Local authority and Ombudsman at loggerheads over response to vulnerable resident left sleeping in car

The council maintained that it “acted lawfully, proportionately, and within its statutory duty under the Housing Act 1996 at all stages of the homelessness application”.

The background to the row is that the man applied to South Kesteven as homeless at the start of 2024 and was given a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) in mid-January.

However, the Ombudsman found that the council did not consider whether the man may be particularly vulnerable when homeless and therefore should be provided with accommodation while it decided his application.

It said the resident informed the council in February of the impact of homelessness on him, citing a recent hospital trip linked to sleeping in the winter weather.

“Despite this, the council still failed to properly consider whether it needed to provide him with accommodation, while it reviewed the medical evidence,” the Ombudsman said.

However, South Kesteven asserted that at the time of the individual’s application, a vulnerability questionnaire was completed which identified that there was no evidence to suggest significant physical or mental health issues that would give reason to believe they were particularly vulnerable.

It said its outreach team had been unable to locate the resident despite visiting on a number of occasions the location with which it had been provided, “raising concerns about the accuracy of these reports”.

The council therefore believed that the threshold for interim accommodation was not met.

South Kesteven added that it sought to assist in securing accommodation in the private rented sector due to the resident being in full-time employment, leading to the council finding that private rented housing was affordable.

Finally, the council insisted that, during a cold spell, it acted swiftly under its Severe Weather Emergency Protocol to provide temporary accommodation as a precautionary measure.

It said it found no evidence that the hospital visit was linked to the homelessness case, and claimed that the resident was fit and able to return to work soon afterwards.

“The hospital information was carefully considered by SKDC but it did not demonstrate a level of vulnerability sufficient to change the council’s duty,” South Kesteven said.

In its report the Ombudsman recommended that the council apologise to the man and pay him a combined £1,175 for the lack of accommodation provided and the distress caused.

Julie Odams, Chief Executive at the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “South Kesteven District Council has left a man with health needs to sleep in his car during some of the coldest months of the year, when it should have helped him.

“The threshold for providing interim accommodation is low. The council needed to decide whether he could be vulnerable when homeless. It did not need to prove this.

“I am satisfied the man missed out on suitable accommodation for around two and a half months because of this poor decision-making by the council.”

She added: “I am disappointed the council is refusing to accept what has gone wrong in this case, and continues to maintain its interpretation of the law is the correct one.

“I would urge local councillors to take a hard look at the council’s decision-making process when discussing the report formally, and accept the remedies I have recommended to put things right.”

However, South Kesteven maintained that it “acted lawfully, proportionately, and within its statutory duty under the Housing Act 1996 at all stages of the homelessness application”.

It added: “While the Ombudsman considers the threshold for accommodation low, the law still requires councils to have reason to believe someone is in priority need in order to trigger the interim accommodation duty. That test was not met in this case.

“SKDC maintains that its actions were lawful.”

Harry Rodd