Summary: Mrs C complained the Council had unreasonably refused to provide interim accommodation to relieve her homelessness. There was some fault in the process the Council followed after another local authority’s referral. This did not cause Mrs C an injustice as it has since followed the correct process and the outcome remained the same.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complained the Council had unreasonably refused to accept her homeless application and offer her accommodation following a referral from another local authority.
2. She said, as a result, she and her daughter will experience distress and be put in danger of becoming homeless.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mrs C’s complaint and the information she provided;
• discussed the complaint with Mrs C;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• considered the relevant law and guidance to the complaint.
6. Mrs C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness – Housing Act 1996

7. Part 7 of the 1996 Act sets out the powers and duties of housing authorities where people apply to them for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation in cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness.
8. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (‘the 2017 Act’) places a set of duties on housing authorities to intervene at earlier stages to prevent homelessness in their areas and to take reasonable steps to prevent and relieve homelessness for all eligible applicants, not just those that have priority need under the Act.

Homelessness Code of Guidance

9. Prevention duty - Housing authorities have a duty to take reasonable steps to help prevent any eligible person (regardless of priority need status, intentionality and whether they have a local connection) who is threatened with homelessness from becoming homeless. This means either helping them to stay in their current accommodation or helping them to find a new place to live before they become actually homeless. The prevention duty continues for 56 days unless it is brought to an end by an event such as accommodation being secured for the person, or by their becoming homeless.
10. Relief duty - If the applicant is already homeless, or becomes homeless despite activity during the prevention stage, the reasonable steps will be focused on helping the applicant to secure accommodation. This relief duty lasts for 56 days unless ended in another way. If the housing authority has reason to believe a homeless applicant may be eligible for assistance and have a priority need, they must be provided with interim accommodation.
11. Main housing duty - If homelessness is not successfully prevented or relieved, a housing authority will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally. Certain categories of household have priority need if homeless, such as pregnant women, families with children, and those who are homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse or due to an emergency such as a fire or flood. Other groups may be assessed as having priority need because they are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental ill health, physical disability, having been in prison or care or as a result of becoming homeless due to violence.
12. It is a matter of evaluative judgement whether the applicant’s circumstances make them vulnerable. The housing authority should consider relevant evidence and determine whether, if homeless, the applicant would be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person would be if they became homeless.
13. Reviews and appeals - Housing authorities must provide written notifications to applicants when they reach certain decisions about their case, and the reasons behind any decisions that are against the applicant’s interests. Applicants can ask the housing authority to review most aspects of their decisions, and, if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
14. There is no period of disqualification if someone wants to make a fresh application. Where a person whose application has been previously considered and determined under Part 7 makes a fresh application, the housing authority will need to decide whether there are any new facts which render it different from the earlier application. If no new facts are revealed, or any new facts are of a trivial nature, the housing authority would not be required to consider the new application and can instead rely on its previous decision.

What happened

15. In early 2023 Mrs C lived in another local authority’s area with her adult daughter. The local authority found it did not owe Mrs C a housing duty as she did not have a local connection to its area and started the process of evicting her from her temporary accommodation.
16. Mrs C raised a complaint against the local authority, which has been considered in a separate case.
17. Mrs C applied to the Council for support with housing as she had lived in its area before and she was being evicted from her accommodation.
18. In May 2023 the Council found she was eligible for help to find her accommodation to live in, but it did not have a duty to provide interim accommodation. This was because Mrs C and her daughter was not a priority need. It informed Mrs C and told her about her rights to request a review of its decision.
19. Mrs C asked for a review of the Council’s decision with the support of a solicitor. She shared letters from her GP which explained she and her daughter suffered from depression and anxiety. However, before the review process was completed, she instructed her solicitor to withdraw the review request.
20. In October 2023 the other local authority made a relief referral to the Council and asked it to consider providing interim accommodation. This was because the local authority was in the process of evicting Mrs C and her daughter from their temporary accommodation.
21. The Council accepted the local authority’s referral.
22. However, it subsequently told Mrs C’s solicitor it would not provide interim accommodation. This was because it had an open relief case for her, and it had already recently made its non-priority housing decision.
23. Mrs C’s solicitor asked the Council for a review of its decision. The Council told the solicitor Mrs C had previously withdrawn her review request, but I would decide whether it could consider a review at this stage.
24. Mrs C asked the Ombudsman to consider the Council’s decisions not to provide her and her daughter with interim accommodation. She said she had been unsuccessful in finding privately rented accommodation and they would soon be street homeless.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged it should have been clearer in its communication with Mrs C’s solicitor regarding its decision following the referral from the other local authority. It said it had since spoken with Mrs C, the referring local authority and considered any new medical evidence for Mrs C.
26. In November 2023 the Council told Mrs C it had not changed its original view she and her daughter were not in priority need. This was because it had seen no evidence of a change in their circumstances or medical diagnosis. It explained its decision carried no review rights as Mrs C had already been through this process.

Analysis and findings

The Council’s May 2023 decision

27. The Council told Mrs C it had found her, and her daughter, were eligible for support but were not a priority need for their homeless application in early 2023. It therefore did not offer Mrs C any interim accommodation. However, it did provide advice and support to help her find accommodation in its area.
28. Mrs C exercised her rights of appeal against the Council’s decision, but she decided to stop the process shortly before the review was completed.
29. I have seen no fault in the process the Council followed, and it was Mrs C who decided to end the review process. I will therefore not consider the Council’s May 2023 homelessness decision further.

The Council’s October 2023 decision

30. Following the referral from the neighbouring local authority, the Council told Mrs C’s solicitor it would not provide interim accommodation for her. This was because it had an open case to support her with finding accommodation and it had previously decided she was not in priority need.
31. Following my enquiries, the Council agreed there was fault in the approach it had taken initially. This was because it should have considered whether the referral should be treated as a new application and its communication with Mrs C, and her solicitor, had been unclear.
32. The Council subsequently spoke with Mrs C and obtained information about her and her daughter’s medical circumstances. It found their circumstances were unchanged, it therefore relied on its original decision that it did not owe her a duty to provide interim accommodation.
33. I found the Council has now properly considered the neighbouring local authority’s referral and shared its decision with Mrs C. As there was not enough evidence of a change in circumstances, it was entitled to rely on its May 2023 decision. It therefore was not under a duty to provide her with interim accommodation, nor to offer her further review rights.
34. While there was fault in the way the Council initially dealt with the referral, I found this did not cause Mrs C an injustice as the outcome the Council informed her about remained the same.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation with a finding of some fault in how the Council processed Mrs C’s homeless referral from a neighbouring council. It has since followed the correct process, which did not change its view. Mrs C therefore did not experience an injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman