South Kesteven District Council reacts to ombudsman criticism of homelessness case
A defiant council still insists it did nothing wrong in a homelessness case — and has refused to carry out some of the steps suggested to ‘remedy’ the matter.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) issued a report in August which found ‘fault and injustice’ with how South Kesteven District Council dealt with the case of a man who, according to the LGO report, was left homeless for about two and a half months, and was sleeping in his car.
The LGO upheld the complaint and issued six recommendations to the district council to ‘remedy’ the injustice - but the local authority disagrees with the verdict and has refused to apologise to the person in question.
The homeless person was referred to throughout the council's cabinet meeting on October 7 as Mr B.
The first recommendation was to apologise to Mr B for the lack of accommodation and the distress this caused him in early 2024.
The second was to pay him £875 for the lack of accommodation.
The third recommendation was to pay Mr B a further £300 to recognise the added distress caused by him being avoidably homeless during that time.
The district council was also asked to remind its homelessness staff of the correct procedures for temporary accommodation.
The fifth recommendation was that the council reviewed its homelessness letters to ensure that they complied with the Housing Act 2006.
The final recommendation was to remind the council’s homeless staff of the requirements for homelessness decisions.
But the district council said it has not actioned the first four recommendations because it still believes that the correct procedures were followed.
The LGO has issued a new set of recommendations to the district council after it refused to accept all of them.
The first was to share a draft report into the matter with the council’s chief executive and relevant officers.
The second recommendation was to place two public announcements in local newspapers and their websites.
It also recommended that the report is made available free of charge at one or more of its offices.
The fourth recommendation was that the matter should be discussed at a full council or cabinet meeting.
The fifth recommendation was to report back to the LGO on its planned course of action.
The district council said it had actioned all but the fifth recommendation, which it planned to do after the meeting, but does not accept that it was at fault.
Coun Philip Knowles (Independent), cabinet member for corporate government and licensing, said the council was “required to discuss the findings and recommendations” and direct “action to be taken, if appropriate”.
“The ombudsman found fault and injustice from the council during the course of studying this complaint,” he said.
He added: “So, having reviewed the evidence, the medical requirements and the visit to hospital of the complainant we see no reason to believe the complainant was significantly more vulnerable than any other homeless persons.
“The council decided that was not the case and have confirmed that decision.”
Coun Virginia Moran (Independent), cabinet member for housing, said: “When the gentleman first applied as a homeless person, he will have been given a vulnerability questionnaire.”
This questionnaire asks a “multitude of questions” about medical needs, mobility issues, whether they’re able to prepare their own meals or wash and dress.
“It’s a very comprehensive assessment and it is from that that the officer will decide whether there is any priority need,” said Coun Moran. “Through this vulnerability test it was decided he didn’t have any priority need.”
Coun Moran said council officers had to assess if the person was “significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person, if made homeless”.
She said this person had a “mild mental health issue which were being successfully managed by medication".
She added: “There is no mention in the hospital record that anything that was wrong with him was caused by the fact that he was homeless.”
Coun Moran went onto say that the man was sent details of private rented properties in his preferred areas but he “declined to consider” sharing even though the council assessed this as a “suitable and affordable option”.
When it was “severely cold” he was provided with four nights of accommodation at the council’s night shelter.
“He did say he was sleeping in his car. Our night patrols went to the location where he said his car was parked but never found him and they tried on several occasions,” said Coun Moran.
Deeping St James ward member Phil Dilks (Independent) said he didn’t believe that the council had done anything wrong.
He said: “Mistakes sometimes happen. We don’t always get everything right and when we get it wrong I think we should hold our hands up, make amends and learn the lessons.
“In this case I do not believe that our professional officers got this wrong. We have a responsibility, clearly, to the complainant, to ensure that he was treated fairly.
“But we also have a public duty to our other 147,000 residents of South Kesteven to make sure that we spend their money wisely.
“Having carefully read the Ombudsman’s report, and re-read it, and looked at the findings, I have to say I found it confusing, unbalanced and, to be frank, perverse and unfair to the council, and particularly to our officers.”
Alison Hall-Wright, director of housing and projects at the district council, said: “This is not a decision we have taken lightly. This case has been reviewed by multiple officers. Officers have also discussed this case with our neighbouring authorities and they all agree with the decision we have made regarding whether to provide temporary accommodation or not.”