Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action when she and her partner presented as homeless in July 2023. We find no fault in the failure to provide interim accommodation in July 2023. The Council decided Ms X was not in priority need until more detailed information was provided in August which prompted it to change its view.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action when she and her partner presented as homeless in July 2023.
2. Ms X says the situation caused distress as they were sleeping in a car.

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. 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. Ms X and her partner were provided with accommodation from 18 October 2023. They are now permanently housed and so the homelessness duty has ended. This complaint is therefore concerned with the Council’s actions in the period from 4 July to 18 October.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Applications

8. 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

9. 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)

The relief duty

10. 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

11. 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)

Key facts

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. Ms X and her partner presented to the Council as homeless in July 2023. Ms X told the Council they had fled to the area over six months earlier and had been staying with friends but were now sleeping in their car. They reported that Ms X’s partner was subject to violence and threats of violence before they moved to the area. There was no evidence presented to suggest any further incidents had been experienced or reported since moving into the area.
14. On the same day, the Council took the view Ms X and her partner may be homeless and eligible for assistance and so accepted the relief duty. However, it decided it did not have reason to believe they may be in priority need. As a result the Council did not offer interim accommodation. The Council’s rough sleeping team carried out some investigations over the next few nights but said it was unable to locate them.
15. On 10 August, the Council provided accommodation under a discretionary power called a bed every night. This was provided until 29 August when it was ended because Ms X and her partner were not occupying the accommodation provided.
16. On 18 August, the police advised the Council that Ms X’s partner had returned to the area he fled from for a family funeral. On the basis of this information, the Council determined that this meant they were not at risk of harm there and so it ended the relief duty and wrote explaining this decision on 29 August.
17. On 17 October, a solicitor acting for Ms X and her partner, wrote to the Council seeking a review of the decision to end the homelessness duty. The Council then provided accommodation from 18 October. On 3 November it wrote to Ms X and her partner, accepting the main housing duty and notifying them that it had awarded high priority needs.
18. The Council made an offer of suitable social housing on 9 November and therefore ended the homelessness duty as Ms X and her partner were then suitably accommodated. Ms X and her partner have been living in a housing association property since 24 November 2023.

Analysis

19. As explained above, the duty to provide interim accommodation when a person presents as homeless engages if the Council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. In this case, the Council took the view that Ms X and her partner were not eligible for interim accommodation from 4 July. It says this is because they had not provided evidence they may be in priority need.
20. It says this decision was reached because they had fled to the area more than six months previously due to non-domestic violence and had been staying with friends before presenting as homeless. It says the Code of Guidance advises to consider issues such as how recent any threats or offences were, the ongoing level of threat, applicant’s age and impact on physical or mental health. It noted they had resided in the area for six months with no known or reported concerns, no medical evidence was presented to suggest they were more vulnerable than the ordinary person, they were not known to any services other than the police, no evidence provided of an ongoing threat and that the threat of violence was not against the main applicant, Ms X. Ms X’s partner was not a joint applicant.
21. In a letter dated 9 November 2023 to Ms X’s MP, the Council said “at that time there was no reason to believe that the couple were in priority need. Some difficulty was had in confirming issues as presented by the couple”. It says calls went unanswered and the police were not returning queries regarding the reasons they had fled their home area. The Council was making enquiries about the reasons Ms X and her partner fled their home area in respect of the relief duty and not whether it should provide interim accommodation. It had already made that decision.
22. The Council did later receive new information and it changed its view and provided interim accommodation. However, this change of view was based on new information, previously not provided to the Council, and so does not amount to fault.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There was no fault by the Council in failing to provide interim accommodation before 18 October 2023.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman