Council had satisfied points 1 – 3. Presenting this report satisfied point 4 as Cabinet were asked to discuss the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman and to direct officers regarding any actions to be taken.

The financial implications of accepting the findings of the LGO were very small; however, any precedent set would be more important.

The following points were highlighted during debate:

• When Mr B first contacted the Council, he would have been given an extensive vulnerability questionnaire. This contained a multitude of questions, with topics covering management of medical needs and independence, mobility issues, medical treatments, washing and dressing etc. This enabled officers to decide whether there was ‘priority need’.
• The Homelessness Code of Guidance required housing authorities to provide temporary accommodation if they had reason to believe the applicant may:

a. Be homelessness

b. Be eligible for assistance; and,

c. Have a priority need.

It was decided Mr B did not satisfy the third criteria. Under the Code an officer had to assess whether the person was significantly more vulnerable than an ‘ordinary’ person. Mr B had a mild mental health issue, managed by medication. He also had digestive issue dealt with through diet. As such, these issues did not make him any more vulnerable than other people registering as homeless.

• At that point officers did not feel there was a priority need. Mr B was in full-time employment and could manage his affairs, so it was judged that the impact of medical issues did not equate to priority need.
• There was a responsibility to Mr B to ensure he was treated fairly, but also a public duty to the other 147,000 residents of South Kesteven to make sure their money was used wisely.
• The LGO seemed to have accepted the assertions of the complainant without evidence. At a hospital stay he claimed he was told his health was being affected by sleeping in his car. However, hospital records appeared to indicate he had not been admitted to hospital – there was no mention that the hospital had reported that sleeping in a car had affected his health.
• Mr B’s ‘hospital stay’ was less than 3 hours. During that time he had various tests and left hospital without treatment or medication, and no follow up was required. The hospital record provided to the Council made no mention of ill-health caused by being homeless.
• SKDC had never argued or gone against an LGO report in recent memory. This report did not seem to have taken account of evidence produced and could set a precedent of admitting fault when the Council believed there was none. If SKDC followed all the LGO recommendations, they could end up having to treat everyone as priority need which was not possible.
• Very few housing cases were referred to the LGO, a record of which the Council was proud.
• LGO recommendations could not be enforced. The LGO could issue their report again and SKDC could be asked to put an article relating to the case in a local newspaper.
• Mr B was offered a referral to hostel accommodation in Grantham, which he declined. He was also offered advice and guidance on the Council’s rent deposit scheme and was sent details of affordable private rented accommodation in his preferred areas. He declined to consider shared accommodation even though this had been assessed as a suitable and affordable option for him. He was supported to apply to the Housing Register and encouraged to bid on as many suitable properties as he could. He limited requirements to a small, high demand area and a specific type of property.
• When the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) was implemented in January 2024, SKDC offered Mr B 4 nights’ accommodation at its night shelter. Night patrols went to the location where he said his car was parked but never found him.
• This wasn’t a decision that officers took lightly. It had been reviewed by multiple officers. The Head of Service (Housing) and Homelessness and Rough Sleeper Manager had discussed this with neighbouring authorities who all agreed with the decision taken at the time.
• Officers were not mental health or medical professionals and were not pretending to be. They tried to assess the impact that a person’s condition had on their ability to fend for themselves, all the time balancing moral obligations and the public purse against relevant legislation.
• Mr B was no longer homeless and was housed in private rented accommodation.
• Where additional accommodation was available to those persons who were not deemed priority need it would be offered to them.