Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with interim accommodation. We find the Council was at fault for its failure to offer Mr X interim accommodation while it was making enquiries as to whether he was in priority need. This means Mr X was deprived of accommodation he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X and pay him £300 to reflect the time he was sofa surfing.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with interim accommodation. He says the Council’s failures meant he had to sofa surf. He also says his mental health deteriorated.

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 the 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not considered

4. I have considered the Council’s duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation from February to May 2024. I have not considered the Council’s actions after May 2024. Mr X had a right to request a review within 21 days of the Council’s decisions that he was not in priority need and that it was ending the relief duty. It was reasonable for Mr X to have used these review rights within 21 days.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council 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

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the code of guidance) set out councils' powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. 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)
9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to 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)
10. 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)

What happened

11. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2024 for housing assistance. He said his mother had served him with a notice to leave her house. He said his mother was moving out of the area at the end of February and there was not enough space for him to move to her new house.
12. The Council contacted Mr X in late February and asked for his patient summary from his GP.
13. The Council awarded Mr X the relief duty at the beginning of March.
14. Mr X emailed the Council just over a week later and said he has serious medical conditions. He provided medical documents from his GP in mid-March. The Council responded and said it had contacted his GP for further information.
15. The Council received further information about Mr X’s health and passed it to its medical advisor. It issued a letter to Mr X in early May. It said following its enquiries it was satisfied he was eligible and homeless but not in priority need. It said he was not significantly more vulnerable than the average person would be if they were made homeless. Therefore, it did not have a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. It said it if he disagreed, he could request a review within 21 days.
16. Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to provide him with interim accommodation.
17. The Council wrote to Mr X at the end of May and said it was ending the relief duty. It recommended for him to look for housing in the private sector. It said Mr X could ask for a review in 21 days if he remained unhappy.
18. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint and said he did not meet the threshold for interim accommodation. It said he did not request a review of its non-priority need decision within 21 days.
19. Mr X raised a further complaint in June and said his medical conditions are serious enough to warrant priority need. The Council responded and said it had previously explained how and why it reached its decision. It said although the 21 days had expired, he could request a discretionary review.
20. Mr X emailed the Council in mid-August to request a review of its non-priority need decision. The Council responded and said it had not received sufficient reasons to merit an out of time request.

Back to top

Analysis

21. The section 188 duty to arrange interim accommodation during the relief stage is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty, and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources.
22. The Council awarded Mr X the relief duty, and therefore it decided he was eligible for assistance and homeless. As the Council made enquiries about Mr X’s medical conditions, it must have had reason to believe he was in priority need. Therefore, it should have offered him interim accommodation. Its failure to do so is fault.
23. Mr X says his mother moved away in mid-March, and therefore he had to sofa surf at his friend’s house. But for the Council’s fault, he would have received interim accommodation from when his mother moved away until when the Council issued its non-priority need decision letter in May 2024. Therefore, its fault has caused Mr X a significant injustice as he was deprived of accommodation he was entitled to. I have made suitable recommendations to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

24. By 21 March 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mr X £300 to reflect the time he spent sofa surfing from mid-March to early May 2024.

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

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to our recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman