The Investigation

Our investigation

1. Mr B complained about how the Council supported him after he became homeless in 2024. He says the Council:

• did not provide him with accommodation while it considered his application;

• failed to provide him with enough support to find suitable housing;

• wrongly decided that he did not have a priority need for housing;

• failed to review its decision when he asked it to; and

• gave him the wrong priority under its housing allocation scheme.

2. As a result, Mr B says he suffered significant stress while homeless, which made his health problems worse. He wants the Council to provide him with suitable accommodation and higher priority for housing.

3. We investigated the complaint and decided to issue a report because:

• the Council had refused to agree to all our recommendations when we issued our draft decision; and

• the injustice to Mr B was significant.

4. We issued our report on 18 August 2025 and published it on our website on 4 September 2025. Details can be found via the link. The report found fault which had caused injustice to Mr B and made a number of recommendations. The Council has complied with only two of the recommendations. The following recommendations remain outstanding:

• apologise to Mr B for the lack of suitable accommodation and the distress this caused to him in early 2024;

• pay Mr B £875 to recognise the lack of that accommodation and distress;

• pay Mr B a further £300 to recognise the added distress caused by him being avoidably street homeless during that time; and

• remind its homelessness staff of the correct test and threshold for the interim accommodation duty, in particular that the threshold for this is a low one.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In our report of 18 August 2025, we use 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. We 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)

6. If, having issued a report, we are not satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposes to take, we must then issue a further report. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2A))

7. If the Council’s officers or cabinet are minded to recommend refusal of our recommendations, the further report must be considered at Full Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31A(1A))

How we considered this complaint

8. We produced this further report after giving the Council the opportunity to accept the recommendations and comply with them in full.

Council comments

9. The Council has provided the following comments and justification for refusing to accept the recommendations in full.

• “In relation to this case the officer applied the correct test when considering the information as provided by Mr B in the vulnerability questionnaire dated 2nd January 2024. This information was discussed and confirmed with Mr B during a phone call on 15th January 2024 as per the case notes on file. The Vulnerability Questionnaire substantiated that his Depression and Anxiety was mitigated by prescribed medication. The vulnerability questionnaire also confirmed that Mr B was not working with services such as the Community Mental Health Team. Depression and Anxiety would not make Mr B any more vulnerable than the average rough sleeper. Increased low mood and anxiousness are an inexplicable consequence of rough sleeping and therefore this would not be excessive of the condition of the average rough sleeper.

• “The officer researched the GERD condition prior to deciding whether the council had reason to believe Mr B may meet the priority need criteria and was able to determine the condition to be repeated acid reflux with symptoms including a ‘burning sensation in your chest’, backwash of food, an ongoing cough, inflammation of the vocal cords, and the sensation of a lump in your throat. The officer reviewed the Vulnerability Questionnaire to determine how the condition impacted Mr B who had confirmed it was controlled through diet and had answered ‘N/A’ when asked how this condition affects him on a daily basis.

• “Based on this initial information, the correct test was applied as per the attached guidance and the council established that it had no reason to believe that Mr B may be in priority need.

• “When the Council wrote to Mr B on 12th February 2024, it had already determined that there was no reason to believe he may be in priority need. However, further evidence was requested in the event that there was additional information of which the Council was not aware and which might have altered that assessment.

• “We accept that the wording of the email was not clear and does not explicitly state the correct test that is being applied. This is mainly due to the omission of the word ‘may’ in a lot of the correspondence. However, having considered the information provided and the medical issues that were being assessed, we are satisfied that the correct test was applied as per the attached guidance and therefore that there was no reason to believe Mr B may be priority need.”

Our comments

10. Whilst the Council has set out its views that it considered the threshold for providing interim accommodation in Mr B’s case correctly, we disagree.

11. It continues to appear to us that the Council is still conflating the tests for reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need and therefore a council has a duty to provide interim accommodation (s188(1) HA96), with the main housing duty test of whether someone is homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need and therefore requires temporary accommodation (s193(2) HA96).

12. The Homelessness Code of Guidance describes the threshold as follows:

“15.5 The threshold for triggering the section 188(1) duty is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.”

13. The House of Lords confirmed in R (M) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2008] UKHL 14 (“M”) “The threshold in section 188 is designedly low. The housing authority should provide the accommodation when it is needed and then make further inquiries…”

14. In the same case, in the Court of Appeal, the judge said “Under HA 1996 section 188, the council, as local housing authority, had a duty to arrange accommodation for M if it had reason to believe that she might be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, pending a decision as to what, if any, longer-term duty was owed to her under HA 1996, section 193. The duty under section 189 must, self-evidently, be performed at once, and when it has been performed the council would then embark on enquiries to see what M’s circumstances were, so that it could decide whether it was under the longer-term section 193 duty to house M. This duty applies where the housing authority “are satisfied” as opposed to having “reason to believe” that an applicant is, rather than may be, unintentionally, “homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need.”

15. Following an earlier application for homelessness, where the Council had accepted it owed Mr B the relief duty, Mr B contacted the Council on 1 February 2024 to tell it he had been admitted to hospital and that medical staff considered the stress of his housing situation was impacting him.

16. This was a change in the information he had provided to the Council in his vulnerability questionnaire. There is no evidence in the contemporaneous notes that the Council considered the test for interim accommodation at this stage based on this new information.

17. Mr B provided further information on 7 February 2024 which included that he had been sleeping rough since September, and that his consultant said he could be at risk of a stroke if his situation continued. Again, following this additional information, the contemporaneous evidence does not show any consideration was given to whether Mr B met the low threshold for interim accommodation.

18. It was only 11 days later, after Mr B had first told the Council he had been admitted to hospital, that the Council responded in detail.

19. However, three times, across two emails, the Council then demonstrated it was applying the wrong test.

20. The Council argues that the contemporaneous evidence it supplied to us, whilst demonstrating that the correct test was not applied, was merely an error in writing, rather than consideration.

21. When the Council wrote to Mr B on 12 February 2024, it said “As things stand, I do not have reason to believe that you meet the priority need criteria.” Whilst the Council has referred to a reason to believe, it has not considered the second element of the criteria – ‘may’. It is important that both elements of the test are properly applied.

22. The same email goes on to say that the medical information was needed to enable it to make a decision by the time the relief duty was due to end. This indicates the Council was focussed on making a decision about the threshold for the main housing duty, rather than the interim accommodation duty.

23. In a second email from the Council of 21 February 2024 to Mr B it again focussed on what duty the Council might owe him when the relief duty came to an end, again demonstrating the Council was focussed on its main housing duty decision.

Recommendations

24. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council should ensure compliance with all the recommendations set out in the original report and provide evidence of this. The recommendations which remain outstanding are that the Council should:

• apologise to Mr B for the lack of suitable accommodation and the distress this caused to him in early 2024;

• pay Mr B £875 to recognise the lack of that accommodation and distress;

• pay Mr B a further £300 to recognise the added distress caused by him being avoidably street homeless during that time; and

• remind its homelessness staff of the correct test and threshold for the interim accommodation duty, in particular that the threshold for this is a low one.

25. The Council must consider this report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. If the Council’s officers or cabinet are minded to recommend refusal of our recommendations, this further report must be considered at Full Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31A(1A))

Decision

26. The original investigation into this complaint was completed and a report issued, which explained the faults that had occurred and resulting injustice. We made recommendations to remedy that injustice. The Council has provided evidence of compliance with some recommendations but has refused to fully remedy the injustice caused to Mr B. As we are dissatisfied with the Council’s response, we have issued a further report.

Print this page