London Borough of Harrow (24 014 415)

Category : Housing > Homelessness

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 16 Apr 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Mr X with interim accommodation when he was homeless. Mr X slept rough, which is an injustice. The Council also made inadequate inquiries and took too long to issue formal homelessness decisions. This delayed Mr X’s access to his review and appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a new decision, and make a payment to Mr X. It will also act to improve its services.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complained that the Council has not helped him with his homelessness. He says the Council has not provided him with interim accommodation and that no one answers when he calls or responds to his communication.
  2. As a result, Mr X says he remains homeless and is often sleeping rough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
  3. We make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
  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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
  2. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
  3. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
  4. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

  1. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 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.
  2. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
  3. Of relevance to this complaint, applicants will be in priority need if they are more vulnerable than the average person if homeless or if they are homeless because of being a victim of domestic abuse or harassment.
  4. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
  5. After completing inquiries, the council must give the 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)

What happened

  1. Mr X contacted the Council in July 2024 because he was homeless. He said he had been living with a family member but had to leave. The Council sent him a link to its online form. Mr X completed the form the next day.
  2. The Council emailed Mr X to ask him to provide various documents. Mr X told the Council he was now rough sleeping. The Council signposted Mr X to a charity which could help him.
  3. The charity emailed the Council a few days later. It told the Council Mr X left the home because of threats of violence from other family members. It provided a police reference number. It asked the Council to provide Mr X with interim accommodation while it made inquiries.
  4. The Council asked the police for information about the incident. The police said the reference number was for a referral to the Council’s social services to consider if Mr X had care and support needs.
  5. The Council also asked its medical advisor to consider whether Mr X had any medical issues which might make him particularly vulnerable if homeless. The medical advisor responded a few days later. The medical advisor said Mr X had no relevant medical issues.
  6. Mr X called the Council in late July. He said he was trying to reach his allocated officer but no one was answering when he called. The Council told Mr X his allocated officer was on holiday. The allocated officer contacted Mr X at the end of July. The officer told Mr X the Council would not provide interim accommodation because Mr X had no priority need.
  7. In early August, the Council completed its assessment. It accepted the relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan. The Council assigned the case to a new officer.
  8. In September, Mr X complained to the Council. He said he was homeless but no one was helping him. He said he had not heard from his new allocated worker and whenever he called, it went to voicemail.
  9. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in October. It said did not uphold the complaint.
  10. In mid-October, an internal note records that the Council needed to decide whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty.
  11. The Council told Mr X it did not owe him the main housing duty because he was not in priority need in mid-February 2025.

My findings

  1. Mr X complained about the Council’s communication with him. The evidence shows a period between August and late September when Mr X’s allocated officer did not contact him. This was despite several calls from Mr X. Failure to respond to this communication was fault.
  2. The duty to provide interim accommodation arises if a council has reason to believe someone might be eligible, homeless, and in priority need. This is a low threshold. The charity told the Council Mr X might be a victim of domestic abuse or harassment. The Council sought medical advice because it thought his medical conditions might be relevant. Based on this, the Council had reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need. It should have provided interim accommodation while it made further inquiries. Failure to do so was fault. If it provided interim accommodation, the Council could only require Mr X to leave it by making a formal decision that Mr X was not in priority need. He would, therefore, on balance, have been in interim accommodation for up to two months. Instead, Mr X slept rough. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.
  3. The Council delayed accepting the relief duty. It had all the information it needed by 18 July and did not accept the duty and issue a PHP until early August. This delay was fault.
  4. The Council further delayed issuing its decision Mr X was not in priority need. Had it accepted the relief duty when it should have, it should have made this decision by mid-September. Having not accepted relief until August, it should have made the decision by early October. It did not do so until February 2025. This delay was fault. It denied Mr X access to his statutory right of review and appeal. This is a significant injustice to Mr X.
  5. Normally, the Ombudsman does not investigate when someone has a right of review and then appeal to court about a homeless decision. In this case however, the Council’s inquiries about the risk of domestic abuse or harassment were inadequate. It contacted the police but there is no evidence the Council spoke to Mr X about the risk or otherwise sought to establish whether Mr X was at risk from his family. Failure to do so was fault. The inadequacy of the inquiries means the decision Mr X is not in priority need is unsound.
  6. I cannot say whether Mr X has a priority need. That is for the Council to decide. However, it should make a new decision about this after making proper inquiries into the risk to Mr X of domestic abuse or harassment from family.

Back to top

Action

  1. To remedy the injustice to Mr X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
      1. Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
      2. Make inquiries into whether Mr X has a priority need because of domestic abuse and/or harassment and make a new decision, with a new right of review and appeal.
      3. Offer Mr X suitable interim accommodation pending the outcome of this new decision.
      4. Pay Mr X £1000 in recognition of the significant distress he experienced sleeping rough when he should have had interim accommodation.
      5. Pay Mr X a further £250 in recognition of the injustice caused by delayed access to his review and appeal rights.
  2. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
  3. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
    • Remind relevant staff of the expectations for contact with homeless applicants and ensure homeless applicants know how frequently they can expect contact.
    • Using this case as an example, provide training or guidance to relevant staff on:
          1. the low threshold triggering the duty to provide interim accommodation;
          2. making inquiries in cases of alleged domestic abuse or harassment; and
          3. issuing decisions with statutory review and appeal rights on time.
  4. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action is has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

  1. I find fault causing injustice. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings