Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to secure interim accommodation for Mr X when it had reason to believe he was homeless with a dependent child. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy Mr X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide interim accommodation when he and his son became homeless. He said that they had to sleep on friends’ sofas and in hotels.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed offering him interim accommodation when he presented as homeless.
6. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. Mr X had review rights against this decision, and he has used them.
7. I have investigated the alleged delay in the Council making the decision that Mr X was intentionally homeless. Mr X said this delayed his review rights.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X 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

Law and guidance

10. 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.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

11. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Priority need

12. 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;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

Intentionally homeless

The prevention and relief duties owed to applicants who are eligible for assistance and homeless, or threatened with homelessness, apply irrespective of whether or not they may be considered to be homeless intentionally.

The relief duty

13. 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)

The main housing duty

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Accommodation pending review

16. 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))

Suitability of accommodation

17. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
18. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:
• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Distance to school

19. Guidance notes as a general guide, the maximum journey time for a child of primary school age should be 45 minutes each way, and 75 minutes each way for a child of secondary school age. It is noted there will be circumstances in which this is not possible, for example children who live in remote locations.

What happened

Homelessness application

20. In October 2023, Mr X approached the Council as homeless. He said his son (Y) lived with him. The Council made enquiries. A week later, Mr X’s ex-wife (Y’s mother) emailed the Council and confirmed that she and Mr X have a shared parenting arrangement and that their son regularly stayed with Mr X. She added that their son’s school and GP were supportive of him living with Mr X and the disruption of Mr X’s living arrangements was affecting Y’s mental health.

Further enquiries

21. A month later, Mr X contacted the Council for an update on his homelessness application. The Council requested further information about Y’s living arrangements from Mr X, Y’s school, and the estate manager of Mr X’s ex-wife’s property.
22. The school, and the estate manager said that Y lived with his mother, not Mr X.
23. At the end of November, the Council told Mr X that it was not satisfied that Y lived with him and therefore he was not in priority need/eligible for interim accommodation. It said it would make further enquiries.

Relief duty accepted

24. In January 2024, the Council accepted the relief duty. The Council said it referred Mr X to the Private Rent Team and provided him with advice and information packs to assist him in seeking accommodation within the Private Rented Sector (PRS). It said it informed Mr X about alternative rehousing options available through housing mobility schemes supported by the Council and advised and encouraged him to register.
25. The Council said the private rent team accepted the referral to support Mr X in securing accommodation and this was incorporated into his Personal Housing Plan (PHP). The Council said it arranged a property viewing but Mr X was unable to attend due to illness.
26. At the end of January, Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision to omit Y from his homeless application and PHP. The Council upheld its decision.
27. In March, Mr X’s ex-wife contacted the Council to reiterate that Y regularly stayed with Mr X and expressed a desire to live with Mr X permanently. She confirmed that Y had now been removed from her address as a household member and was therefore homeless with Mr X.

Interim accommodation offers

28. In March, the Council agreed that Mr X was in priority need due to a change in circumstances. The Council offered interim accommodation to Mr X and his son. Mr X and Y stayed in interim accommodation between March and October 2024.
29. Mr X said the location of the properties were unsuitable due to the distance from Y’s school. The Council said it completed a pre offer checklist with Mr X where he confirmed that Y would be taken to school by private vehicle. The Council calculated the driving distance/times between the properties and Y’s school. This showed that it would take between 45 minutes and 1 hr 20 minutes to drive Y to school, or 50 minutes on public transport.

Personalised Housing Plan (PHP)

30. Following the acceptance that Y was living with Mr X, the Council updated his PHP. The Council met with Mr X to discuss the next steps within the PHP. Mr X and the Council discussed the circumstances of Mr X’s departure from his last settled accommodation including the ongoing police investigation. The Council confirmed that it would await the outcome of pending investigations before making a final decision on Mr X’s homeless application.

Main duty decision

31. In August 2024, the Council ended its relief duty as 56 days had passed. It decided Mr X was intentionally homeless. The Council, following consultation with the police, was satisfied that Mr X’s behaviour which resulted in the loss of his last settled accommodation was a deliberate act. It informed Mr X that his interim accommodation would cease within a month of the decision.
32. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. He also requested the Council provide interim accommodation pending the review of the decision. The Council said it would not exercise discretion to provide interim accommodation.
33. The Council upheld its decision that he was intentionally homeless.

Complaint

34. Mr X complained to the Council about how it handled his homeless case.
35. In the Council’s response, it said that the Council’s investigation into Y’s residency were addressed appropriately. It said, the information it obtained from Y’s mother, his school, the GP and the estate manager from December 2023 and March 2024 confirmed he was living with his mother.
36. The Council apologised for the delay in providing Mr X with a copy of the PHP and confirmation of the relief duty. It confirmed that the Council accepted relief duty in October but did not notify Mr X until January.
37. In January 2025, Mr X appealed the Council’s main duty decision. This is due in court in August 2025.

My findings

Interim accommodation

38. The law says a council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
39. Between October 2023 and March 2024, the Council made extensive enquiries into the living arrangements of Mr X’s son, Y. The Council must have had ‘reason to believe’ that Y lived with Mr X for it to make enquiries. Although the information received from different sources was conflicting and inconsistent, if there was even the smallest chance that Y was homeless with Mr X, the Council should have secured interim accommodation during this period.
40. I have found fault with the Council for failing to offer Mr X interim accommodation when it had reason to believe that he was in priority need i.e. his household included a dependent child.
41. Between October 2023 and March 2024, Mr X moved between friends’ sofas and hotels. I understand that Y spent some of this time living with Mr X. Both Mr X and Y’s mother said that the uncertainty and instability during this time affected Y’s mental health, school attendance and schoolwork.
42. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his son for failing to provide interim accommodation for 5 months. In addition, the Council should pay Mr X £200 for each month he spent living in unsuitable accommodation. This totals £1000.
43. On receipt of evidence of the cost incurred, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X the difference between what he spent on hotels between October and March and the cost the Council would have charged him for interim accommodation.
44. The unstable living situation caused Mr X and his son avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X and his son separately for the distress caused.

Delayed decision

45. The Council should have reached its decision whether to accept the main housing duty within 56 days/8 weeks of accepting the relief duty. It took 40 weeks to reach this decision. The Council told Mr X that it would delay making a final decision until the outcome of pending police investigations. This delay also advantaged Mr X as he remained in interim accommodation until after this decision was made.
46. Given the reasons for the Council’s delay in reaching a decision, I have not found the Council at fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X and his son for failing to provide interim accommodation for a 5 month period.
2. Pay Mr X £1000 in recognition of the time he spent in unsuitable accommodation.
3. On receipt of evidence of the cost incurred, pay Mr X the difference between what he spent on hotels between October and March and the cost the Council would have charged him for interim accommodation.
4. Pay Mr X £250 for the distress he experienced during the period when the Council should have secured interim accommodation.
5. Pay Y £250 for the distress caused and the effect the unstable living arrangements had on his mental health and schooling.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I have found fault with the Council for failing to secure interim accommodation for Mr X when it had reason to believe that he was homeless with his son.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman