Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between July and September 2020 after she made a homeless application. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision as it had no reason to believe that Ms X was in priority need.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide interim accommodation between July and September 2020 after she made a homelessness application.
2. Ms X did not have anywhere to live and had to rely on family and friends on an ad-hoc basis.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

8. 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)
    

Priority need

9. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.

Key facts

10. Ms X approached the Council on 9 July 2020 and made a homelessness application. On 17 July the Council accepted the relief duty under the Homelessness Reduction Act. The Council sent Ms X her personal housing plan which she signed and returned.
11. On 28 July the Council made a referral to a charity that provides accommodation for young homeless people. This was an action on her personal housing plan. The charity confirmed it had accepted Ms X into its scheme on 11 August and made referrals to accommodation providers.
12. An advocate for Ms X contacted the Council on 12 August and said she was vulnerable and suffering with depression. The advocate did not raise the issue of interim accommodation. The Council says Ms X had not previously mentioned any health concerns. It says that when completing her initial application, Ms X said she had no or low support needs.
13. The Council says that because the information provided by the advocate was not consistent with the information Ms X had previously given, it required evidence. It says the medical evidence subsequently provided indicated an active diagnosis of mixed anxiety and depressive disorder from November 2020 and reference to a past problem of a similar kind dated 12 August 2020.
14. On 28 August 2020 an offer of accommodation was made to Ms X by a charity. Ms X signed the licence agreement and moved into the property on 7 September 2020.

Analysis

15. This investigation focusses on whether the Council was at fault for not offering Ms X interim accommodation after she made a homeless application in July 2020. I note this was not an issue Ms X specifically raised but it was a matter that came to our attention after she complained to us and so we decided it was appropriate to pursue this issue further. The other issues Ms X complained of were not investigated.
16. After Ms X approached the Council in July 2020, it accepted she was homeless and eligible for assistance. However, it did not consider that she was in priority need and so did not offer any interim accommodation.
17. The information provided by the Council shows that Ms X did not raise any specific medical or vulnerability issues when she first contacted the Council for help. It was only after an advocate contacted the Council on her behalf that such issues were raised.
18. The legislation states that a council should provide interim accommodation if it has reason to believe the person may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. In practice this is a low bar and the Council does not need actual evidence, just a “reason to believe”. In this case, the Council says it had no reason to believe Ms X had a priority need before an offer of accommodation was made in September 2020.
19. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in the process leading to this decision. There were opportunities for Ms X to provide medical or other evidence to explain her circumstances and show she was in priority need. Ms X mentioned clashing with her mother but the Council did not consider this amounted to domestic abuse. It noted Ms X was not actually living with her mother when she made her homeless application but with a friend. Ms X told the Council she was paying a friend to stay at her property. The friend’s tenancy was under threat of termination and so Ms X had to leave and stayed with other family members until she moved into the offered accommodation on 7 September.
20. I am satisfied that it was appropriate for us to investigate the issue of interim accommodation and why it was not offered to Ms X. However, after receiving further information from the Council I find no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions because it had no reason to believe Ms X was in priority need.

Back to top

Finsl decision

21. I will now complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault in the decision not to offer interim accommodation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman