Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide interim accommodation from June to September 2024. We find no fault. The Council considered the evidence provided and used its professional judgement and decided it did not have reason to believe Mr X was in priority need and so did not offer interim accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide interim accommodation from June to September 2024.
2. Mr X says that he was sleeping in his car which affected his physical and mental health and made it difficult for him to spend time with his children.

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. This complaint was made to the Ombudsman in July 2024. This was at the time Mr X was sleeping in his car. He was then offered interim accommodation in September 2024 and so this complaint will consider the period from June to September 2024. I have not considered any matters arising after that time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• considered relevant law, policy and guidance;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

7. 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

8. 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.

Key facts

9. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
10. Mr X approached the Council requesting assistance with housing. The Council wrote to Mr X on 1 July requesting information in order to proceed with his homeless application. A face to face meeting also took place that day and the Council carried out a vulnerability assessment. Notes indicate the Council considered Mr X did not appear to be in priority need based on the information seen. It also says it telephoned Mr X to explain this.
11. Mr X contacted the Council on 5 July saying he had not received an email he was expecting. The Council confirmed it was sent on 1 July and left a voicemail message for Mr X asking him to check his email spam folder.
12. Mr X was due to attend a housing assessment meeting but was hospitalised and so unable to attend. The Council agreed to reschedule and requested a copy of any discharge letter.
13. On 16 July Mr X made a formal complaint. He said he has a heart condition and the Council was refusing to help him. He said his housing officer was rude, lies and fails to contact him. The Council did not uphold his complaint saying it considered the housing officer had made satisfactory requests for all relevant information and had properly reviewed this. It said it did not have reason to believe he had a priority need and so had not provided accommodation but would continue to work with him to explore his housing options.
14. On 31 July the Council emailed Mr X saying it had requested information from him on 17 July with a deadline of 24 July but it had not received a response. It said it needed to speak with Mr X’s mother and ex-partner to confirm his homelessness and asked for their contact details. It also requested further financial information and said it would be unable to confirm homelessness without this information.
15. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. He complained that there were no recordings of telephone calls and so there was no evidence the housing officer had been rude to him. He said that he was still sleeping in his care and his health was deteriorating. He asked to be allocate a new housing officer.
16. The Council responded saying it had been unable to find evidence of inappropriate action by the housing officer but that it would allocate the case to another officer who would review his application. It said the new office would also work with Mr X to develop a personalise housing plan (PHP) which would set out the actions both Mr X and the Council would take to help him find appropriate housing.
17. The new housing officer wrote to Mr X on 3 September. He explained that having considered the information he had he did not consider that Mr X may be in priority need and so was unable to offer any interim accommodation.
18. Mr X was admitted to hospital in September and on discharge provided updated medical information to the Council. This resulted in the Council taking a different view and temporary accommodation was offered. Mr X moved into a hostel at the end of September.

Analysis

19. Mr X was sleeping in his car when he contacted the Council in June 2024 seeking help with housing. The Council then had to complete an assessment of Mr X’s situation and if it had reason to believe he was homeless, eligible and in priority need, it had a duty to provide interim accommodation.
20. In this case, the Council took the view that it there was no reason to believe Mr X had a priority need. The Homelessness Code of Guidance sets out what constitutes priority need and includes people who are vulnerable as a result of physical disability. It goes on to say that it is a matter of evaluative judgement whether a person’s circumstances makes them vulnerable. The Council has to determine whether, if homeless, the person would be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person.
21. The Council’s own guidance says that when assessing vulnerability for medical reasons they should have regard to any advice from medical professionals, the nature and extent of the illness and the relationship between the illness and the housing difficulties. It says the assessment should look at whether the person is more at risk
22. The notes indicate the Council considered the medical information provided by Mr X as well as the information provided by Mr X during the initial vulnerability assessment. While this noted he had angina, kidney issues and dental problems, it also noted he was not taking any medication and that his physical health was “usually ok”. Mr X said that he can suffer from flare ups when he cannot move and projects bile from his stomach. He says that he has suffered with the condition since he was 18 and so he can handle it without requiring hospital treatment.
23. I am satisfied, based on the information provided, that the Council properly considered whether it had reason to believe Mr X was in priority need. It completed a vulnerability assessment and asked Mr X to provide supporting medical information. It then used its professional judgement and decided Mr X was not in priority need and so did not offer any interim accommodation. While I understand Mr X disagrees with the decision made, I am not persuaded there was fault in the process leading to that decision and so I cannot criticise it.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman