The Investigation

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that when he was homeless in 2024, the Council:

• failed to prevent or relieve his homelessness, causing him to become street homeless;

• wrongly rejected his application to join the housing register based on his rent arrears;

• failed to provide him with interim and temporary accommodation that was suitable for his disability; and

• failed to follow its own complaints policy, when it let the same Council officer investigate his complaint at both stages of the complaints process.

2. Mr X said because of the Council’s actions he has been caused a period of significant distress which impacted his physical and mental health.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. 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)

4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

5. When considering complaints 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.

Relevant law and guidance 

The prevention duty

6. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. The prevention duty can last for up to 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

7. The 56-day period does not apply where the applicant has been given a valid section 21 notice that will expire within 56 days or has expired. This is to ensure continuity of prevention services where an applicant remains in the property after the notice expires.

The relief duty

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. The relief duty can last for up to 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Interim accommodation and priority need

9. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

10. A council may decide an applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.

11. It is a matter of judgement for councils whether the applicant’s circumstances make them vulnerable and therefore whether they are in priority need. In assessing and deciding on this, councils must consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances and consider the impact of homelessness on the applicant when compared to a non-disabled person. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 8.16)

12. The threshold for triggering the interim accommodation duty is low, as the council only has to have ‘reason to believe’ (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant ‘may’ be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.5)

13. When a council is satisfied it is under no further duty to secure interim accommodation, the council will need to provide the applicant with reasonable notice to vacate the accommodation. Councils must act reasonably by giving the applicant at least some opportunity to find alternative accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 15.19, 15.20)

14. Councils must also issue this decision in writing and inform the applicant of their statutory right to have the decision reviewed, along with their right to appeal the council’s review decision to a county court if they disagree. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

15. Applicants do not have a statutory right of review regarding the suitability of their interim accommodation. However, the law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

The main housing duty

16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to make accommodation available. The accommodation councils provide after they accept a main housing duty is called temporary accommodation, rather than interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

17. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation and if they do not agree with the council’s review decision, can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Evictions

18. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (section 6.35) says:

• where an applicant has received a valid section 21 notice; and

• the council is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession and efforts to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain are unlikely to be successful; and

• there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;

then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice.

19. The Code notes it may be reasonable if the council is trying to persuade the landlord to let the applicant stay a while longer while alternative accommodation is found.

20. The Code goes on to say, at section 6.36, it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy a property beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.

21. The Code then says, at section 6.37, it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation of a property until a court issues a warrant to enforce possession.

22. It says applicants who are owed a section 188 interim accommodation duty should not be evicted by bailiffs because of a failure by a council to provide accommodation. (6.38)

23. Our March 2023 focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act”, expressed our concern at the number of councils that still take a “wait for bailiffs” approach in homelessness cases. We highlighted that this approach is, “contrary to the law and guidance and causes significant and avoidable distress for people at an already difficult time in their lives”.

Housing allocations (housing register)

24. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published

scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

25. An allocation scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;

• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;

• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds; and

• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

26. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.

27. We will not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application or a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

Norwich City Council, Home Options Allocation Scheme

28. The Council’s housing allocations policy says applicants will not qualify to join its housing register if they have more than two months’ worth of rent arrears. It says that if an applicant has less than two months’ rent arrears, they can join the housing register but will have a reduced preference for properties for as long as the debt exists.

29. The policy says applicants who have stuck to a repayment plan for their arrears for a certain amount of time will have these restrictions lifted and it also says exceptional circumstances will be considered.

Norwich City Council, Corporate Complaints Policy

30. The Council operates a two-stage complaints process. It says that a different complaint handler will consider the complaint at the second and final stage.

Personal Independence Payment

31. Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a benefit for working-aged people living with a health condition or disability.

How we considered this complaint

32. We have produced this report following the examination of relevant files and documents as well as communication with the complainant.

33. We gave the complainant and the Council a confidential draft of this report and invited their comments. The comments received were taken into account before the report was finalised.

What we found

Background

34. In late 2023 Mr X was made redundant from his job shortly after he signed a contract for a new private tenancy. Over several months, he applied for other jobs but was unsuccessful. Around this time Mr X said he began to experience more debilitating symptoms from his physical disabilities and mental health condition, and this affected his ability to work. Mr X fell into rent arrears.

Homelessness application

35. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in late July 2024 after he received a section 21 notice to leave his private tenancy. The notice said his tenancy would end on 5 October 2024 and he must leave the property by that date.

36. The Council asked Mr X to provide some information so it could assess his homelessness. Mr X provided the requested evidence by early September 2024. This included:

• a completed medical information form which gave his GP details, set out his medical conditions, noted the impact on his daily life including issues washing himself and getting in and out of a bath;

• a letter confirming he was awarded PIP for his disability; and

• all other ID and financial documents requested.

37. The Council’s medical information form stated it would ask him for any further medical evidence it needed. The Council did not ask Mr X for any further medical evidence.

38. The Council decided it owed Mr X a prevention duty on 18 September 2024. The Council sent Mr X a Personalised Housing Plan. In the Plan, the Council said it would refer him to its private-rented property scheme, could offer him a loan to help him secure a private rented property and informed him of his rights to stay in the property despite the ongoing eviction.

39. Mr X said he was concerned his medical needs were not being properly considered and sent the Council more medical evidence on 23 September 2024 and 4 October 2024. This included:

• a photograph showing his prescription for a strong anti-anxiety medication;

• a letter from his hospital outlining the details of one of his physical health conditions. This recorded which parts of his body were affected, which were causing him pain, how the condition was affecting his ability to sit and that he had been referred for surgery to treat the condition; and

• the full breakdown of his entitlement for PIP, including details of how his condition affected his daily living.

40. The section 21 notice expired and Mr X had not found any alternative accommodation he could afford. The Council did not make any decision at this stage on whether to accept a relief duty or whether it had reason to believe Mr X may be in priority need due to his medical conditions and Mr X remained in the property. In mid-October 2024 Mr X told the Council he had a court date set for the possession order for later that month.

41. In late October 2024 Mr X sent more medical evidence to the Council. This time a letter from his GP, which said he was, “awaiting significant surgery on [his physical disability] under the Plastic Surgery Department at [his hospital]. This will require an inpatient stay and general anaesthetic. There will be some recovery time involved.”

42. The Council did not decide, in response to this further evidence, whether it had reason to believe Mr X may be vulnerable due to his medical conditions and therefore whether he may be in priority need and require interim accommodation.

43. Mr X next received a possession order from the courts and told the Council about this in late October 2024. This ordered Mr X to leave the property by 6 November or bailiffs would seek a warrant to enforce possession. Mr X’s landlord also told the Council they had received a possession order giving Mr X 14 days to leave the property. The Code of Guidance says it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to stay in occupation of a property beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property. It says it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until a court issues a warrant to enforce possession.

44. In response, the Council carried out a homelessness assessment two weeks later. The assessment identified several key points:

• Mr X was still living in the property despite receiving a possession order and was now awaiting a warrant to enforce possession (eviction by bailiffs);

• Mr X was receiving out of work benefits and PIP due to his disability, and he had several medical conditions; and

• he was prescribed medication and other forms of support for his medical conditions and he had an upcoming surgery date to treat one of his conditions.

45. The Council accepted a relief duty on 21 November 2024 as it accepted Mr X was homeless and eligible for assistance. It still did not decide whether it had reason to believe Mr X may be in priority need and therefore whether the Council had a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. It continued advising Mr X on ways he may be able to get accommodation himself including through the private-rented sector.

46. Mr X chased the Council in late November and early December to ask where he would live after he was evicted by bailiffs as the possession order had expired. These emails showed Mr X becoming increasingly distressed. On 3 December, Mr X said bailiffs would be coming to evict him in three days, he had nowhere to go and had not received updates from the Council.

47. The Council requested Mr X’s ‘patient summary’ from his GP three days before bailiffs were due to evict him. The officer said the summary set out some of Mr X’s conditions but not all. We have seen this document and it mainly set out the results of some scans.

48. Once the Council received this document, it wrote in the case record that this single document did not set out all of Mr X’s treatments for his conditions. It said, having considered this document, it did not think Mr X was in priority need. There is no record to show the Council considered all the other medical evidence Mr X had provided to date which did show his conditions and treatments.

49. The Council did not tell Mr X its decision that he was not in priority need (and therefore that the Council had no duty to provide interim accommodation) until the day of his eviction. Mr X contacted his officer on that day to say he had just sought emergency medical treatment due to having an anxiety attack. He said his physical disability had also flared up due to the amount of time he had been standing outside in the cold. The Council told Mr X by email it did not think he was in priority need and so it would not provide interim accommodation.

50. Mr X was evicted by bailiffs on 6 December 2024. Mr X sent several emails to the Council where he communicated significant distress. He sent medical evidence again and asked the Council to reconsider its decision. He said he was suicidal, had nowhere to go and was in pain due to the cold weather. Mr X sent several similar emails to the Council between 6 and 10 December 2024 and did not receive any response until 10 December 2024.

51. The Council had arranged a garage space for Mr X to store his belongings when he was evicted. With no alternative accommodation arranged on the day of the eviction, Mr X slept on the concrete floor of this garage. He stayed there for four nights. On the fifth day of being street homeless, Mr X was admitted to hospital after he attempted to take his own life.

52. The hospital contacted the Council and based on the hospital’s referral, the Council decided to provide Mr X with interim accommodation. The Council did not carry out an up to date assessment to establish what type of accommodation would be suitable for Mr X before it provided him with this accommodation.

53. Mr X raised concerns about the accommodation the Council provided. He said his first interim accommodation was in a poor condition and it was not suitable for his disability due to its shared facilities. Mr X was moved to another room in the same accommodation which he said was better. The Council then moved him to another interim accommodation at a different location. Mr X said this was unsuitable for his disability due to the size of the bed and his GP wrote to the Council to repeat these concerns. The Council did not move Mr X from this accommodation until later, after our investigation period ends.

Housing register application

54. The Council rejected Mr X’s application to join the housing register on 18 September 2024, because his rent arrears were too high. The Council said its policy disqualified applicants from joining the housing register if they had accrued more than two months’ worth of arrears.

55. Mr X requested a review of the decision he could not join the housing register. He said he fell into arrears through no fault of his own due to being made redundant and due to his medical conditions worsening, affecting his ability to work. He also said he was increasing his anti-anxiety medication and had experienced deterioration in his mental health due to the ongoing homelessness process.

56. The Council reviewed its decision that Mr X could not join its housing register at the end of November 2024. It upheld the original decision that he could not join due to his rent arrears, as this was in line with its allocations policy. The Council said this decision was sent to Mr X by post. However, Mr X said he did not receive it.

57. Mr X complained to the Council about his experience of applying to the Council as homeless and seeking long term housing through its allocations scheme. The Council sent its final complaint response on 23 January 2025 and did not uphold his complaints.

Conclusions

Homelessness – prevention duty

58. There was no fault in the Council’s decision on 18 September 2024 to accept a prevention duty, as the Council was satisfied Mr X was eligible and threatened with homelessness due to his eviction notice.

Homelessness – relief duty

59. The Code says it is unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue living in a property beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice. Section 6.35 of the Code sets out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable for an applicant to remain beyond the expiry of this notice (see paragraphs 18 and 19 of this report) but none applied in this case.

60. The Council should have decided whether to accept a relief duty promptly after the section 21 notice expired on 5 October 2024. By this date the Council knew Mr X was eligible and it should have considered whether he was homeless (that is, whether it was not reasonable for him to remain in his accommodation) but it failed to consider whether to accept a relief duty at this time. The Council further delayed accepting a relief duty once Mr X’s eviction progressed to the next stage on 6 November 2024 which was the date Mr X was required to leave the property by due to the possession order.

61. The Council did not consider whether to accept a relief duty to Mr X until 21 November 2024. This delay was fault. The Council also failed to review Mr X’s PHP until two weeks after he and the landlord informed it of additional key information in that the court had issued a possession order.

Homelessness – priority need

62. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for them. An applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who are significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person who may be homeless due to serious health problems or disability.

63. The Code says at section 15.5, “the threshold for triggering the (interim accommodation) duty is low, as the (council) 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.”

64. In this case, Mr X provided multiple forms of medical evidence outlining his medical conditions and the impact they had on his life, including documents showing he required surgery. He provided this to the Council before his section 21 notice expired on 5 October 2024. However, there is no record of the Council considering whether Mr X’s medical evidence meant that he may be in priority need until 3 December 2024 – days before being evicted by bailiffs. This delay in considering whether Mr X may be in priority need was fault.

65. The Code says it is a matter of judgment for councils whether the applicant’s circumstances make them vulnerable (and therefore whether the council has reason to believe they may be in priority need). However, this does not mean a council can make any decision it likes. The Code says in section 8.16, when making this decision, councils must consider all the relevant facts and circumstances and consider the impact of homelessness on the applicant when compared to a non-disabled person.

66. The Council argues it is for it alone to decide if someone may be homeless and in priority need. However, there is no evidence that the Council adequately considered the available evidence to decide if there was reason to believe Mr X may be homeless and in priority need between late July 2024 and 3 December 2024 and this was fault.

67. The Council then did consider whether Mr X may be in priority need on 4 December 2024 and decided he was not. However, its decision focused on one single document (a recent GP patient summary) and still did not evidence that it had considered all of the other information Mr X had provided to date. The Council failed to take into account and/or adequately consider all of the information that Mr X had provided or show that it made this decision in line with the requirements of the Code, as set out at section 8.16. This was further fault. As there was fault in how the Council came to its decision, the law says we can criticise its decision and can form a balance of probabilities view on what was more likely to have happened if it were not for the fault.

Homelessness process - injustice caused

68. If not for the faults above and given paragraph 6.35 of the Code (as set out at paragraph 18 above) the Council would on the balance of probabilities have accepted a relief duty to Mr X from 6 October 2024 when his eviction notice expired.

69. If not for these faults, it also would have considered all the medical evidence Mr X provided before this date and decided whether it had reason to believe he may be in priority need and therefore required interim accommodation.

70. On balance, given the interim accommodation duty trigger is low and the medical evidence provided by 6 October 2024 was considerable, if the Council acted without fault, it is most likely it would have decided by 6 October 2024 that Mr X may be in priority need.

71. Had the Council considered the interim duty properly Mr X would not have stayed in his accommodation until eviction, in line with paragraph 6.38 of the Code (see paragraph 22 above). He would have been offered interim accommodation and so would not have incurred bailiffs’ fees.

72. On the balance of probabilities Mr X would also have avoided legal fees. This is because by 6 October 2024 the Council knew, or should have known, through early contact with the landlord, that the landlord would begin possession proceedings. There is no evidence to suggest the Council would have told Mr X to stay in his current accommodation if it had accepted the interim accommodation duty, and when it did accept the interim duty, it provided Mr X with accommodation almost immediately.

73. The Council then would have had 56 days (until 1 December 2024) to decide whether Mr X was owed a main housing duty. This is a different test, as to be eligible for the main housing duty, the Council must be satisfied the applicant is in priority need, rather than just having reason to believe. We have not come to a finding on this point, as we do not know – if not for the fault – whether the Council would have concluded Mr X was owed a main housing duty or not. However, even if the Council decided he was not owed a further duty, if it acted without fault, Mr X still would have avoided the legal costs and distress caused by being evicted by bailiffs.

74. If at the end of the relief duty period, the Council decided it was satisfied Mr X was not in priority need and was not owed a main housing duty:

• Mr X would have been living in interim accommodation since early October 2024;

• he would have been entitled to a statutory review of the Council’s decision, including a right of appeal to a county court afterwards; and

• the Council would have had a power to accommodate him pending any review. Even if it did not accommodate him pending review, it would have had to give him reasonable notice to vacate so he could find alternative accommodation.

75. As a result of the Council’s fault Mr X missed out on at least two months of interim accommodation as well as the opportunities set out above. It also led to a period of significant distress.

76. When Mr X was evicted by bailiffs on 6 December 2024, he reported that he had an anxiety attack and had to seek emergency medical treatment for this. Without alternative accommodation, Mr X then slept on the concrete floor of a garage that the Council arranged for him to store his belongings. He slept there for several nights, which he said worsened symptoms of his physical disability and his mental health conditions.

77. Mr X attempted to end his life several days later. The reasons a person attempts to end their life are complex and we cannot draw a direct causal link between the Council’s actions and Mr X’s admission to hospital. However, the case records from this time demonstrate that the Council’s actions caused Mr X significant avoidable distress at an already difficult time.

Application to join the housing register

78. The Council’s initial decision that Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register because of his rent arrears was made in line with its allocations policy. It also considered his review and responded to this. It is not our role to say whether we agree or disagree with a council’s decision. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the decision was reached. The Council was entitled to apply its policy in this way and therefore was not at fault.

79. Mr X said he did not receive a copy of the Council’s review decision, but the Council says its records showed it was sent. On balance, we consider it is most likely Mr X did not receive the review decision because if he had, based on his response to other key decisions, it is likely he would have challenged it.

80. We acknowledge there are many possibilities that might explain why Mr X did not receive the decision. Therefore, we make no finding on fault. However, the Council may want to consider sending important documents to applicants who are homeless, or threatened with homelessness, electronically as well as by post, due to possible issues contacting them at their address.

Suitability of interim accommodation

81. We have considered the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation provided between 10 December 2024 and 23 January 2025. Any complaint about the suitability of accommodation after the Council’s final complaint response was sent on 23 January 2025 needs to complete the Council’s complaints process before we can consider it, as councils should have the opportunity to respond first.

82. Before offering Mr X interim accommodation, the Council did not carry out an up to date assessment to establish what his needs were in the accommodation. There is therefore no evidence to show how the Council decided that the accommodation was suitable before it offered it. This was fault.

83. Mr X raised concerns about the accommodation offered after he moved in. Due to the nature of the concerns raised, it is finely balanced as to whether the issues made the interim accommodation unsuitable for him to live in on a short-term basis. The Council’s failure to record how it assessed what accommodation would be suitable has therefore caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty.

Complaint handling

84. Mr X complained that the same council officer investigated his complaint at stage one and two of its complaints process, which is contrary to the Council’s policy. The officers who responded to his complaints have similar, but not identical names and their roles are different. We are satisfied that two different council officers investigated the complaint at each stage. The Council was not at fault.

Recommendations

85. The Council must consider the report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. The Council should consider the report at its full Council, Cabinet or other appropriately delegated committee of elected members and we will require evidence of this. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2), as amended)

86. In addition to the requirements set out above, to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X, within one month of the date of this report, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case. We publish Guidance on remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology we have recommended;

• pay the court and bailiffs costs Mr X incurred between 6 October 2024 and 6 December 2024. If these costs have not yet been paid by Mr X, these can be paid to the relevant agencies directly. If Mr X has already paid these, the Council should reimburse him; and

• pay Mr X £1,250 to remedy the injustice he was caused by the faults in this case.

87. Within three months of the date of this report, the Council has agreed, through renewed training or guidance, to make certain that its housing staff are aware of their responsibilities to:

• ensure homeless applicants who have received a section 21 notice are not left until the bailiffs are due to find out whether they will be provided with interim accommodation. This means the Council should be making decisions regarding its relief duty and interim accommodation duty from the date the section 21 notice expires, not shortly before, or on the day of, the actual eviction. This is a requirement of the Homelessness Code of Guidance;

• provide interim accommodation to applicants where the Council has reason to believe they may be eligible, homeless and in priority need, not when they are satisfied as to the criteria above; and

• ensure they assess and record what type of interim accommodation is suitable for applicants before the Council offers them the accommodation.

88. The Council has accepted these recommendations.

Decision

89. We have found fault by the Council which has caused injustice to Mr X. We have recommended actions the Council should take to remedy that injustice.

Print this page