Ombudsman issues rare second report amid claims council used wrong test in homelessness case

The Ombudsman found that the council failed to properly consider whether it had a duty to provide the man with accommodation while it processed his homelessness application in early 2024.

“Despite the man telling the council he had been admitted to hospital and that medical staff believed his housing situation was affecting his health, the council did not demonstrate that it considered the correct legal tests when deciding whether it should offer him interim accommodation,” the LGSCO said.

According to the Ombudsman, the council “consistently applied a much stricter test than the law sets. Councils only need to have reason to believe someone may be homeless, eligible and vulnerable”. [Ombudsman's emphasis]

The council also failed to revisit its decision when it received new information about the man’s health conditions and welfare.

The Ombudsman claimed that South Kesteven had complied with only two of the Ombudsman’s suggested remedies and refused to apologise to the man or to pay him a combined financial remedy of £1,175 for the distress caused.

The council was also asked to remind its homelessness staff of the correct legal test for interim accommodation, which the LGSCO said it had not done.

Amerdeep Clarke, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said: “The duty to provide interim accommodation exists precisely to protect people in situations like the one this man found himself in. The threshold is deliberately low, and councils must apply it correctly.

“The council has told us the correct test was applied but was not recorded properly due to an error in writing rather than consideration. The public have a right to expect public bodies to keep accurate records about them. Accurate record keeping is central to good administrative practice and transparent decision making.”

Clarke added: “In this case, not only did South Kesteven District Council leave a vulnerable man sleeping rough when it should have housed him, it has now refused to properly remedy that injustice.

“We do not issue further reports lightly and I would urge the council to reconsider its position and comply with our recommendations.”

However, in a statement South Kesteven said it had not confirmed its position regarding the Ombudsman's recommendations as it had three months to respond.

“We remain unclear as to the Ombudsman view that we have not accepted their recommendations," it added.

“A decision will be made ahead of the deadline.”