Liverpool Council Told To Pay £1,350 To Homeless Man

He complained to the ombudsman about how he had been treated, reports the Liverpool Echo.

Liverpool Council told a man facing mental health difficulties he would be “intentionally homeless” if he left accommodation he had advised them he could no longer stay in. In 2023, a man referred to only as Mr X approached the city council for support amid a domestic abuse case. The man said he was homeless and was offered a stay in a hotel a month after he had found himself on the streets. He was also asked to provide evidence to show he had a “significant” mental health condition before being put up by the city council.

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found that when Mr X told the local authority he could no longer stay in a hotel provided for him owing to his mental health, he was warned if he left he would be classed as “intentionally homeless.” Liverpool Council has now been ordered to pay out more than £1,000 in compensation to Mr X as a result.

The probe by the Ombudsman found Mr X was unable to return to his home in 2023 amid an investigation into domestic abuse. Merseyside Police told the local authority how he had been arrested for alleged domestic abuse and placed on bail. As a result, Mr X was told it was “unlikely” the council would offer accommodation. In the months that followed, Mr X made another application for support having been sleeping on the street. He was then placed in a hotel after being deemed high risk.

While at this location, Mr X told Liverpool Council he could not remain at the hotel as it triggered his mental health conditions. City officials told him to contact hotel management and remain at the hotel as to leave would potentially leave him as intentionally homeless. He disregarded this advice and left before being offered a second hotel two weeks later. However, the new location was not able to find a booking for Mr X, leaving him on the street.

The council then offered Mr X further interim accommodation at a third hotel which was self-contained. Around three months later, Mr X said he had been evicted. The accommodation provider said it had evicted Mr X as he had breached its rules and regulations, which he denied. Mr X denied any such breaches. A response was received weeks later when the city council said it had ended its duty to provide temporary accommodation as he had been asked to leave his previous accommodation.

Mr X made a complaint to Liverpool Council claiming it had failed to provide adequate support when he first made his homelessness application, wrongly blamed him for domestic abuse, placed him in unsafe accommodation as a person who presented a risk to him was also at his first hotel and failed to respond to his many emails including following his eviction. He said these failures had “significantly affected” his mental health. The local authority accepted it took too long to undertake an initial homelessness assessment when Mr X first reached out for help but its decision to not class him as priority need was deemed correct.

Regarding his eviction from a third hotel, the council said it had advised Mr X of the rules and regulations when placed at the hotel and the responsibility for complying remained with him. It considered Mr X would have been given the opportunity to collect his belongings. The council accepted it should have also informed Mr X that it would not provide any further temporary accommodation following his eviction from that hotel, apologised and offered a payment of £400 to Mr X to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused.

Investigators from the Ombudsman have now instructed Liverpool Council to send a written apology to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused to Mr X by the faults identified. Payments of £1,350 should be made to redress the distress and uncertainty caused by the council’s failure. A Liverpool Council spokesperson said: “We accept that we did not meet our usual standards of service in this case and have apologised to the individual concerned. We have abided by the ruling of the Ombudsman and taken steps to avoid a similar situation arising in the future.”