Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to accept a homelessness application, provide a decision or provide emergency accommodation. I have found the Council at fault because it failed to follow the correct process. The Council has agreed to make service improvements, and will pay redress to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) has a Representative (Ms Z). Ms Z says the Council failed to accept a homelessness application from Mr D in November 2024 and failed to provide interim accommodation or emergency accommodation under its severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP). As a result Mr D was rough sleeping for several nights and did not receive a formal decision on his homelessness application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I shared my draft decision with the Council and Ms Z.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 18 November 2024 Mr D approached the Council for homelessness assistance, he asked for an interpreter. He said he had travelled from another part of the country (X Council) where he had been accommodated by the Home Office and granted Leave To Remain. A Homelessness Prevention Officer (Officer) noted they had been unable to get an interpreter but had spoken to Mr D and told him if he had been granted Leave To Remain in X Council then the Council would be offering reconnection to that area. Mr D struggled to understand. Mr D then went to Ms Z who contacted the Council and asked for a SWEP bed for the evening for Mr D. The Council told Ms Z that SWEP beds were for people verified as rough sleeping.
7. On 19 November an Officer spoke to Mr D with an interpreter. The first two calls to Mr D cut out. Mr D went to the library and requested he be called back. A third call with an interpreter was made and the Officer noted Mr D had moved to the area from X Council. The Officer advised Mr D had an established connection with X Council and there was an “option for assessment with us but unlikely to lead to accommodation”. Mr D asked what options were available and the Officer suggested the Council pay for a bus ticket to take him back to X Council. Mr D said he didn’t want to do that, and he wanted accommodation. Mr D refused reconnection with X Council.
8. On 20 November Ms Z formally complained to the Council on behalf of Mr D. She said the Council should have accepted a homelessness application on 18 November and provided interim accommodation or a bed under the SWEP. The Council should have started to make inquiries into the homelessness application to decide whether it owed a duty towards Mr D.
9. On 21 November an Officer spoke to Mr D, with an interpreter, and filled out an Inclusion Plan. They noted Mr D had been rough sleeping since arriving in Newcastle on 18 November. He had previously been in X Council and was homeless. A relief duty was owed starting 21 November. The Council would carry out eligibility checks by 23 November. An Officer then spoke to X Council who stated Mr D had a tenancy in that rea. The Officer contacted the landlord who said Mr D had handed back the keys for the property and he would no longer accommodate him. The Officer subsequently noted they had called Mr D and sent him a coach ticket for travel that evening back to X Council (the coach would arrive around midnight) and Mr D would approach X Council the next day. Ms Z asked the Council where Mr D would sleep that night and why could the Council not accommodate him so he could travel the next day. The Council said Mr D should contact the Out of Hours Team at X Council on arrival. Ms Z told the Council it should have taken a homelessness application from Mr D and checked whether X Council accepted a relief duty towards him before sending him back to that area.
10. On 22 November Mr D returned to Newcastle and Ms Z asked the Council to provide accommodation. She said Mr D had called X Council’s Out of Hours and not got a reply and had nowhere to stay in that area. The Council agreed to provide a bed under the SWEP for the weekend. It noted it had told Mr D about the SWEP bed “with the condition to return to [X Council] on Monday” and that Mr D had not been happy with this. Mr D did not contact the Council over the weekend or use the bed provided. Ms Z says he got lost, could not find the emergency accommodation and subsequently returned to X Council.
11. On 4 December the Council contacted Mr D that he had not used the emergency accommodation and asked for an update. It still had his homelessness application and would make a referral back to X Council if he needed assistance. The next day the HP Officer noted they had closed the case because Mr D had not responded.
12. On 9 December the Council noted the case was re-opened, there is no explanation why this happened. The Council called Mr D on 16 and 17 December to discuss the complaint but could not get through to him. It also emailed him on 17 December.
13. On 30 December the Council responded to the formal complaint. It said Mr D had a connection to X Council and he had a tenancy in that area which “remained available to him”. Mr D had not used the emergency accommodation provided from 22 November and had not replied to contact. The Council accepted it had failed to issue Mr D with a formal decision on his homelessness application. It would issue a decision by 10 January 2025.
14. On 25 February Ms Z asked the Council to escalate the complaint. She disputed whether Mr D had refused a homelessness assessment, and the Council had only become aware of a possible tenancy in X Council on 21 November, this had not been a deciding factor in the actions up to that date. The Council replied on 3 May. It had followed the correct procedures in the case overall. It said Mr D had refused a homelessness assessment on 19 November and he had wanted long-term accommodation only. The Council accepted it had not known about the tenancy in X Council until 21 November and had found that accommodation was no longer available to Mr D on that date. The Council also stated Mr D had agreed to return to X Council on 19 November and it had been reasonable to decide that Mr D should prioritise his reconnection to X Council.

What should have happened

Applications

15. 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. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

The relief duty

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Local connection and referral to another housing authority

17. A council (notifying authority) can refer applicants who do not have a local connection to their district to another housing authority (the notified authority) in England where they do have such a connection. Before making a referral, the notifying authority must be satisfied that the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance and therefore owed the relief duty and that the conditions for referral are met. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 section 198 (A1) and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.37)
18. The notifying authority is not subject to the relief duty at the point that they have notified an applicant they intend to refer or have referred their case to another housing authority. It follows that a council will owe the relief duty until such time as the applicant has been issued with this notification. If the notifying authority believes that the applicant has no local connection and may have a connection elsewhere, they should take reasonable steps to try and relieve the applicant’s homelessness until they issue the first notification. When the notifying authority intends to refer or have referred a case to another housing authority, there are two points at which applicants must be notified:
• (a) when the notifying authority has decided that the conditions for referral are met and intend to notify, or have notified, another local authority of that opinion.
• (b) when, following referral, it has been decided that the conditions for referral are or are not met. The notification must provide notice of the decision and the reasons for it.
19. From the date the first notice is issued the authority will not be subject to the relief duty to provide interim accommodation unless they have reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need in which case they will have a duty to provide interim accommodation to the applicant whilst a decision is made on whether the conditions for referral are met. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 section 199A(b) and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.38, 10.39, 10.40)
20. Notification, as set out in the Local Authority Agreement guidance, requires the notifying authority to contact the notified authority by telephone, email or fax and then in writing. Where a decision is reached and the referral conditions are met the notifying authority must inform the applicant in writing of its decision, the reasons for it and to set out their right to a review. The notified authority should also reply in writing to say whether they accept the referral.

Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP)

21. SWEP describes the Council’s arrangements for responding to people who are sleeping rough, and the additional arrangements put in place where there are severe weather conditions. During spells of extreme cold weather (weather predicted to be at a minimum temperature for 3 or more consecutive days) the SWEP includes arrangements for a single offer of a safe place to stay. The SWEP protocol says that for people with no local connection the Council will assist people to return to their area of connection as a priority in normal working hours. If a person contacts the Council out of office hours ‘there may be either an offer of a safe place to stay for one night only or assistance to return to a safe place in their area of connection’.

Was there fault by the Council

22. There are several failings in this case by the Council.
23. Mr D made it clear he required an interpreter when he first approached the Council for assistance on 18 November 2024. The Officer spoke to him that day about his case without an interpreter and Mr D struggled to understand. The Council did subsequently provide an interpreter when it spoke to Mr D although there were still delays on 19 November being able to obtain an interpreter. Whilst I appreciate the Council’s difficulties obtaining an interpreter it should have ensured one was available on 18 November. Homelessness is a complex matter, and it was incorrect for the Council to speak to Mr D without the assistance he requested.
24. There is no evidence of the Council considering whether it should accept a homelessness application from Mr D on 18 November and an application was only taken on 21 November. The Council stated in its complaints response that Mr D had refused a homelessness assessment on 19 November. That is incorrect. The notes from that day show that Mr D was refusing a reconnection with X Council, not a homelessness assessment. Furthermore the offer of the homelessness assessment on that day was couched in an unacceptable manner. The Officer told Mr D he could be assessed but it would be unlikely to lead to accommodation. The Officer was prejudging the outcome before he had made any formal assessment.
25. I have not seen evidence of the Council assessing whether Mr D should receive interim accommodation (under the relief duty) from 18 November. I also cannot see any assessment of whether Mr D was eligible for a SWEP bed until 22 November. The case notes for the period focus on returning Mr D to X Council from the outset. Mr D had to sleep rough for four nights from 18 November until the Council offered a SWEP bed on 22 November. I note that Mr D did not use the SWEP bed provided on 22 November but that does not alter the fault which occurred up to that point.
26. I have not seen evidence of the Council correctly notifying X Council of its intention to reconnect Mr D to the area. The case notes show the Officer called the Council and then Mr D’s former landlord. I have not seen anything to show the Council formally notified X Council in writing that it had accepted Mr D was homeless and eligible for assistance and the conditions for a referral were met. There is also no formal acceptance of the referral by X Council. The Council should also have issued a notice of its decision and the reasons for it to Mr D along with information about his right to request a review. Instead Mr D was sent back to X Council to arrive at midnight without any record of X Council agreeing to the reconnection or accepting it would provide accommodation for Mr D on arrival. That is unacceptable.
27. The Council failed to issue Mr D with a decision on his homelessness application. It accepted it had failed to do in its complaints response and said it would be issued by 10 January 2025 which did not happen. The Council told me it does not have an address for Mr D to send a decision letter. The Council has an email address for Mr D and had the option to send a copy of the decision to the charity assisting him to hold until it received contact from Mr D.

Did the fault cause an injustice

28. Mr D did not receive an acceptable level of assistance from the Council. The failures by the Council meant he was not provided with accommodation for four nights and was sent back to X Council arriving at midnight without any accommodation being secured. He also did not receive a decision on his homelessness application and has, therefore, not been able to ask for a review if he believes the decision is wrong.

Back to top

Action

29. The Council has told me that it will make service improvements because of this case. It will formalise a set of ‘guiding principals’ including:

• how to engage with alternative services involved in a homelessness case
• considering heightened risks or vulnerabilities of an applicant
• establishing an internal pool of interpreters as a back-up option

30. It will also hold a ‘reflective learning session’ for Officers within the next two months.
31. Those service improvements are welcome. In addition the Council has agreed to my recommendations and will pay Mr D £400 for the lack of an acceptable service and issue a decision letter to Mr D on his homelessness application.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mr D.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman