Summary: The Council caused Mr X frustration and distress when it incorrectly assessed that he was not eligible for housing support due to his immigration status. In recognition of the injustice caused the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £200 and demonstrate that it has taken action to improve its services. We do not find that the Council’s actions caused Mr X to miss out on interim accommodation or that the Council failed to have due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly assumed he was not entitled to housing support due to his immigration status.
2. Mr X said the Council discriminated against him and the Council’s actions meant he missed out on emergency accommodation when he needed help to flee domestic abuse.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’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)
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. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the relevant law and guidance as set out below.
8. I considered our Guidance on Remedies.
9. I considered all comment made by Mr X and the Council on a draft decision before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homelessness

10. 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)
11. If a housing authority has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 amended the Housing Act so that applicants who are homeless due to experiencing domestic abuse should be considered automatically to be in priority need.
13. Other reasons a person should be considered in priority need are as follows:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age; and
• care leavers.
14. “Eligibility” refers to what housing support a person is entitled to depending on their immigration status. As part of councils’ enquiries they must establish if applicants are eligible for support.

Reviews of housing decisions

15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions (this is not an exhaustive list):
• their eligibility for assistance; and
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
17. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal 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)

Equality Act

18. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It provides the UK with discrimination law which protects individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society.
19. The Act says, a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
20. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to the Equality Act in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

What happened

21. In early October 2023, Mr X informed the Council he could no longer live in his home due to relationship breakdown. He made a homelessness application.
22. The housing officer queried at the time if he needed to leave the property due to domestic abuse and Mr X said no, but he was going to become homeless as his partner was obtaining a court order to prevent him living in the family home.
23. The Council asked Mr X to provide evidence of the court order. Mr X provided a copy of the first page of the court order but did not provide the rest of the document when asked. Mr X said the court had not yet come to a decision and an order was not yet in force. The Council decided Mr X was not homeless and informed him over the phone but did not send him this decision in a letter.
24. Mr X had also expressed interested in being housed through the Council’s housing register so it passed the information to its allocations team. The Council’s allocations team decided on 14 November 2023 that he did not qualify to join the housing register as his current accommodation met his needs.
25. Mr X contacted the Council to dispute this decision and to ask for an update on his approach for homelessness support. Mr X told the Council he was fleeing domestic abuse.
26. The Council began making enquiries, carried out a risk assessment, referred him to a domestic abuse service and began searching for refuge places and temporary accommodation for him.
27. However not long after this, the Council said it could not establish from Mr X’s immigration documents whether he was entitled to access public funds. Mr X provided his documentation, said he had lived in the country for decades and he was eligible for support. The Council made enquiries with the Home Office, which confirmed in early 2024 that Mr X did have access to public funds.
28. Mr X complained to the Council that the Council officer had assumed he was not eligible for public funds, which amounted to discrimination. The Council apologised, said Mr X had provided sufficient immigration documentation when he first approached the Council in early October and the officer had made an error. It said its officers had undergone further training in assessing immigration documents when considering eligibility for housing assistance. However it said there was no evidence that the Council had discriminated against him.
29. On 19 February 2024, the Council concluded its enquiries and decided Mr X was not homeless. It sent him a letter outlining its reasons and his right to request a review. The Council said Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness, as he was not going to be prevented from living at his family home within the next 56 days and he did not have any valid eviction notice. It also said the property was reasonable for him to continue to occupy, as the Council carried out a risk assessment and concluded Mr X was experiencing a relationship breakdown, rather than being at risk of domestic abuse.
30. Mr X requested a review of this decision and on 8 May 2024 the Council carried out its review. It still concluded he was not homeless and told Mr X of his right to appeal to the County Court if he disagreed with the decision.

My findings

Eligibility assessment

31. The Council has accepted it failed to properly consider Mr X’s immigration documents and incorrectly believed for several weeks, between December 2023 and January 2024, that Mr X was not eligible for public funds.
32. Mr X complains that the Council’s actions were discriminatory. As set out in the law and guidance section of this decision, the Ombudsman cannot come to a finding on this, only a court can. Instead in line with our powers, I have considered whether the Council had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 in this case.
33. The Code sets out how councils must consider all applicants’ immigration status to determine if they are eligible for support. Councils must ask all applicants for evidence of either citizenship or what leave they have to remain in the country. The Council’s enquiries of Mr X were in line with the expectations of the law and the Code and asking Mr X for this information was not fault.
34. The Council’s subsequent error in assessing Mr X’s immigration status was fault and I consider the impact of this in more detail below. However I have seen no evidence that in making this error, the Council failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act. The evidence instead demonstrates that an officer misunderstood what evidence was required and changed their position in response to being corrected by the Home Office. This indicates a training need, rather than the Council failing to have due regard to its equality duties.
35. This fault caused distress and frustration to Mr X at an already challenging time and delayed the Council progressing its enquiries into his homelessness. As a result, the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s homelessness took around three months when typically, assessments at this stage take much less time. This was an injustice to Mr X and I have recommended a personal remedy and evidence of a service improvement to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Interim accommodation

36. Mr X complained that were it not for the Council’s errors in assessing his entitlement to public funds, the Council would have had a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. A council must provide interim accommodation to an applicant if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible and in priority need.
37. The Council may have had reason to believe Mr X was in priority need from mid-November 2023, as this was the first time he said he was at risk of domestic abuse. However only a day after this, the Council carried out a risk assessment and concluded the issue was a relationship breakdown rather than domestic abuse. It has maintained this decision, including following a statutory review. Mr X did not meet the criteria for priority need in any other category.
38. If the Council had acted without fault it would have found that Mr X was eligible and it may have considered him to be at risk of homelessness. But there was not any period beyond one day where the Council would have considered Mr X might be in priority need. It therefore was not at any point under a duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation.
39. I do not consider that the Council’s fault in this case led to a missed opportunity for interim accommodation for Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mr X £200 to reflect the distress he was caused by the Council’s error regarding his immigration status and for the frustration caused by its subsequent delay in assessing his homelessness.
41. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Demonstrate that it has put in place the necessary training for housing officers in assessing immigration documents in homelessness cases.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to injustice and the Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy and provide evidence of a service improvement.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman