Summary: The Council failed to consider providing Miss X with emergency severe weather accommodation during freezing temperatures because it misunderstood its protocol. This caused Miss X distress and may have put her at risk of harm. The Council will apologise, make a payment, and improve its service. There is no fault with the way the Council handled Miss X’s homeless application.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness. Specifically, she complained the Council:
1. failed to properly assess her homeless application;
2. failed to provide interim accommodation;
3. failed to meet its severe weather emergency protocol duty;
4. spelt her surname incorrectly and altered her personal details without her consent; and,
5. discriminated against her by asking for a document that does not apply to her.
2. Miss X said this impacted her physical health and meant she was forced to sleep rough. She said it caused financial loss and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

Assessment

9. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her homeless application (part a of the complaint). Miss X said the Council should have assessed her homeless application after she applied in July 2023. Miss X also complained the Council told her she was not eligible for temporary accommodation despite being in priority need.
10. As I said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Miss X complained to us in May 2025 about July 2023 onwards.
11. I have found no good reasons to exercise our discretion and look back any further than 12 months before Miss X complained to us. Therefore, I will look at the Council’s actions from May 2024 to May 2025.
12. The Council made two decisions on Miss X’s homeless application: December 2023 and September 2024. The first decision is outside the scope of my investigation because it was too long ago. However, I have investigated the second decision.

Data protection

13. Miss X complained the Council spelt her surname incorrectly and altered her personal details without her consent (part d of the complaint). She said therefore the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulations.
14. As I said above, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. I have found no good reasons for us to investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint.
15. For this reason, I have not investigated part d of this complaint. Miss X can take this complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments and further information received before I reached a final decision.
17. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, protocols and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homelessness

18. 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.
19. A council must secure accommodation for applicants 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)
20. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
21. To receive homelessness assistance under the Housing Act 1996, a person must be “eligible”. Whether they are eligible depends on their immigration status. If an applicant has permission (or “leave”) to remain in the UK, they will generally be eligible for assistance. 
22. A person will have “no recourse to public funds” if they are subject to immigration control. Having “no recourse to public funds” means the person is not entitled to the majority of welfare benefits and is not eligible to access housing assistance under the Housing Act 1996.

Biometric residence permits

23. Biometric residence permits (BRPs) are cards that were used to prove immigration status. A person might have a BRP if they were granted permission to live or work in the UK before 31 October 2024.
24. Since 2018, physical immigration documents have been gradually replaced with digital proof of immigration status. This digital proof is issued to people already living in the UK and new visa customers. Most BRPs expired on 31 December 2024.

Severe weather emergency protocol

25. A severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) is a council’s temporary response to the risks to homeless people from severe weather. The protocol is accessible to anyone who needs help. This includes people who do not have recourse to public funds or a priority need for homeless help. The protocol usually means increased beds at emergency accommodation for homeless people.
26. The trigger for a SWEP is usually a forecast of three or more consecutive nights with a minimum temperature of zero degrees Celsius (0ºc) or lower.
27. Information from Street Support says the Council co-ordinates its SWEP with other agencies. It says:

“The Council has signed up to a long standing government protocol to find accommodation for any person who requires it, irrespective of legal duty, when the temperature is forecast to be below zero for two nights in succession … This means that during the period that Severe Weather Provision arrangements are in place, no one needs to sleep on the streets of Leeds.”

28. The Council’s SWEP says various accommodation providers it commissions will provide a larger resource: up to 23 additional beds. There are a number of ways for someone to access this help:
• attending the Council in person;
• calling the Council’s out of hours team; or,
• notifying the Street Outreach Team.

Equality Act

29. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
30. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act include disability and race.
31. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and,
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

32. We cannot decide if a council has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not a council has had due regard to its public sector equality duties.

What happened

Background

33. In July 2023, Miss X submitted a homelessness application.
34. In December, the Council decided Miss X was not eligible for support because she had not provided information that was necessary to support her application.
35. Miss X applied again.
36. In January 2024, the Council asked Miss X to provide proof of a residence permit to complete her application.

May 2024 – May 2025

37. In August 2024, Miss X complained. She said the Council kept asking for proof of immigration status that was not issued to people who moved to the UK before the scheme started.
38. The Council replied. The Council said it had needed more information to prove that Miss X was eligible for housing support. It said Miss X had since uploaded more information. For this reason, the Council would proceed with her application. The Council said it would assess Miss X.
39. In September, Miss X went to the Council and completed her assessment. The Council said that during the assessment, Miss X told the Council she did not have a residence permit or any documents outlining her immigration status. She told the Council she no longer had access to her initial visa.
40. The Council issued its decision the same day. It decided Miss X was not eligible for housing support.
41. In its second complaint response, the Council said the information Miss X provided to support her application did not show her immigration status. It said it had made enquiries with the Home Office but had not got a reply yet. The Council said it could not offer Miss X temporary accommodation because from the information available, she was not eligible. The Council said it would review its decision.
42. In November, the Council reviewed its decision. It said it had information from the Home Office that Miss X applied for indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2022 and was rejected. The Home Office confirmed that Miss X was an “overstayer” and did not have recourse to public funds. For these reasons, the Council did not change its decision: it found Miss X was not eligible.
43. In late November, the Council’s severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) was activated due to freezing temperatures. Miss X called the Council five times for SWEP accommodation. The Council refused saying she was not eligible.

Analysis

Assessment

44. Miss X complained the Council failed to properly assess her homeless application (part a of the complaint). Miss X said the Council should have assessed her homeless application after she applied in July 2023. Miss X also complained the Council told her she was not eligible for temporary accommodation despite being in priority need.
45. As I have said above, I have investigated the Council’s second decision, made in September 2024.
46. I find the Council assessed Miss X’s housing application as it should have. It needed certain information to prove Miss X was eligible for housing support. Miss X could not provide information to prove she was eligible. The Council therefore decided Miss X was not eligible. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make.
47. I find the Council took into account all the information available at the time when making its decision. I find the Council made the decision without fault. Therefore, I cannot question the outcome.
48. The Council then reviewed its decision. It had new information available, and it took that information into account when making its decision. I find no fault with the way the Council reviewed its decision. The Council was entitled to decide Miss X was not eligible for housing support.
49. The Council was right to say that Miss was not eligible for temporary accommodation. Miss X could not prove her immigration status or that she had recourse to public funds. This means she was not entitled to access housing assistance. For this reason, the Council did not have to consider whether Miss X was in priority need. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault.

Interim accommodation

50. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide interim accommodation (part b of the complaint). Miss X said she qualified for interim accommodation because she was in priority need.
51. As I have said above, the Council found that Miss X was not eligible for housing support. I found not fault with that decision. The Council therefore had no duty to provide interim accommodation. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Severe weather emergency protocol

52. Miss X complained the Council failed to meet its severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) duty (part c of the complaint).
53. Miss X called the Council five times during a period when the Council’s SWEP was activated. The Council refused Miss X SWEP accommodation because Miss X did not have recourse to public funds.
54. The Council told the Ombudsman it does not have statutory duty to provide SWEP accommodation but “it is the humanitarian obligation to do all we can to prevent harm on the streets.” Further, the Council said it cannot offer SWEP accommodation to someone who is not eligible for housing assistance.
55. The Council has a SWEP. The SWEP should be accessible to anyone who needs help, including people who do not have recourse to public funds. Therefore, the Council should have considered Miss X for SWEP accommodation. It did not do this. This is fault.
56. I find this fault caused Miss X injustice. It caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. But also, the Council failed to consider Miss X for potentially life-saving accommodation and a service which was intended to provide protection. This may have put Miss X at unnecessary risk of harm. I note that the Council’s records show Miss X was found sleeping on the streets several times in the following months.

Asking for proof

57. Miss X complained the Council discriminated against her by asking for a document that does not apply to her (part e of the complaint). She said the Council pretended she did not live in the UK. She said she had lived in the UK for a very long time, and provided the Council with a lot of proof. She said the Council kept asking for a biometric residence permit (BRP) which she did not have.
58. As I have said above, physical immigration documents (like BRPs) have been gradually replaced with digital proof of immigration status since 2018. However, most BRPs did not expire until 31 December 2024.
59. Miss X said the Council asked if she had a BRP in September 2024. At that point, if she had a BRP, it would likely not have expired. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the Council to ask to see this card to prove Miss X’s immigration status.
60. The Council was entitled to ask for specific proof of Miss X’s immigration status when it considered whether or not it owed her a housing duty. I have seen no evidence which persuades me the Council failed to have due regard to its public sector equality duties. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Action

61. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X in writing for causing distress and putting her at risk of harm when it failed to consider her under its severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP).
62. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making this apology.
63. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £300 to Miss X. I have considered our published guidance on remedies for distress and risk of harm. Taking into account the length of time involved, how many times Miss X called the Council for help, and the potential impact on Miss X, I consider a payment of £300 is appropriate and proportionate.
64. I accept that the Council may need to take a risk-focussed approach to priority in its SWEP. However, it is important the Council’s housing team, which coordinates its SWEP, understands that the protocol is available to anyone, regardless of legal duty or recourse to public funds.
65. The Council has agreed that within three months of this decision, it will remind all housing staff (including managers and the head of service) that its severe weather emergency protocol is available to anyone, regardless of legal duty or recourse to public funds.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take actions to remedy injustice and improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman