Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he made a second homelessness application in July 2024. The Council was at fault for ending interim accommodation too early after Mr X made a homelessness application in July 2024. It also delayed in completing his review request. This left Mr X homeless and caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment, and remind staff of the correct legal duties.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he made a second homelessness application in July 2024, despite being recently discharged from hospital. It unreasonably delayed completing his statutory review of its non-priority need decision. Mr X was homeless as a result and suffered undue distress whilst awaiting a decision.

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the organisation 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

Relevant guidance and legislation

6. 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.
7. 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)
8. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
9. 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.

10. 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 18.30)
11. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
    preventing homelessness;

• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

Review rights

12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions, including :

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;

13. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

14. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
15. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
16. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

What happened

17. Mr X made a homelessness application in April 2024 after he was evicted from his rented property. The Council decided Mr X was not in priority need.
18. Mr X made a new application on 12 July 2024. He reported a change in circumstances after a recent discharge from hospital. He provided medical evidence.
19. The Council accepted the new application, referred the case to its external medical assessors for advice and placed him in interim accommodation over the weekend whilst it awaited the medical report.
20. The medical assessor advised the Council on 15 July 2024 that it did not consider Mr X met the threshold for priority need. Mr X’s caseworker told Mr X the interim accommodation was ending, though he was placed for one further night.
21. Mr X continued to contact the out-of-hours service during the next few weeks, seeking accommodation. He was refused for not being in priority need. A second medical assessment report on 17 July 2024 also advised he had no priority need.
22. The Council issued a formal s.184 non-priority decision on 19 August 2024. It decided Mr X was eligible and homeless but not in priority need. The Council assessed Mr X’s risk of being vulnerable and decided he would not be more vulnerable in comparison to an ordinary person if homeless.
23. Mr X requested a statutory review on 17 August (and again on 19 August, after the decision letter).
24. The Council allocated the review to an officer on 30 August and sent the review acknowledgement letter to Mr X on 4 September. It issued a Regulation 7 “minded to” letter on 22 November 2024. This is not the final homelessness decision, but a notification of the decision the Council is minded to make. It gives the applicant the chance to correct mistakes, supply evidence, or challenge the reasoning before the council issues its final decision letter. The Council later issued its final s.202 decision on 17 January 2025, upholding its original non-priority decision.

Analysis

Interim accommodation (July 2024)

25. The Council had “reason to believe” Mr X may be eligible, homeless and in priority need on 12 July 2024. He was homeless, had just left hospital, and reported significant health conditions. The section 188 duty to provide interim accommodation therefore arose.
26. The Council was right to provide accommodation initially. However, it was fault to withdraw accommodation after 15 July 2024, before issuing its formal decision on whether Mr X was in priority need on 19 August 2024.
27. Having accepted there was reason to believe Mr X was in priority need we would expect the Council to continue to provide interim accommodation until it had concluded its enquiries. When the Council was satisfied Mr X was not in priority need it should have issued the formal non-priority decision. It could then end the interim accommodation, but not before.
28. As a result, Mr X spent periods homeless in July 2024 when he should have been accommodated.
29. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision he is not in priority need, but there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made this decision. Although Mr X’s report of a recent hospitalisation was sufficient to trigger a reasonable belief he was in priority need the Council was subsequently satisfied Mr X was no more vulnerable than the ordinary person. In reaching this decision the Council considered the medical evidence Mr X provided and consulted its medical advisors.

Review delay (August–November 2024)

30. Mr X requested a review of the decision he was not in priority need on 17 and19 August 2024. The Council should have completed the review within 8 weeks (by 11 October) unless he agreed to extend. There is no evidence the Council requested this or he agreed to any request.
31. The Council did not issue its “minded to” letter until 22 November, and its final review decision until 17 January 2025. This was significantly outside the statutory timescale.
32. The delay was fault. It left Mr X uncertain about his position for several extra weeks, causing avoidable frustration and distress.

Injustice

33. Mr X was left without safe accommodation from mid-July until at least the non-priority decision on 19 August. This caused distress and uncertainty.
34. The review delay prolonged uncertainty about his housing rights and prevented him moving forward promptly with other options.
35. Our Guidance on Remedies says that when a person has been deprived of suitable accommodation as a result of fault by the Council, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment. These payments would be between £150 to £350 per month. If we are satisfied the complainant had no option but to sleep rough due to fault by the Council, we are likely to recommend a payment at the top end of the range.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the injustice, within four weeks the Council will:
37. Apologise in writing to Mr X for:
• failing to provide interim accommodation between 15 July and 19 August 2024, and
• delaying the review decision.
38. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
39. Pay Mr X:
• £350 for the period 15 July to 19 August 2024 that he was homeless due to the fault (in line with Ombudsman guidance on homelessness remedies);
• £150 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in completing the review.
40. Remind staff that:
• the s.188 interim duty arises on a low “reason to believe” threshold and should continue until the s.184 decision is issued, and
• s.202 reviews must be completed within 8 weeks unless an extension is agreed with the applicant.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman