A North London man was forced to sleep rough for two months due to a series of failures by the local council, an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has found.
The man had been made homeless due to “threats of violence from family members” but the local authority didn’t answer his calls and delayed finding him accommodation, according to the report.
Harrow Council has agreed to pay out £1,250 for the “significant distress and injustice” caused by failing to provide interim accommodation to the man – referred to in the report as Mr X – after he was made homeless. The LGO determined the council made “inadequate enquiries” and “took too long” to make decisions on his case.
Mr X complained that Harrow Council “has not helped him” with his housing situation, including not providing him with emergency accommodation and not answering his calls or responding to his communication. As a result, Mr X claimed at the time he “remains homeless and is often sleeping rough”.
Mr X first contacted the council in July 2024 after having to leave a home he was living in with a family member. He told the local authority that he was now rough sleeping and was signposted to a charity which could provide support. A few days later, the charity emailed the council to advise it that Mr X had left the home because of threats of violence from other family members.
The charity provided the council with a police reference number and asked it to secure Mr X interim accommodation whilst it made further inquiries. The police advised that the reference number was for a referral to the council’s social services “to consider if Mr X had care and support needs”, according to the report.
The local authority also asked its medical advisor to consider whether Mr X had any medical issues which might make him particularly vulnerable if homeless, however none were noted. According to the Housing Act 1996, a council must secure interim accommodation for applicants if it has a reason to believe they may be homeless, with priority given to if their situation is due to being a victim of domestic abuse or harassment.
In late July, Mr X told the council that he had been trying to reach his allocated officer but “no one was answering when he called”, the report states. He was told that the officer was on holiday but, when they returned, was then told the council would not provide interim accommodation because he had “no priority need”.
Harrow Council finally completed his assessment in early August and accepted relief duty, as well as assigning a new officer. However, in September Mr X again complained that he was still homeless and had not heard from his new allocated worker.
He claimed whenever he called it went to voicemail. In October the council responded to say it did not uphold the complaint and in February, 2025, told Mr X it did not owe him the main housing duty because he was not a priority need.
The subsequent investigation by the LGO found that between August and late-September evidence shows that Mr X’s allocated officer did not contact him, despite making several calls himself. It also concluded that Harrow Council should have provided interim accommodation whilst it made inquiries about his priority need, which it didn’t. Instead Mr X slept rough for two months, which the LGO described as a “significant injustice”.
On top of that, the report highlights the council’s delay in issuing its decision on Mr X’s priority need. It should have been done by early October but was not done until February 2025, which denied him his legal right to a review and an appeal if desired.
The LGO concluded that the council’s inquiries about the risk of domestic abuse or harassment were “inadequate”, it didn’t find out whether Mr X was at risk from his family and this failure meant the decision he was not in priority need was “unsound”.
A spokesperson for Harrow Council said: “We accept the findings of the LGO and have apologised for the distress caused to Mr X due to delays in processing their application. While we work hard to ensure the expectations of our customers, unfortunately on this occasion we fell short of the standards that residents should expect to receive. It is unacceptable that on several occasions they were not able to contact an officer.
“We have since reviewed our processes and training for staff to ensure this never happens again. We remain committed to fulfilling our duties to prevent homelessness, especially when residents are facing challenging circumstances. We are in contact with Mr X to ensure their case is handled with care and urgency, and hope to resolve the issues soon..”
