Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he was evicted without notice. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he was evicted from his home without notice. Mr X said as a result he was homeless for months and had to sleep rough. Mr X wanted the Council to explain its actions and provide a gesture of goodwill for the injustice he had experienced.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)
4. Most homelessness decisions carry a right of review, followed by a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
5. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

Homelessness and accommodation

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. 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. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
11. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Eligibility

12. People who are subject to immigration control, such has having limited leave to remain, are generally not eligible for housing assistance unless they fall within a specific class of person. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 7.7)

Priority need

13. 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.

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. If the decision is upheld at review, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Domestic abuse

15. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless as a result of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to the applicant immediately whilst it undertakes its investigations. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25)
16. Domestic abuse is violence and/or abuse between two people, over the age of 16, who are or have been ‘personally connected’. The relationship between a landlord and tenant is not personally connected.

What happened

17. Mr X lived in a property which he privately rented from a landlord.
18. Mr X approached the Council in May 2024 and told it he was homeless and asked for housing assistance. Mr X said he provided this information in person at the Council offices. Mr X explained he had been threatened with violence by his landlord and had fled the property without any belongings and could not return. Mr X told the Council he was rough sleeping, was subject to immigration control and had limited leave to remain in the country. The Council recorded Mr X did not have any priority needs. Mr X was not able to provide any supporting documents.
19. The information was passed to a housing officer (Officer 1) who phoned Mr X the same day, left a voicemail and then emailed him. Officer 1 asked Mr X to provide various documents to support his application include proof of identity, income, homelessness and any support needs he may have.
20. Mr X replied to Officer 1 and said he could not provide any documents as they were all in the property he had left and could not access. The Council arranged for Mr X to spend that night in a hotel. Officer 1 spoke to Mr X on the phone to gather further information the following day and Mr X said he was going to retrieve his belongings and would send the documents. Officer 1 reviewed the information and recorded they did not have reason to believe Mr X was in priority need. The records show Officer 1 informed Mr X over the phone the Council would not provide interim accommodation.
21. 12 days after his initial application Mr X contacted the Council and complained it was delaying in providing him assistance. The Council responded and apologised for the delay which it stated was caused by high demand. The Council told Mr X it was waiting for him to provide documentation so it could consider his application.
22. Officer 1 contacted Mr X two weeks later and requested the documents again.
23. The Council’s records show Mr X sent some documents to the Council but they were not the documents the Council had requested. Mr X said it would take him time to gather the rest of the documents required.
24. Officer 1 contacted Mr X again in July and asked for evidence of Mr X’s immigration status, proof of homelessness, proof of support or medical needs, bank statements and proof of income which were still outstanding. They provided advice and guidance on what proof it could consider. The records show Officer 1 made some further enquiries with other services and considered the information available at that time and decided there was no reason to believe Mr X was eligible for assistance.
25. Mr X sent a further piece of evidence to the Council at the end of August, but it did not provide any of the information the Council had requested. Officer 1 asked Mr X to provide the outstanding information by the beginning of September or the Council would make a decision on the information it had available.
26. Mr X raised his complaint again in August, he told the Council its response was insufficient and it should provide him compensation as it had not provided any assistance to him in May. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
27. At the beginning of September the Council considered Mr X’s application, without any additional information, and decided he was not eligible for housing assistance. It wrote to Mr X via email and told him of its decision and his right of appeal against that decision.
28. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response Mr X complained to us.

My findings

29. When Mr X approached the Council it considered his application in line with the Code of Guidance. Mr X provided information which suggested he was not eligible for support and no evidence to suggest he was in priority need. The Council provided interim accommodation for one night, after which it considered Mr X was not in priority need. It later decided Mr X was not eligible for housing assistance due to his immigration status.
30. There is no evidence of delay in considering Mr X’s application as a result of Council fault. The Council repeatedly requested the information it required to be able to consider the application and provided advice and guidance on how Mr X could provide that information.
31. Mr X suggested to me he was subject to domestic abuse from his landlord. However, there is no evidence Mr X told the Council this at the time of the events. In addition Mr X confirmed to me he was not, and had not been, personally connected to his landlord. As such the term domestic abuse does apply to Mr X’s circumstances. If Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision he was not eligible for housing assistance it was open to him to use his right of review and then to challenge the decision in court on a point of law if he remained unhappy.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman