Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice, in failing to: properly consider whether it had reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need and a duty to arrange interim accommodation; make it clear, in its revised decision, it had now accepted the interim accommodation duty; process Mr X’s review request in a timely way or properly address the issues raised: keep adequate records about its response to his issues with the interim accommodation; and complete its complaint handling process within its published timescales. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreedto: apologise to Mr X, make payments to recognise the impact of its failures; and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his homelessness application. He says the Council failed to:

• properly consider his circumstances when it decided he was homeless but not in priority need; and
• take into account he had served a custodial sentence and was in one of the statutory categories in the Housing Act 1986 of those having a priority need.

2. Because of this the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation, as it should have done, when he had to leave his previous accommodation. He was homeless until the Council decided, some weeks later, he was in priority need and then provided him with interim accommodation.
3. He also complains the Council failed to consider the risk to his safety from another resident at the interim accommodation.
4. He wants the Council to make redress for the impact of its failures on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated what happened in the period from September 2024, when Mr X first contacted the Council for homelessness assistance, until the end of March 2025, when the Council issued its final response to the complaint Mr X then brought to us.

10. I have not considered any complaint about events after March 2025. These are new issues and would have to be raised first with the Council as a separate complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

What should have happened

Homelessness – the law

13. Councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness are set out in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

14. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must provide interim accommodation until it has finished assessing the homelessness application if the applicant asks for it. “Reason to believe” is a low threshold. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. When a council accepts a main housing duty, interim accommodation becomes temporary accommodation. In both cases, the accommodation should be suitable for the household. However, there is a statutory right to a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation, but no such right for interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Priority need

16. The law set outs the categories of applicants having a priority need for accommodation. (Homelessness (priority need for accommodation) (England) order 2002).
17. These categories include:

• (a) (b) (c) …..
• (d) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness, learning disability or physical disability or other special reason or with who such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside
• (e) (f) (g) (h) …..
• (i) a person who is vulnerable as a result of: (i) having served a custodial sentence; (ii) having been committed for contempt of court of any other kindred offence; or (iii) having been remanded in custody;
• (j) (k) …..

18. The Code of Guidance says:
1. vulnerability assessments should take into account all relevant factors which might contribute to a person being more vulnerable if homeless than an ordinary person would be if homeless;
2. in determining whether applicants are vulnerable as a result of their period in custody, the Council should take account of all relevant factors including:

• the length of time the applicant served in custody;
• whether the applicant is receiving supervision from a criminal justice agency, such as the probation service. Councils should have regard to any advice from criminal justice agencies about their view of an applicant’s general vulnerability. But the final decision on vulnerability if homeless rests with the Council;
• the length of time since release from custody, and the extent to which an applicant has been able to obtain or maintain accommodation since then; and
• whether the applicant has any existing support networks and how much of a positive influence they are likely to be.
3. the Council must consider each application on a case-by-case basis in light of all the facts and circumstances, including the age and maturity of the applicant and discuss the matter with the probation service.

Review rights

19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions.
20. 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; and
• 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.

21. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

What happened

22. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

23. Mr X was released from a custodial sentence in prison in 2024 and placed in approved premises accommodation for a limited period.
24. The approved premises notified Mr X he would have to vacate this accommodation by 26 September 2024.

September 2024: Mr X’s homelessness application

25. Mr X made a homelessness application to the Council on 6 September. He provided medical information with the application.
26. The Council’s case records noted Mr X’s probation officer’s contact details and that it tried, unsuccessfully, to contact the probation officer on 18 September.
27. On 18 September, the Council notified Mr X it had decided he was eligible and homeless. It accepted it owed him the duty (the relief duty) to take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help him secure accommodation. It also referred to his release from prison and placement at approved premises which he had to vacate by 26 September.
28. The Council asked its medical adviser for their view on whether Mr X was vulnerable because of his medical issues. The adviser’s response was that they did not consider the specific medical issues in Mr X’s case were of particular significance compared to an ordinary person.

The Council’s decision Mr X was not in priority need

29. On 24 September the Council notified Mr X of its decision under S184 of the Housing Act it was satisfied he was eligible and homeless and not in priority need. In its letter to Mr X the Council:

• set out the categories of those people having a priority need from (a) to (k);
• said it was satisfied these groups did not apply to Mr X’s case. It had therefore considered group (d) and whether Mr X was vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other reason;
• referred, in the background section, to Mr X’s release from prison and placement in approved premises which he had to vacate by 26 September; and
• said it was not satisfied Mr X’s circumstances made him significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person would be if made homeless.

30. The Council also told Mr X:

• its decision he was not in priority need meant it did not have a duty to provide him with interim accommodation, pending the conclusion of the relief duty;
• once the relief duty came to an end, the main housing duty would not be owed; and
• he had the right to ask for a review of this decision.

Mr X’s request for a review of the decision he was not in priority need

31. On 26 September, Mr X asked the Council to review its decision he was not in priority need.
32. He specifically referred to those people who had served a custodial sentence as a category of applicants having a priority need. He also said he was vulnerable because of his learning disability and provided a report about this.
33. Mr X told the Council he had been allowed to stay on at the approved premises until 2 October.

October 2024: Council’s further actions and new decision

34. The Council’s records note it spoke to Mr X on 3 October. He said he had additional information about his priority need. An appointment was arranged for him to attend the Council’s offices on 4 October to provide the information and complete a vulnerability assessment.
35. The Council spoke to an officer at Mr X’s approved premises on 3 October. The officer followed this up with an email to the Council in which they confirmed:

• details of Mr X’s addresses in previous years, including periods in prison and at approved premises;
• Mr X was aware he had to attend the Council offices on 4 October to complete the questionnaire and would bring the report about his learning disability with him; and
• Mr X was required to leave the approved premises on the morning of 8 October. They said they hoped this would allow time for Mr X to be supported with move-on accommodation.

36. Mr X’s probation officer also contacted the Council on 3 October about his situation and provided details of his risk assessment.
37. On 8 October Mr X’s probation officer told the Council Mr X had been made homeless that day.
38. The Council’s records note:

• it phoned Mr X on 8 October and informed him it would not provide him with temporary accommodation and advised him about private renting; and
• Mr X attended its offices on 8 October for an update on his application. He was told the decision he was not in priority need was still in place but in review.

39. The Council sent the report about Mr X’s learning disability to its medical adviser. They recommended on 9 October Mr X be considered as vulnerable.
40. The Council’s records note Mr X called its out of hours team on the evening of 9 October and was advised it could not book accommodation for him because of the decision he was not in priority need.
41. On 10 October the Council decided Mr X was in priority need due to medical issues. It provided its accommodation team with his risk assessment and details of the areas he was unable to live in (exempted areas). It asked the team to find Mr X temporary accommodation.
42. The Council has provided a letter dated 10 October marked “sent via email” to Mr X notifying him of its decision he was homeless and in priority need. This letter also said it had a duty (the relief duty) to take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help him secure accommodation, but it was not its responsibility to secure accommodation for him. The letter did not refer to the Council’s duty to provide him with interim accommodation.
43. The Council’s records note it tried to contact Mr X on 10 October but was unsuccessful.
44. Mr X says he phoned the Council’s out of hours team at 11pm on 10 October and said he was now homeless. It told him a note on his case advised he should not be given interim accommodation. I have not seen any Council record of this call.

Provision of interim accommodation: action from 10 October 2024

45. On 14 October Mr X sent the Council a further email about his request for a review of its first decision he was not in priority need.
46. The Council contacted the police and Mr X’s probation officer on 18 October about the suitability of a proposed private rented sector accommodation option for Mr X based on his risk assessment and exempted areas.
47. It also sent an email to Mr X about this accommodation option.
48. On 21 October the Council recorded it had been trying to call Mr X about the proposed accommodation but had been unable to contact him.
49. The Council sent Mr X an email on 21 October acknowledging his review request. Mr X replied by email the same day saying he had been homeless since 9 October and was concerned about how long the review would take.
50. The Council sent a further email to Mr X on 22 October. It said it had been trying to speak to him about accommodation options and asked him to contact it as soon as possible.
51. The Council’s records note Mr X called its duty line on 30 October for an update on the private rented sector property it had nominated him for. It confirmed this had not been secured. On 1 November it asked its accommodation team to provide Mr X with temporary accommodation.
52. The Council booked interim accommodation for Mr X on 1 November. This accommodation was for men only, had a manager on site full-time and shared kitchen and bathroom facilities. It:

• recorded, on 1 November, Mr X had not been answering his phone. It sent him an offer letter for the accommodation by email on 1 November;
• noted, on 8 November, it had called Mr X about the accommodation offer but his phone was switched off;
• spoke to Mr X on 12 November. Mr X said he had had issues with his phone internet access and had not been receiving calls. He confirmed he had not moved into the interim accommodation. Arrangements were made for the Council’s booking officer to contact him and Mr X moved into interim accommodation that day.

Outcome of Mr X’s review request

53. On 16 December Mr X called at the Council’s offices and asked for an update about his review request.
54. The Council issued its response to the review request on 16 December. It said on considering all the information and further investigation it was satisfied the Council had accepted Mr X was in priority need.

Mr X’s issues with the interim accommodation

55. The information I have been provided with shows:

• on 19 December 2024 the Council sent an email to Mr X, and copied in its accommodation team, referring to concerns he had raised about pest issues and cleanliness at the accommodation. It said it would forward his complaints to its temporary accommodation team; and
• on 30 January 2025 the Council sent an email to Mr X’s probation officer referring to his concern about a risk to his safety from another resident at the accommodation. It said Mr X had not disclosed this issue before and it would be escalated to the temporary accommodation team.

56. Mr X contacted the Council on 14 March 2025 about the safety issue. He referred to the action taken by the Council to remove the other resident from the accommodation, instead of moving him.

Mr X’s complaint

57. Mr X complained to the Council by email on 1 November 2024 about its homelessness decisions and officer conduct. He said the Council had not considered the information about his medical conditions and an officer had made a file note he should not be offered interim accommodation.
58. Mr X then made further complaints about the standard of his interim accommodation and a safety risk to him from another resident.
59. Following the Council’s initial response, Mr X asked it, on 7 December 2024, to escalate his complaint to stage two of its process.
60. In its final response in March 2025, the Council said:

• it accepted it had not actioned his December 2024 request for a stage two complaint response;
• the information on 10 October he was not to be offered interim accommodation was correct as the Council’s decision at that time was that he was not in priority need;
• it had reported his concerns about the standard of the interim accommodation to its accommodation team; and
• if Mr X felt he was unsafe because of the other resident’s previous behaviour, he should report this to the police or provide his caseworker with evidence for consideration.

61. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us in April 2025.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

(a) Duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation

62. The duty to arrange interim accommodation is triggered as soon as a council has reason to believe an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty which arises immediately. Councils should have processes in place to find accommodation for applicants on the day they need it.
63. The Council made its initial decision, on 24 September 2024, Mr X was not vulnerable because of his medical issues, after considering its medical adviser’s opinion. I understand at this stage it had not yet been provided with the report about his learning disability.
64. But the Council knew Mr X had recently been released from prison. I have not seen anything to show the Council considered whether it had a duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation because it had reason to believe he might be vulnerable as a result of his period in custody.
65. There is no evidence the Council took account of the relevant factors or discussed Mr X's circumstances with his probation officer as set out in the Code of Guidance (see paragraph 8), before making its decision on 24 September.
66. My view is the Council failed to properly consider whether it had reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need and a duty to arrange interim accommodation before deciding, on 24 September, it did not.
67. This was fault.
68. I also consider the Council’s failure to make it clear, in its decision letter of 10 October, it had now accepted the interim accommodation duty was fault. This caused Mr X uncertainty about the effect of the decision.

Impact of the failure to properly consider a duty to arrange accommodation

69. I have looked at what the position would have been had the Council properly considered, in September 2024, whether it had reason to believe Mr X was vulnerable as a result of his period in custody.
70. I have considered whether, on balance - based on the information available at the time, or which would have been available to the Council had it made proper initial enquiries - the low “reason to believe” threshold was met. In my view it was. This is because:

• the Council knew Mr X had been released from prison, was currently placed in approved premises and had a probation officer;
• had it made proper efforts to contact Mr X’s probation officer and approved premises (it had their details), before making its decision on 24 September, they would have provided relevant information about Mr X’s circumstances;
• this information (based on the Council’s subsequent contact with the approved premises and probation officers) included details about Mr X’s risk assessment, previous accommodation and custodial history, and learning disability; and
• in my view this information meets the threshold of reason to believe Mr X might be vulnerable as a result of his period in custody.

71. On this basis the Council should have provided Mr X with interim accommodation as soon as he was required to leave the approved premises on 8 October. It didn’t arrange this until 1 November.
72. Mr X has told us, although he was able to stay with friends and family during the day, he had to rough sleep at night from 8 October until 12 November. Although the Council had booked the accommodation from 1 November, he says he didn’t know about this until his contact with the Council on 12 November. He said he hadn’t received calls because of issues with his phone internet access.
73. But these communication issues would not have arisen had the Council accepted the duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation before he had to leave the approved premises. On this basis I am recommending a personal remedy for the entire month Mr X actually spent rough sleeping.
74. Our guidance on remedies says LGO Intranet | Guidance on remedies says if we are satisfied the complainant had no option, because of fault by the council, but to sleep rough we are normally likely to recommend a symbolic payment of between £300 and up to £1,000 per month where a considerable length of time has been spent sleeping rough as the consequence of a council’s fault.  

(b) Mr X’s review request

75. The Council decided, on 24 September 2024, it would not owe Mr X the main housing duty once the relief duty ended because he was not in priority need. This gave him the right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision he was not in priority need at this stage.
76. Mr X made his review request on 26 September. The Council should have determined this within eight weeks – by 21 November.
77. The Council did not acknowledge the request until 22 October. It did not provide its response to the request until 16 December and only after Mr X had chased this.
78. I appreciate by this time the Council had reviewed the additional medical evidence and made a new decision, on 10 October, that Mr X was in priority need because he was vulnerable due to his leaning disability.
79. But it failed to address the change in its decision during its handling of Mr X’s review and only referred to this in its response of 16 December 2024.
80. The Council also failed to address the issue raised by Mr X in his review request that he was vulnerable because he had served a custodial sentence, both in its communication with him about the review and his complaint.
81. In my view, the Council failed to process Mr X’s review request in a timely way or properly address the issues he raised in his request.
82. This failure was fault, causing Mr X upset and uncertainty about the outcome of his review.

(c) Response to Mr X’s issues with the interim accommodation

83. The information provided shows Mr X raised issues about his safety relating to another resident and the standard of the interim accommodation. The Council acknowledged his concerns and said it would investigate these.
84. It appears the Council responded to the issue about the other resident’s behaviour. Action was taken to move the other resident out the accommodation to address Mr X’s concern about his safety.
85. But the Council says it is unable to provide any further records about its actions to investigate Mr X’s concerns about the standard of the accommodation.
86. Based on the information seen. I do not consider I am able to make a finding, on balance, on whether the Council properly addressed Mr X’s concerns. But its failure to keep adequate records about its response is fault. This has caused Mr X uncertainty about the action it took in response to his concerns.

Complaint handling

87. The Council’s published complaints process says it will:

• stage one: acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a response explaining the outcome within a further 10 working days, and that a request to escalate the complaint to stage two can be made if not satisfied with the outcome; and
• stage two: acknowledge the request for a stage two complaint review within 5 working days and provide a response within a further 20 working days.

88. Mr X made his stage one complaint on 1 November 2024. The response was not provided until 6 December – 26 working days instead of 10.
89. He asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two on 7 December 2024. The final response was not provided until 19 March 2025 – 70 working days instead of 25.
90. The Council’s failure to complete its complaint handling process within its published timescales was fault. These delays caused Mr X upset and uncertainty about the outcome.

Service improvements

91. In a recent decision about similar issues the Council agreed to:
1. issue guidance to officers in its homelessness department explaining:

• on receipt of new and potentially relevant evidence, officers should promptly review any decision they have made about an applicant’s priority need, or any other part of the eligibility criteria for homelessness duties. They should make a clear record of their decision and the reasons for it; and
• the legal basis of the ‘reason to believe’ threshold and what it means in practice.
2. circulate a copy of this decision to officers as part of this guidance.

92. The Council also told us it had made improvements to the delivery of temporary accommodation. It is implementing a project “Setting the Standards”, has re-organised the accommodation team and formal inspections of accommodation are now in place.
93. I have taken this into account when making the proposed service improvements below.

Conclusion

94. I have found the following fault by the Council:
1. (i) failure to properly consider whether it had reason to believe Mr X might be in priority need and a duty to arrange interim accommodation before making its decision he was not in priority need on 24 September; and (ii) failure to make it clear, in its decision letter of 10 October, it had now accepted the interim accommodation duty;
2. failure to process Mr X’s review request in a timely way or properly address the issues raised in his request;
3. failure to keep adequate records about its response to Mr X’s issues with the interim accommodation;
4. failure to complete its complaint handling process within its published timescales

Back to top

Action

95. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failures identified in paragraph 85 and the upset and uncertainty they caused him. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
2. pay Mr X £450 to recognise the distress caused by having to rough sleep for about a month because of the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation when he became homeless, based on our guidance on remedies; and
3. pay Mr X £150 to recognise the upset and uncertainty caused by its failure to process his review in a timely way, keep adequate records about its response to accommodation issues and complete the complaint handling process in a timely way.
96. And within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. review its process for considering whether a person is vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence, been committed for contempt of court or remanded in custody to ensure;

• it reflects the Code of Guidance regarding the relevant information to be taken into account when making these decisions; and
• guidance to officers is clear about the process they should follow, the relevant information to be obtained and how they should record their decisions.
2. report to us on the improvements made to the delivery of temporary accommodation through its “Setting the Standards” project
3. review its:
• complaint handling process to identify the reasons for the delay in this case and any changes it should make to ensure complaints are handled within the published timescale; and
• statutory review process to identify the reasons for the failures in this case to process Mr X’s review within the required timescale and properly address the issues raised.

97. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

98. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman