Summary: Miss D says the Council mishandled her homelessness application. We have found fault by the Council including a failure to offer interim accommodation or provide clear explanations about procedures to Miss D. The Council accepts fault and will pay Miss D redress. It has also made service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to provide her with homelessness assistance including delaying offering emergency accommodation in 2025. Miss D also refers to the Council not accepting she had a local connection.

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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have advised Miss D that I have not investigated the Council’s decision on her local connection. She had a right to a formal review of that decision and could then progress the matter to the courts if she remained dissatisfied. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court and we consider it reasonable for a homelessness applicant to use their right of review. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.
7. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 10 March 2025 Miss D called Council asking for homelessness assistance. The Council noted Miss D had been asked to leave her current temporary accommodation within the next two weeks. The Council said Miss D had been living in a different local authority (Council X) earlier in 2025 and she should contact Council X for assistance: she had no local connection to Harrow. On 12 March Miss D’s friend (Ms A) contacted the Council and complained. She said it should accept Miss D’s application. The Council then checked with Council X who stated Miss D had withdrawn a homelessness application in February 2025. Ms A emailed the Council the same day that Miss D was in priority need and had a young child. The Council should provide her with interim accommodation whilst it considered if Miss D had a local connection. Later that day the Council sent Miss D a homelessness application form to complete. Miss D returned the form and was told the Council would allocate her a Homelessness Prevention and Solutions Officer (Officer). On 14 March the Council told Miss D her case had been allocated to an Officer. On 17 March Miss D emailed the Council, she had sent information but had not heard back.
9. On 19 March the Officer called Miss D and booked an appointment on 4 April to carry out a homelessness assessment. Miss D told the Officer she was homeless with a young child, and she needed emergency accommodation as soon as possible. The Officer replied she needed to make enquiries about Miss D’s eligibility and local connection. Emergency accommodation could not be provided until Miss D supplied ID documents and a birth certificate for her child. Miss D then sent documents including the child’s birth certificate. The Officer told Miss D she needed an evisa for Miss D with a photograph and asked questions about the child’s father. Miss D replied the same day. The Officer then requested an evisa for the child “so emergency accommodation can be requested”. Miss D replied that she only had a birth certificate, her child was a UK citizen and did not require an evisa. The next day the Officer asked Miss D for the child’s passport. Miss D said she did not have one, only a birth certificate. The Officer stated she needed evidence of the child’s immigration status and could not provide emergency accommodation without it. Miss D asked what additional evidence she could provide, she had spoken to staff at the Home Office who advised a birth certificate was sufficient to establish the child’s status.
10. On 21 March an charity Miss D had approached about her homelessness emailed the Council. It said the Council should provide immediate accommodation for Miss D. On 25 March Miss D sent the Officer a copy of the passport for her child’s father showing he was a UK citizen. On 26 March the Officer filled out a referral form to an organisation, that that accepts referrals and matches them to available long term private sector housing, for Miss D. She stated Miss D had been sofa surfing at a friend’s home. Miss D had Limited Leave to Remain status. The organisation replied the same day that it could only house people who had Indefinite Leave to Remain status. Miss D contacted the Officer asking about emergency accommodation. The Officer told Miss D she had sent her a copy of the homelessness assessment form to sign and return. Miss D and Ms A then told the Officer she had sent a copy of the organisation referral form not the homelessness form. In addition Ms A said the Officer had told Miss D she required a written statement from Ms A that she would be evicting Miss D. The Council should provide Miss D with accommodation.
11. On 26 March the Officer filled out an emergency accommodation booking form which stated they had reason to believe Miss D was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. On 28 March the Officer noted Miss D had been assigned interim accommodation outside the area with a start date of 1 April. That day Miss D asked why the Officer had made a referral to the organisation, it is unclear if the Officer replied. On 31 March Ms A asked the Officer how they had assessed if the interim accommodation was affordable or suitable for Miss D. She requested a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Miss D. The Officer replied that she would carry out a full housing assessment and discuss finances on 4 April.
12. On 2 April the Council recorded that Miss D had not moved into the interim accommodation. The Officer called Miss D who stated she was unsure how to pay for the accommodation and whether she could afford it. She said she would accept the accommodation but was not well enough to come to the Council to sign up for the room at present. The Officer said if Miss D did not attend the next day, it would be classed as refusing the offer, Miss D emailed the Council that she was not refusing the room but could not manage to come to the office at present. That same day the Officer made a referral to another local authority regarding local connection. She also wrote to Miss D. Miss D then told the Officer she had made a referral to the wrong local authority. On 3 April the Officer requested additional address information and bank statements from Miss D. Miss D told the Officer she was still unwell and was not refusing emergency accommodation.
13. On 4 April the Officer called Miss D and carried out a homelessness assessment. She said Miss D should supply a passport for her child. Miss D reiterated she did have one. The Officer emailed Miss D with notification the Council accepted a relief duty towards her. She enclosed a PHP. Also that day the Officer made a formal referral to Council X about a local connection and notified Miss D. Also on 4 April the Council issued its complaint response. It said that because Miss D did not have a local connection the Council was making a referral to Council X. Miss D and Ms A requested the Council reconsider the complaint, the Council had incorrectly set out Miss D’s address history, and she had lived in three different places (with friends and family) over a four week period from February onwards. On 7 April the Officer emailed Miss D that she needed to come in person to sign up for interim accommodation. On 30 April Council X told the Council it accepted a duty towards Miss D, she had a local connection with it. The Council sent Miss D a decision letter explaining she had a right to review the decision and its relief duty had ended.
14. On 2 May the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It apologised because the Officer had failed to fully explain why documentation was needed to establish the immigration status for Miss D’s child. The Council also accepted it had failed to follow procedures; it was clear from mid-March that Miss D was homeless, and she should have received immediate support. It also accepted it had failed to properly explain about the local connection issue. In addition the Council said that even where a child’s immigration status was not confirmed it should have contacted Children’s Services to consider accommodation. Given Miss D’s child was very young, interim accommodation should also have been considered sooner. It said it was going to make service improvements but did not detail what action was being taken or offer a personal remedy to Miss D.

What should have happened

Applications

15. 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)
16. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable to the applicant. However councils must not do this to avoid their legal duties, especially the duty to make inquiries into the applicant’s homelessness. The Ombudsman has criticised councils for ‘gatekeeping’ practices, for example, failing to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.

The relief duty

17. 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)
18. When a council decides this duty has come to an end it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
19. The Council says that its Accommodation Team contact an applicant once interim accommodation is found to discuss affordability.

Local connection and referral to another housing authority

20. A council (notifying authority) can refer applicants who do not have a local connection to their district to another housing authority (the notified authority) in England where they do have such a connection. Before making a referral, the notifying authority must be satisfied that the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance and therefore owed the relief duty and that the conditions for referral are met. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 section 198 (A1) and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.37)
21. The notifying authority is not subject to the relief duty at the point that they have notified an applicant they intend to refer or have referred their case to another housing authority. It follows that a council will owe the relief duty until such time as the applicant has been issued with this notification. If the notifying authority believes that the applicant has no local connection and may have a connection elsewhere, they should take reasonable steps to try and relieve the applicant’s homelessness until they issue the first notification. When the notifying authority intends to refer or have referred a case to another housing authority, there are two points at which applicants must be notified:
• (a) when the notifying authority has decided that the conditions for referral are met and intend to notify, or have notified, another local authority of that opinion.
• (b) when, following referral, it has been decided that the conditions for referral are or are not met. The notification must provide notice of the decision and the reasons for it.
22. From the date the first notice is issued the authority will not be subject to the relief duty to provide interim accommodation unless they have reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need in which case they will have a duty to provide interim accommodation to the applicant whilst a decision is made on whether the conditions for referral are met. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 section 199A(b) and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.38, 10.39, 10.40)
23. Notification, as set out in the Local Authority Agreement guidance, requires the notifying authority to contact the notified authority by telephone, email or fax and then in writing. Where a decision is reached and the referral conditions are met the notifying authority must inform the applicant in writing of its decision, the reasons for it and to set out their right to a review. The notified authority should also reply in writing to say whether they accept the referral.

Was there fault by the Council

24. The Council accepts that it should have taken a homelessness application from Miss D on 10 March 2025 when first approached. The Officer handling the case on that day should not have advised Miss D to go to Council X. The Council also acknowledges it failed to make checks on 10 March to see if Miss D could remain housed for the next two weeks or if she required interim accommodation. It should have contacted the person she was staying with on 10 March to establish some facts and then determine if interim accommodation was required: that did not happen. The Council has told me that it would have been prudent to provide interim accommodation because any concerns about documentation and eligibility could have been investigated whilst Miss D was accommodated.
25. The Officer told Ms D she would not be offered interim accommodation without specific documentation. That was fault by the Council. Whilst it has a duty to gather evidence and documentation to show if an applicant is eligible for assistance, it also had a duty to ensure Miss D and her very young child were not without accommodation. As the Council accepted in its complaint response to Miss D it could have made a referral to Children’s Services and failed to do so. Despite regular requests from Miss D, Ms A and a charity the Council failed to consider interim accommodation until 26 March with a start date of 1 April. The Council has already accepted that it failed to clarify for Miss D what documents were needed to establish her child’s immigration status. I also cannot see the Council discussed the affordability of the interim accommodation with Miss D despite her concerns. I have no record of any discussion when the accommodation was identified and the Officer only offered to cover the point in a meeting with Miss D scheduled for four days after she was due to move in to the interim accommodation.
26. A referral was made to an organisation that looked for long term private sector housing on 26 March. The Council says this was explained to Miss D, but I cannot see a record of the process being set out for her. Miss D told me she was left confused about why that referral had been made.
27. The Council’s complaint response to Miss D found significant fault but failed to offer her a remedy or detail any service improvements.

Did the fault cause an injustice

28. The faults by the Council meant Miss D lost an opportunity to have her homelessness case picked up and investigated from the first point of contact on 10 March. She was not provided with clear explanations about the process and not afforded a reasonable level of service at an already difficult time.

Back to top

Action

29. I asked the Council to consider a remedy. It has offered to pay Miss D £1,700 for the distress and lost opportunity in this case. I consider that to be a reasonable level of redress.
30. In addition the Council has made service improvements including training courses for officers in customer care, case management and communication training. It is also holding regular management meetings and providing additional guidance to officers.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has paid the redress to Miss D within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman