Concern over handling of homelessness application

Archived press release

Date Published: 30/07/08

Haringey Council applied the wrong test on whether it had a duty to offer interim accommodation to a woman who made a homelessness application.

Haringey Council mishandled a woman’s homelessness application, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond. In his report, issued today (8 July 2008) he says that he is concerned that the Council applied the wrong test on whether it had a duty to offer interim accommodation. It believed that it had to satisfy itself that she was genuinely homeless, whereas the Ombudsman says the law is clear that, at that stage, it had only to have reason to believe that she “may be” homeless. He says this is “a crucial distinction.”

‘Ms David’ (not her real name for legal reasons) complained, through her solicitors, about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. The Ombudsman considered that the complaint raised significant issues about the interpretation of sections of the Housing Act 1996 that relate to applications to be treated as homeless.

The Council accepted a homelessness application from Ms David even though it doubted that she was homeless because of previous applications that she had made. It then undertook preliminary ‘enquiries’ before it decided that it had reason to believe that she was or might be homeless. It did not offer her interim accommodation until 10 days after she presented as homeless. Ms David refused this offer, and she and her baby stayed with various friends instead. The Council later accepted her as homeless and offered her permanent accommodation that she accepted. 

The Ombudsman was concerned that the Council had made reference to its need to satisfy itself that it had reason to believe that Ms David was genuinely homeless before it considered whether it needed to secure interim accommodation for her. Councils’ duties to make enquiries and to ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the person are triggered by the relatively low threshold test of whether there is reason to believe that an applicant is or “may be” homeless (among other things). 

The Ombudsman finds that Ms David’s injustice arising from maladministration was the time and trouble she took in pursuing her complaint. He recommended that the Council should:

• pay Ms David £250; 
• review its guidance to officers on the issues raised by the complaint in the light of the Homelessness Code of Guidance 2006;
• and address training needs, particularly in respect of clear and accurate record keeping. 

Report ref 06A12508