Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet its duties to him when he became homeless and gave him the wrong priority on its housing allocation register. There was fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s homeless application which caused him confusion at a difficult time. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, review its procedures, and issue reminders to its staff. However, I did not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint. When Mr X came to the Ombudsman, the Council was still within time to consider its reviews of his housing allocation priority and whether he was in priority need as a homeless person. Also, there is no merit in investigating further any information the Council provided Mr X about a homeless shelter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to meet its homelessness duties when he made a homeless application in late-2023. He says the Council:
• did not try to prevent his homelessness when he told it he was at risk of becoming homeless;
• wrongly decided he was not in priority need and so did not place him in interim accommodation when he became homeless;
• gave him wrong information about a Council-run homeless shelter; and
• gave him the wrong priority on its housing allocation register, and did not respond when he asked it to review his priority.
2. Because of this Mr X says he became street homeless in December 2023 and experienced degrading treatment. Mr X wants the Council to:
• accept it failed to meet its homelessness duties to him; and
• change its policies and procedures to ensure it recognises refugees as vulnerable people, in priority need, and offers them interim accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B)
9. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

10. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
11. 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

12. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and his written response to my queries about the complaint;
• copies of the communications Mr X received from the Council, provided by Mr X;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction and Guidance on Remedies.
13. Mr X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homelessness law and guidance

14. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Homeless applications

15. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
16. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)
17. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must help the applicant to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps it is to take, a council must have regard to its assessments of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty and interim accommodation

19. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
20. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
21. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
22. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or, failing this, if 56 days have passed.

Review and appeal rights for homeless applicants

23. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage; and
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.
24. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request, for reviews about:
• eligibility for assistance; and
• decisions that an applicant is not in priority need.
25. Councils must advise applicants of their right to appeal the outcome of the review to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
26. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Housing allocations

27. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
28. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; and
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others.

(Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

29. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their application, including decisions about their housing priority.
30. Leicester City Council’s housing allocation policy says it aims to complete reviews within 56 days. This is in line with statutory guidance, which says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline and suggests 8 weeks is reasonable.

What happened

31. In November 2023, Mr X’s asylum claim was granted. Because of this, he was served an eviction notice to leave his asylum seeker accommodation in four weeks.
32. Two weeks after he received the eviction notice, Mr X told the Council he would become homeless in two weeks. He provided a copy of the eviction notice. The Council:
• decided Mr X was threatened with homelessness within 56 days;
• booked an appointment to assess Mr X’s homelessness application in six weeks, which was four weeks after he was due to become homeless; and
• told Mr X to ring the Council on the date of his eviction for support.
33. Two weeks later, Mr X was evicted. He rang the Council for help. It gave him information about a Council-run homeless shelter in its area. It also wrote to him on this day to say it had decided to prioritise him within Band 3 (the lowest band) on its housing allocation register.
34. Three days later, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision about his housing priority.
35. One week later, in mid-December 2023, Mr X complained to the Council that it had not met its homelessness duties to him and had given him wrong information about the homeless shelter.
36. In early-January 2024, Mr X attended the appointment the Council had arranged six weeks earlier, to assess his homeless application. At the appointment the Council told him it would increase his priority on its housing register from Band 3 to Band 2. Following the appointment, the Council told Mr X:
• it had accepted the relief duty because he was homeless and eligible;
• it did not consider him to be in priority need, so it would not provide him with interim accommodation while it owed the relief duty; and
• he had a right to seek a review of its decision within 21 days and may want to seek legal advice.
37. Three days later, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision that he was not in priority need and so not offered interim accommodation.
38. Three days after this, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint from three weeks earlier. It told Mr X:
• it would soon increase his priority on the housing register from Band 3 to Band 2. It said it would backdate this to the date of his appointment when it had accepted he was homeless so owed the relief duty; and
• he could still seek a review of its decision that he was not in priority need, within 21 days of the decision.
39. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman the same day as the Council’s complaint response, in mid-January 2024. He said the Council had failed in its homelessness duties to him and its decision that he was not in priority need was wrong.
40. Two weeks later, Mr X provided further information to the Council to support his request for review of its decision that he was not in priority need.
41. The following week, in late-January 2024, Mr X made another complaint to the Council. He said the Council had:
• taken too long to respond to his December 2023 request for it to review its decision about his priority on its housing allocation register;
• taken too long to respond to his January 2024 request for it to review its homelessness decision that he was not in priority need, and so not owed interim accommodation; and
• failed to consider whether it should use its powers to accommodate him while the review of its homelessness decision was ongoing.

My findings

Homelessness duties

42. When Mr X first contacted the Council, he evidenced he would be evicted in two weeks. The Council says it accepted he was threatened with homelessness at this point. However, it did not tell Mr X it had accepted the prevention duty, or produce a personalised housing plan (PHP), in line with statutory guidance. This was fault. This meant Mr X did not have clarity about the steps the Council would take, or would expect him to take, at the prevention duty stage. This caused Mr X avoidable confusion at an already difficult time. Had the Council produced a PHP, Mr X would have had the right to request a review if he disagreed with the steps the Council said it would take at the prevention stage. He was therefore prevented this opportunity, which was an injustice.
43. On 6 December 2023 when Mr X became homeless, he contacted the Council and it accepted he was homeless. Therefore, it should have accepted the relief duty on this date. It delayed in accepting this duty until his appointment four weeks later, on 4 January 2024. This 4 January relief duty decision said it was in response to a homeless application made by Mr X that same day, at his appointment. This was wrong. Mr X first made his application six weeks earlier, when the Council decided he was threatened with homelessness. He then became homeless two weeks after that, which the Council was aware of. It appears the Council recorded the date of Mr X’s application as the date it next had availability for an appointment to assess his homeless application, rather than the date the application was made. This was fault, which caused Mr X confusion about what duties the Council owed him. However, in practice I do not consider this fault changed anything for Mr X in terms of his housing situation. When the Council eventually accepted the relief duty, it decided Mr X was not in priority need, so did not offer him interim accommodation. Therefore, the delay in accepting the relief duty did not change Mr X’s housing situation, and in fact extended the period for which the Council owed him a housing duty. However, for those in priority need this delay would mean the Council delayed in offering interim accommodation it had a duty to provide. The Council should review its procedures to ensure it processes and records applications correctly, and meets its statutory duties.
44. When the Council accepted the relief duty on 4 January 2024, it emailed Mr X about this. In the email it said it had decided he was “threatened with homelessness”, eligible, and not in priority need. This information was wrong. The Council was accepting the relief duty, so should have explained it considered Mr X to be homeless, not threatened with homelessness. This was fault, which caused Mr X confusion. However, in practice the Council did accept the relief duty to Mr X, so this fault did not change Mr X’s position.
45. When the Council accepted the relief duty, it should have updated Mr X’s personalised housing plan. However, the Council did not produce a personalised housing plan for Mr X at the prevention stage, and did not correct this by producing one at the relief stage. This was fault which caused Mr X avoidable confusion at an already difficult time. Had the Council produced a PHP, Mr X would have had the right to request a review if he disagreed with the steps the Council said it would take at the relief stage. He was therefore prevented this opportunity, which was an injustice.
46. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s 4 January 2024 decision that he was not in priority need, which meant it did not offer him interim accommodation. Mr X asked the Council to review this decision within the 21-day review period. The Council then had 8 weeks to complete the review. Therefore, the deadline for the Council to complete the review was 3 March 2024. As described at paragraph 9, we may decide not to investigate an issue if we consider it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. Also, as described at paragraph 5, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless the Council has had opportunity to investigate and reply first. I did not investigate whether the Council properly considered its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. This is because when the Council responded to his complaint in early-January 2024, and he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council’s review period was not complete. Therefore the Council had not had reasonable opportunity to investigate and reply to this issue first before Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
47. After my draft decision and before my final decision, the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had ended the relief duty because 56 days had passed, as described at paragraph 22. In making this decision to end its duty to Mr X, it said it still considered Mr X to be not in priority need. Once the Council completes its consideration of Mr X’s review request about whether he is in priority need, he may be able to appeal the outcome to the county court on a point of law. Mr X may also appeal to the county court, if he considers the Council has failed to issue its decision within the statutory review timescale. As described at paragraph 6, we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court, unless we decide it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court.
48. As explained at paragraph 26, homeless applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants. Mr X believes the Council did not properly consider whether it should use this power to accommodate him while his review of its priority need decision was ongoing. I have not investigated this, because it is closely related to the review request itself, about the priority need decision, which I have not investigated for the reasons explained above.

Information provided about a homeless shelter

49. Mr X says the information the Council gave him when he became homeless, about a Council-run homeless shelter, was wrong. He says the Council told him to go to a local hub for homeless people, run by a charity, and he would be collected from there to go to the Council-run homeless shelter. He says no one collected him and when he rang the homeless shelter, it told him it would not collect him from the charity’s hub as this was not a service it offered.
50. Mr X also says the Council should not describe this as a homeless shelter, because it is only open from evening until morning for people to sleep there and it closes during the day.
51. I recognise this was an extremely difficult time for Mr X. However, I did not consider this part of Mr X’s complaint about the information the Council provided about a homeless shelter. Mr X has not stayed in the homeless shelter in question at any point since he became homeless, so there is no evidence that information provided by the Council delayed him in staying there. The Ombudsman is a publicly funded body with limited resources. We may decide not to investigate an issue if we consider there is no merit in investigating further based on the level of injustice caused or the value of any outcome we could achieve. It would not be a proportionate use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources for me to look at this issue further. The Council decided Mr X was not in priority need and it did not have a duty to accommodate him. The Council is still considering Mr X’s review request about the substantive issue of whether he is in priority need. Any further investigation into information the Council provided to Mr X on a single occasion, at a time when it considered it did not have a duty to accommodate him, would not result in:
• further personal remedy to Mr X; or
• recommendations for the Council to change how it delivers its services.

Housing allocations

52. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s 6 December 2023 decision about his housing priority. He also says it:
• did not respond to his request for a review of this decision in good time; and
• did not increase his priority from Band 3 to Band 2 after it said it would at the 4 January 2024 appointment.
53. Mr X asked the Council to review its 6 December 2023 decision about his housing priority within the review timescale set out in its allocation policy. The Council’s policy says it will aim to complete reviews within 8 weeks. Therefore, the deadline for the Council to complete the review was 3 February 2024.
54. As described at paragraph 9, we may decide not to investigate an issue if we consider it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. Also, as described at paragraph 5, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless the Council has had opportunity to investigate and reply first.
55. When the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in early-January 2024, and he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, the Council’s review period was not complete. Therefore, I did not investigate the issue of Mr X’s housing allocation priority further. The Council had not had reasonable opportunity to investigate and reply to this issue first before Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. After my draft decision and before my final decision, the Council wrote to Mr X to say it had increased his priority to Band 2 as it had said it would. It said it was still considering his review request of his housing priority and would update him if this results in further change to his priority band. It will be open to Mr X to make a new complaint to the Ombudsman after the Council makes its review decision if he believes:
• the Council has not properly considered the review, and this made a difference to his housing situation so caused him an injustice; or
• delays in the review process made a difference to his housing situation so caused him an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within one month of our final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for the faults identified in how it handled his homeless application, and the confusion this caused him at an already difficult time. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
57. Within three months of our final decision the Council will:
1. review its procedures for processing and recording homeless applications to ensure it meets its statutory duties and correctly records the date of:
1. application;
2. its acceptance of the relief duty; and
3. its decision about priority need, and whether it owes a duty to provide interim accommodation.
2. issue reminders to relevant staff in its housing and homelessness teams about the need to:
1. properly inform applicants when the Council accepts the prevention duty;
2. produce a personalised housing plan (PHP) when the Council accepts the prevention duty, share this with the applicant, and tell them of their right to request a review of parts of the PHP;
3. update an applicant’s PHP when the Council accepts the relief duty, share the updated PHP with the applicant, and tell them of their right to request a review of parts of the PHP; and
4. ensure information in communications to applicants is accurate, and clearly sets out any duties accepted.
58. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have completed my investigation. There was fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s homeless application which caused him confusion at a difficult time. The Council agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X, review its procedures, and issue reminders to its staff. However, I did not investigate the rest of Mr X’s complaint. When Mr X came to the Ombudsman, the Council was still within time to consider its reviews of his housing allocation priority and whether he was in priority need as a homeless person. Also, there is no merit in investigating further any information the Council provided Mr X about a homeless shelter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman