Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. We found fault in how the Council dealt with the application that caused added avoidable distress and risk of harm to Mr X. The Council agreed to send Mr X a written apology and make a symbolic payment of £1,575 in recognition of the injustice caused by its fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his 2023 homelessness application, which led to him being without accommodation for nearly six weeks. Mr X said the Council failed to:

• offer him a face-to-face interview contrary to the Government’s statutory guidance;
• properly investigate and consider his health and medical circumstances in finding he was not in priority need while four weeks later seeking external medical advice; and
• give him written notice of its decision on his homelessness application for about four weeks, which denied him the opportunity to challenge its decision during that time.

2. Mr X said being without accommodation for nearly six weeks caused significant psychological and emotional distress. The lack of accommodation also badly affected his physical health. Mr X said his health and medical circumstances made protecting himself more difficult and added to his risk of exploitation when street homeless.
3. Mr X wanted the Council to apologise and pay compensation of £2,635 for the lack of interim accommodation, distress, risk of harm and avoidable costs arising from its failure to properly handle his homelessness application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. Here, Mr X gave his written consent for Mr Z to make this complaint for him. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr Z and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I shared Council information with Mr Z. I also gave Mr Z and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended (‘the Act’) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (‘the Code’) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. (The Act says councils must “have regard” to the Code, which is Government statutory guidance, in carrying out their homelessness powers and duties.)
9. Under the Act, someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking the council for assistance:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (A Section 21 notice represents a legal step taken by a landlord to regain possession of their property from the tenant.)

10. If satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, in assessing their application, a council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further homelessness duty it owes them.
11. The Code, at paragraph 11.14, says “in most circumstances assessments will require at least one face to face interview”. At paragraph 11.15 the Code says, “some applicants may find it more convenient to complete an assessment through telephone or internet interviews, but there should be an opportunity for the assessment to be completed through a face-to-face meeting where the applicant’s needs indicate this is necessary, or if the applicant requests it”.
12. A council must secure accommodation for an applicant if it has ‘reason to believe’ the applicant ‘may be’ homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Section 188 of the Act) An example of ‘priority need’ is a person who is vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age. Paragraph 15.5 of the Code says ‘reason to believe’ provides a low threshold for triggering the duty to provide interim accommodation. And councils do not need to be ‘satisfied’ an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need.
13. If, having made inquiries, a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for that applicant’s occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under Section 198 of the Act). This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Section 193 of the Act)
14. The Council has a ‘relief duty’ to take reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for an eligible applicant that does not have priority need. (Section 189B of the Act).
15. After completing inquiries, a council must give an applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Section 184 of the Act and paragraph 18.30 of the Code)
16. An applicant may ask for a review within 21 days of being notified of many council homelessness decisions. An applicant may also ask a council to provide accommodation pending its decision on a review.
17. A council must complete the review of a decision that an applicant is not in priority need within eight weeks of the request.

Main events

18. Mr X was given notice to leave his then accommodation. Mr X completed an online Council homelessness form saying that he had to leave his accommodation in three weeks. Mr X said he would need an interpreter. Shortly before the three weeks expired, the Council conducted a telephone interview with Mr X in the presence of an interpreter (‘the Interview’). The Council decided Mr X was not in priority need and told him it would not provide interim accommodation. Later that day, Mr X came to the Council’s office and handed medical information to a housing officer. The Council did not find the added information affected its earlier decision. The Council’s records showed it again telephoned Mr X, in the presence of an interpreter, and told him he was not in priority need.
19. The Council had also told Mr X it did not consider he had a local connection to Coventry and so had referred his case to another council (‘council one’). Council one responded quickly saying Mr X’s local connection was with yet another council (‘council two’).
20. In the month that followed, the Council referred Mr X’s case to council two, which responded after about three weeks. Council two told the Council that Mr X had no local connection to its area. A few days later, the Council asked its medical advisers to consider Mr X’s case and they replied the next day. The medical adviser said they did not “…think the specific medical issues in [Mr X’s] case are of particular significance compared to an ordinary person”.
21. Meanwhile, following the Interview, Mr X had sought help and support from third parties and had spent about 14 nights rough sleeping. The third parties had, among other matters, asked about the Council’s written decision for Mr X’s homelessness application. A third party saw Mr X about two weeks after the Interview. The third party then wrote to the Council saying Mr X’s “…health was clearly deteriorating, he had barely slept in days, had lost a lot of weight, was in a great deal of pain and poor spirits”. A few days later, that third party again wrote to the Council saying Mr X’s health was “…in severe and urgent jeopardy”.
22. The Council then issued its decision letters (‘the Decision Letters’). It said it had “finished [its] enquiries into an important part of [its] assessment of [Mr X’s] homeless application” and decided he was not in priority need. It had considered whether Mr X was a person who is vulnerable because of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason. The Council’s letter gave details of Mr X’s medical and health conditions and other circumstances and said the Council had taken medical advice. The letter said the medical advice “…reinforced [its] decision…” about Mr X’s medical conditions not being particularly significant compared to any other person. The Council said it had decided Mr X was not vulnerable and did not have a priority need for accommodation. The Council said it had accepted a relief duty and would provide Mr X with advice and assistance to help him find his own accommodation. The letters ended with details of how Mr X could ask for a review of its decisions.
23. Ten days later, having secured legal help, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision and provide accommodation pending completion of the review. That same day, the Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation.
24. Eight weeks later, the Council wrote again to Mr X. In its letters, the Council told Mr X it had overturned its decision and, based on new information, was satisfied he was in priority need. The Council also said its relief duty had ended and, deciding Mr X was in priority need, it owed him the main housing duty. Mr X remained in his existing accommodation, which stopped being ‘interim’ and became ‘temporary’ accommodation.
25. About a month later, Mr Z, for Mr X, complained to the Council about its handling of Mr X’s homelessness application. Mr Z said the Council had failed to offer Mr X a face-to-face interview in line with the Code; and failed to provide interim accommodation from the date of the Interview. Mr Z also complained about the Council’s four-week delay in issuing its decision letters following the Interview.
26. The Council responded to the complaint. In summary, it said it carried out most of its homelessness assessments remotely. It was happy to offer face-to-face appointments when asked for by an applicant. Often, when using interpreters, it was easier and quicker to assess applicants by telephone. It had not acted with fault in assessing Mr X’s application by telephone. It made sufficient enquiries, by telephoning Mr X and considering the medical information he provided, to be satisfied he was not in priority need. After the Interview, it had quickly and clearly told Mr X of its decision by telephone. So, it had followed correct procedures. It accepted its delay between assessing and deciding Mr X’s case by telephone and the issue of the Decision Letters. The Council apologised for any distress caused by the delay and offered Mr X a goodwill payment of £250.

Consideration

Introduction

27. Our role is to look at whether there is evidence of fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application and reached its decisions (see paragraph 4). And, as a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the Council did.

Face-to-face interviews: a summary of Mr X’s position

28. Mr Z referred to paragraphs 11.14 and 11.15 of the Code and said the Council failed to offer Mr X a face-to-face interview. Mr Z said Mr X’s health/medical circumstances and the existence of a language barrier made a face-to-face interview necessary. A face-to-face interview would have avoided the Council’s Decision Letters later wrongly describing how Mr X mobilised. As Mr X did not know he could have a face-to-face interview, he was unable to ask for one, which could have taken place with an interpreter joining by video or telephone link. Mr Z said, if Mr X had had a face-to-face interview the Council would have seen a visibly frail person with restricted mobility and found ‘reason to believe’ he was in priority need. The Council’s failure to comply with the Code, which contributed to its decision not to offer him interim accommodation, had been unfair.

Face-to-face interviews: a summary of the Council’s position

29. The Council said it was aware of and had regard to the Code. It took a blended approach to assessments using both face-to-face and telephone interviews and provided supporting information. It had to balance its approach to assessments, which included reactive emergency situations, with increasing demands on its homelessness service. Its emergency service was reactive and dealt with the most urgent cases where people had no available accommodation. The emergency service was predominately delivered by telephone. And, when using interpreters, telephone assessments were often easier and quicker to process. The Council also said all pre booked assessments were offered a face-to-face appointment or telephone call.
30. The Council said Mr X’s application needed an emergency assessment. It was not possible to offer a face-to-face interview but it had met Mr X’s needs for an interpreter in booking a telephone appointment. It had then telephoned Mr X, with an interpreter, on two consecutive days. On each of those days, Mr X had also, briefly, attended its office. There was no evidence Mr X needed a face-to-face interview. If he had asked for one, it would have tried to facilitate this given time pressures and the need for an interpreter. The Council said it advised applicants when it telephoned they could have a face-to-face or telephone interview.

Face-to-face interviews: assessment

31. The law required the Council to have regard to paragraphs 11.14 and 11.15 of the Code in dealing with Mr X’s homelessness application. I found the intent of this part of the Code clear: there was a preference for face-to-face interviews and applicants should have that opportunity during assessment of their application. I found it unsustainable for the Council to assert that applicants could ask for a face-to-face interview when most people would be unaware they might make such a request. Many applicants would be focussed on securing help and so more likely to accept unquestioningly what the Council offered.
32. I also found the Council’s position on Mr X’s case unsustainable. Mr X’s online application gave the Council about three weeks to arrange an interview, during which time he had accommodation. On the day of his telephone interview, Mr X faced imminent homelessness. There was no objective, verifiable and contemporaneous evidence that, during the first telephone call, the Council told Mr X about face-to-face interviews (see paragraphs 29 and 30). And, given the Council confirmed Mr X came to its office on the two days during which it telephoned him, he was clearly able to present for a face-to-face interview. Many meetings take place with people both gathered in person and others joining remotely. Such an arrangement should have been possible for Mr X despite the Council’s concerns about time pressures and access to an interpreter. I therefore found the Council at fault as there was no evidence it gave Mr X the opportunity for a face-to-face interview when assessing his homelessness application.
33. Given Mr X’s attendances at the Council’s office, I found it more likely than not that he would have taken up any offer of a face-to-face interview. The Council case officer assessing his case would then have been able to directly engage with Mr X, seeing him and how he responded to questions through his interpreter. As it was, the evidence showed Mr X, when attending the Council’s office, was only briefly seen by other officer/s in the Council’s housing department and without the presence of an interpreter. I therefore found the fault I identified in paragraph 32 would have caused Mr X avoidable frustration and distress.

Health and medical matters: a summary of Mr X’s position

34. Mr Z referred to Section 188(1) of the Act and paragraph 15.5 of the Code (see paragraph 12) and said the Council had not applied the correct, ‘reason to believe’, test. Rather, it had used too high a bar in deciding not to provide Mr X with interim accommodation. This was evidenced by the Council’s complaint responses that said, after the Interview, it considered it had made sufficient enquiries and “found” Mr X was not in priority need. The courts had said a same day decision would be reached in the most straightforward cases. The courts had also dealt with cases where detailed enquiries were to be expected when dealing with applicants whose circumstances were similar to Mr X. There was also inconsistency in the Council, nearly four weeks after the Interview, seeking independent medical advice on Mr X’s case.
35. Mr Z said the information provided by Mr X at the Interview (and then supported by his medical records), clearly gave the Council ‘reason to believe’ he might be in priority need. Therefore, it should have given Mr X interim accommodation, even if not satisfied he was vulnerable. Instead, Mr X was without accommodation for over a month, spending significant time rough sleeping, and without a written decision giving him rights to ask for a review.

Health and medical matters: a summary of the Council’s position

36. The Council said its staff were trained on ‘reason to believe’ decision making. It needed to be satisfied an applicant did not have a priority need. And it was responsible for making reasonable enquiries into any medical issues. Before issuing a decision letter, it made written enquiries to shore up its officer-based decisions.
37. The Council referred to Mr X’s case notes as evidencing the information it had in assessing his application. The case notes said its second telephone call with Mr X was “…to ask about [Mr X’s] health to make [priority need] decision”. And, during that telephone call, it explained its ‘not in priority need’ decision to Mr X. Later that day, Mr X produced medical information. It then telephoned Mr X again, in the presence of an interpreter, and repeated that it would not provide emergency accommodation. It officer’s assessment of priority need was based on Mr X advising he was independent, did not have support needs, had engaged with medical professionals and largely could manage his own affairs.
38. Its case notes showed that throughout the assessment, its officer did not consider Mr X was in priority need. And the officer did not have ‘reason to believe’ he was in priority need. But, the officer still had to make further enquiries to satisfy the legal test, which they did in later referring Mr X’s case to the Council’s medical adviser. Mr X used his right to ask for a review on receiving the Decision Letters. The Council said the added information available on review was a ‘doctor’s summary’. The summary accompanied the review request. It had overturned the priority need decision on review and recognised shortfalls in its handling of Mr X’s case in responding to Mr Z under its complaint procedure.

Health and medical matters: assessment

39. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and it was not for me to say whether Mr X was in priority need. However, the information provided by the Council included its notes about the complaint Mr Z had made under its complaints procedure. The notes said Mr X was given accommodation on receipt of his review request as there was sufficient evidence to suggest he might be vulnerable. The notes also referred to the “very low threshold” for providing interim accommodation. And, the Council had made insufficient enquiries. The notes said Mr X’s complaint about delay and distress in providing interim accommodation should be upheld.
40. The evidence showed the Council reached its decision Mr X was not in priority need during the Interview. It had not, at that point, seen the copy medical records Mr X then produced. Having received a copy of those records, which ran to many pages, the Council maintained its position there was no priority need. Mr Z had pointed to what the courts said about the need for enquiries (see paragraph 34). Overall, given Mr X’s circumstances, which included medical and health issues, his homelessness application was not ‘straightforward’.
41. The reviewing officer’s complaint notes showed awareness of the ‘low’ threshold associated with ‘reason to believe’ an applicant might be in priority need. The reviewing officer’s notes also supported the Council’s original decision not being correctly made (see paragraph 39). On balance, the evidence did not show the Council had made sufficient enquiries given the complexity of Mr X’s application. And, the contemporaneous written Council information indicated it had more likely than not applied a higher threshold than appropriate in considering whether it had ‘reason to believe’ Mr X might be vulnerable and so in priority need. I therefore found fault in the Council’s initial decision making during and shortly following the Interview. I further found this fault caused Mr X injustice as it meant he was denied interim accommodation for about six weeks following the Interview. And I had no reason to doubt Mr X spent about two of those six weeks rough sleeping.

Written decision notice: a summary of Mr X’s position

42. Mr Z said the Council decided Mr X was not in priority need when it conducted the Interview. This was supported by the Decision Letters it issued four weeks later. The Decision Letters said the medical advice the Council had asked for and received “reinforced” its decision that Mr X was not in priority need. The delay in issuing the Decision Letters denied Mr X the opportunity to challenge the Council’s ‘not in priority need’ decision for four weeks. During those four weeks, Mr X had been, at times, rough sleeping.

Written decision notice: a summary of the Council’s position

43. In responding to the complaint from Mr Z, the Council accepted its delay between communicating its decision to Mr X by telephone and issuing the Decision Letters. And, in recognition of its delay, had offered Mr X a goodwill payment of £250. In later responding to the Ombudsman, the Council said it had quickly issued a letter to Mr X after its two telephone calls. The letter said it had referred Mr X’s application to council one as it did not consider he had a local connection with Coventry. It had also clearly told Mr X during a telephone call that he was not in priority need. Mr X could then have started judicial review proceedings about its decision not to provide interim accommodation.
44. Once councils one and two had rejected its referrals, which took about three weeks, its further enquiries led it to issue the Decision Letters about a week later. The Decision Letters gave Mr X the right to ask for a review of its decision that he was not in priority need. The Council also said it was unusual for there to be a delay in issuing its decision letters.

Written decision notice: assessment

45. The Council provided a copy of its letter addressed to Mr X and dated the day of its first telephone call with Mr X. The letter set out why the Council considered Mr X did not have a local connection to Coventry and why it had referred his case to council one. The letter did not say Mr X had a right to request a review of its referral decisions. And, despite council one immediately rejecting the referral and signposting the Council to council two, I saw no evidence Mr X was told about this or of the referral to council two.
46. When Mr X received the Decision Letters, the evidence showed he quickly sought legal advice. I therefore found that, if the earlier referral letter had included information about review rights, Mr X would more likely than not have then sought legal advice. With early legal advice, the Council might have been pressed to secure a timelier referral response from council two and so issue the Decision Letters sooner. However, I recognised there was uncertainty here.
47. I was also mindful the Council had, in responding to Mr Z under its complaints procedure, already accepted its delay in issuing the Decision Letters (see paragraph 26). Overall, I found fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s case about its timely issue of, and correct wording for, its decision letters. This would have led to added avoidable distress for Mr X. I therefore found the fault I identified caused Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Action

48. I found fault causing injustice (see paragraphs 32, 33, 41 and 47). The substantive impact on Mr X of the identified faults was that he lacked fixed suitable accommodation for around six weeks, which included about 14 nights rough sleeping. The Council addressed this on receipt of Mr X’s review request as it then provided him with accommodation. However, despite this corrective action, I found the circumstances here meant there remained unremedied injustice to Mr X that had arisen from the identified faults in the Council’s initial decision making.
49. I considered our guidance on remedies. In addition to a written apology, I found a symbolic payment proportionate, appropriate and reasonable in this specific case. In deciding the payment, I took account of the available information about Mr X’s health, medical and other individual circumstances. While Mr X was without suitable accommodation for about six weeks, I focused on the 14 nights he was rough sleeping. I also took account of the likelihood that Mr X incurred additional food and bedding costs during the six weeks.
50. The Council agreed my recommendation that, within 30 working days of this statement, it:

• send Mr X a written apology; and
• make Mr X a symbolic payment of £1,575,

in recognition of the avoidable distress and lack of suitable accommodation, which included about 14 nights of rough sleeping, arising from the Council’s faults in its initial decision making on his homelessness application.

51. The Council also agreed, by 1 September 2025, to write to relevant staff to remind them of the low threshold that applies in deciding whether there is reason to believe a homelessness applicant may be in priority need for housing.
52. The Council should consider what our guidance on remedies says about making effective apologies before sending the apology referred to at paragraph 50.
53. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it had complied with the actions set out a paragraphs 50 and 51.

Back to top

Decision

54. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman