Summary: We found fault on the complaint against the Council sent by Mr Y on behalf of his son, Mr Z, when dealing with his homeless application. It failed to properly consider whether it owed a duty to provide interim accommodation, delayed reaching a decision about whether it owed him a main housing duty, wrongly referred him to a housing provider, and missed a timescale under its own complaints procedure. The Council agreed to send Mr Z an apology, pay him £600, and review its processes. These actions remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains on behalf of his son, Mr Z, that when he presented as homeless to the Council, it failed to:
1. provide him with a valid Personalised Housing Plan;
2. properly decide whether he was in priority need;
3. offer him interim accommodation;
4. properly consider relevant evidence sent in support of his application;
5. deal with his application without delays;
6. act on an offer of accommodation from a housing provider; and
7. follow its complaints procedure.
2. As a result, this affected his mental health as he continued to sofa surf and be street homeless.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated complaint b). This was because the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court.
8. The evidence showed when the Council decided Mr Z did not have priority, he was told about the right to ask for a review of it. There was a right to go to court on a point of law should he remain unhappy with the review decision. Evidence showed Mr Y confirmed the solicitors were now taking the case to court following the review.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance: Homelessness

10. 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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is closer, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness.
12. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. They should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and the Code, paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty and interim accommodation

13. Councils must take reasonable steps to help secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the ‘relief duty’. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
14. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188 (1))
15. The threshold for triggering the section 188 (1) duty is low as a council only has to have ‘reason to believe’, not be satisfied, the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need.(the Code, paragraph 15.5)
16. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
17. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or failing this, if 56 days have passed.

The main housing duty and temporary accommodation

18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Accommodation pending review

19. 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

20. Mr Z has various health conditions which he said meant he needed personal care, such as washing and changing his clothes, for example. Several years ago, he was involved in an incident which caused him to leave London for a few years. When he returned, he received threats from the other party to the incident and from others.
21. In August 2024, Mr Z had to leave the accommodation he was staying in due to safety concerns. He sofa surfed since.
22. In December, he presented to the Council as homeless. He explained he had been attacked by a neighbour a few years ago and had to leave because of threats of violence. After staying away, he moved back to his original home. Upon returning, he began to receive threats. He told the Council about stress, anxiety, and the impact on his mental health. His vulnerability questionnaire completed this month declared he had no physical issues.
23. During its assessment of his application, the Council contacted his mother the same month who confirmed what Mr Z said. The Council asked him for further information. This was because there was a lack of detail about the risk he faced. It needed information from the police so made further enquiries of the incident.
24. Mr Z was told it was unlikely he would meet priority need to qualify for an offer of interim accommodation. The Council said there were other options available to him, such as offering him a deposit to find his own accommodation. It also referred him to a housing provider.
25. The Council later accepted the referral should not have been made. This was because funding to pay for this type of accommodation was limited to those in priority need.
26. Mr Z called the Council again and explained the police had not given him a risk form, possibly because he was living elsewhere at the time of contact. The Council decided it owed him the relief duty and issued him with a PHP. Mr Z considered this inadequate. I have seen a copy of the PHP. It told him he was eligible for help finding somewhere to live. It set out what Mr Z needed to do and advised about looking at the private rented sector for accommodation. It confirmed the Council would make a referral to the housing provider.
27. A referral was also sent to an independent medical advisor to consider whether he was medically vulnerable and needed accommodation while it made enquiries.
28. In January 2025, Mr Z asked the Council for interim accommodation as he believed he met the criteria for priority need. He explained he was homeless because of repeated threats of violence which caused him to flee.
29. Records of a case discussion showed officers considered it unlikely Mr Z would be considered priority need as he had not provided enough information about the risks he faced. Mr Z was asked to provide further information about the incident.
30. An officer emailed another officer asking for interim accommodation for Mr Z but this was refused. The Temporary Accommodation Suitability Form recorded he said he was fleeing violence and gave a crime reference number. It also recorded he had no medical conditions to consider. This was because no medical information or evidence was received from Mr Z.
31. Mr Z continued sofa surfing but was asked to leave so was at risk of rough sleeping. He was unhappy that despite having reason to believe he was homeless, eligible, and potentially in priority need, the Council failed to give him interim accommodation.
32. On 19 March, the Council sent Mr Z a section 184 decision letter. The following day, the evidence showed the Council asked the police for information about Mr Z’s risk from violence. The Council had already received a response from its independent medical advisor which said there were no specific medical issues of any particular significance compared to an ordinary person. The officer chased the police four and five days after asking for information.
33. Mr Z was unhappy it took the Council more than the 56 day statutory limit to issue the section 184 decision. The Council accepted the decision was delayed as the officer dealing with the application was on long term sick leave with phased return.
34. He was also unhappy it failed to issue him with a PHP and claimed the housing provider withdrew an offer of accommodation as two officers were on holiday. The Council did not accept this to be the case.
35. Mr Z believed the Council relied on a vulnerability assessment from the previous year which had become outdated. He also believed the Council ignored new medical evidence. The Council accepted while it relied on the December 2024 vulnerability form, which was an oversight, this was corrected when it withdrew its section 184 decision as it considered up to date information. The date on the questionnaire had not been changed from December 2024 to Match 2025.
36. The vulnerability questionnaire must be completed in the presence of a housing officer but, the one he sent contained extra information not part of the original questionnaire. It had not been completed in the presence of an officer. Despite this, the extra information was considered.
37. The records show an officer contacted Mr Z’s doctor towards the end of the month asking for a copy of his full records for the last two years.
38. In April, the Council issued a section 184 decision telling Mr Z the application made in December 2024 had now been considered. It decided it owed him no housing duty as he had no priority need. It explained its duty to relieve his homelessness ended and he had the right to ask for a review of the decision which he went on to use.
39. The Council withdrew this decision in May, after considering his case further. The reason for this was a ‘lack of enquiries made by the housing advisor’. The records show the Council considered no medical enquiries had been made of Mr Z’s doctor or other medical professionals and the police were given only three days to respond to a request for information before a decision was made.
40. In May, an officer chased the doctor for a response to the enquiries made in March. This was received towards the end of the month.
41. In June, the Council made a new section 184 decision. This was after its independent medical advisor had again considered the medical evidence received. The medical advisor again decided there were no specific medical issues of any particular significance compared to an ordinary person.
42. The Council decided Mr Z did not have a priority need and again told him about his right to ask for a review of the decision. Mr Z asked for a review, but this did not find in his favour. He is currently challenging this decision through the courts.
43. The Council accepted there was a delay at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. This was due to the sickness of a key member of staff.

Back to top

My findings

Complaint a): failure to provide a PHP

44. I found no fault on this complaint because I have seen the PHP issued on 20 December 2024. The Code (chapter 11) says the PHP may include steps the Council considers advisable for the applicant to take as well as steps the Council is required to take. These need to be realistic taking account of local housing markets and relevant support services, for example, as well as an applicant’s individual needs and wishes.
45. I am satisfied the PHP provided the relevant information to Mr Z.

Complaint c): failure to offer interim accommodation

46. When Mr Z presented as homeless in December 2024, the law required the Council to consider whether it owed him an interim duty to accommodate. This is the first accommodation duty a council may owe an applicant. Its purpose is to provide accommodation on an interim basis while a council carries out inquiries to decide whether a main housing duty is owed. This duty may be owed immediately from when an applicant asks for help or later, if circumstances change.
47. The law required the Council to secure him accommodation where it had ‘reason to believe’ he may have been homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. The threshold for triggering this duty is described by the Code as ‘low’. Case law confirmed ‘reason to believe’ meant whether there was an ‘apparent’ priority need at that point. (R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 917). The burden of proof was on the Council to decide whether the duty was owed, not for Mr Z to provide his case.
48. The key issue was whether the Council properly considered if it owed Mr Z a duty to provide interim accommodation because it had reason to believe he may have a priority need. Priority includes a person who is vulnerable as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation because of violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out.
49. Whether or not Mr Z was in priority need was a matter of judgement for the Council to decide in all the circumstances. It had to consider whether he was significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person would be if they became homeless.
50. The records showed the Council used the wrong test when considering whether it needed to provide interim accommodation. There was evidence of officers deciding it was ‘unlikely’ Mr Z would not have priority. This was not the test set down by law. What the Council had to consider and decide was whether it had reason to believe he may have a priority need based on the circumstances of the case.
51. I am satisfied this failure was fault and caused him avoidable injustice. Mr Z lost the opportunity to have the Council properly consider whether it owed him a duty to provide interim accommodation when he presented as homeless in December 2024. He has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Council would have decided he may have a priority need based on a low triggering threshold at that time and so provided him with interim accommodation between December 2024 when he first presented as homeless, to June 2025 when it finally reached its section 184 decision.
52. I am also satisfied the Council wrongly referred Mr Z’s case to the housing provider even though this was only for cases where it accepted there was priority. I consider this caused Mr Z injustice. It caused confusion, frustration, and raised his expectations that this was an option that could and would be pursued.

Complaint d): consider relevant evidence

53. I found no fault on this complaint because the Council considered the available evidence and also made enquiries to obtain further evidence which it also considered. The Council considered all the evidence and the updated vulnerability assessment form, which had not been done in the presence of an officer, when it reached its final section 184 decision.

Complaint e): delays

54. I found fault on this complaint because the Council should have made the section 184 decision on day 57 after accepting it owed the relief duty. The Council accepted it failed to meet this timescale. It explained the reason for the delay was because an officer was on sick leave.
55. I am satisfied the Council took about 12 weeks from the ending of the 56 period to send Mr Z its section 184 decision. This caused injustice to Mr Z. It lost him the opportunity to have an earlier decision on his case and delayed him the chance to exercise his right of appeal.

Complaint f): act on offer of housing provider

56. Mr Z claimed he was offered accommodation by a housing provider in early 2025. As the housing officer was on holiday, Mr Z lost the chance to live there. His complaint to the Council said this was because he tried to escalate the matter to the officer’s manager for clarification about whether the Council still had a duty of care towards him.
57. This was the same housing provider the Council accepted he should not have been referred to in the first place. I have already found fault on this failure.
58. On balance, I found no evidence of fault on this complaint because I have seen no evidence of any offer to Mr Z of accommodation from this housing provider. Even if it had made an offer, the Council was clear he should not have been referred to it anyway and I consider it probable it would have made this clear to the housing provider.

Complaint g): failure to follow complaints procedure

59. Mr Z sent his initial complaint to the Council on 7 March 2025. The Council acknowledged receipt the following day and said it would send its response by 4 April, which it did.
60. The Council’s complaints procedure stated a local resolution response is sent within 20 working days of acknowledging this type of housing complaint. The response was sent on the day it was due so there was no fault as it met the timescale.
61. Mr Z sent his request for his complaint to go to the second stage of the complaints procedure (final review) on 8 April, which the Council acknowledged on 25 April. It said it would send him a response by 16 May but sent it 5 working days later on 23 May.
62. The Council accepted it missed the deadline it gave Mr Z. This failure was fault which I am satisfied caused Mr Z an injustice (frustration).

Back to top

Action

63. I considered our guidance on remedies.
64. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr Z a written apology for the injustice caused by the failure: to properly consider whether it owed him a duty to provide interim accommodation; of wrongly referring him to a housing provider; to reach a decision on his application within statutory timescales; to follow its complaints procedure properly.
2. Pay a symbolic £600 to Mr Z for the injustice caused by the failure to properly consider its interim accommodation duty.
3. Review processes to ensure relevant officers are aware of the correct legal test when considering the Council’s duty to secure interim accommodation when processing homeless applications.
4. Review processes to ensure section 184 decisions are made according to statutory timescales.
5. Review why his complaint was not dealt with under its complaints procedure according to stated timescales and ensure these are met on future cases.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. I found the following on Mr Z’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault;
• Complaint c): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint d): no fault;
• Complaint e): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint f): no fault; and
• Complaint g): fault causing injustice.

67. The agreed action remedies the injustice found.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman