https://www.lgo.org.uk/assets/attach/6805/GPG-Homelessness-decisions-for-Disabled-people-F.pdf
The Good Practice Guide – Homelessness Decisions for Disabled People (June 2025) offers guidance to assist councils in making fair, lawful and effective decisions for disabled people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
The guide begins with key learning for councils; it then considers common issues and complaints stemming for Ombudsman’s Reports and concludes with outlining councils’ Housing Authority legal duties on homelessness.
Key Learning for Councils
Many injustices experienced by homeless people dealing with the extra problems posed by disabilities, arise from failures in basic administration. To prevent injustice and improve the experiences of disabled homeless people, the guidance suggests that councils can improve by ‘getting the basics right’.
This means:
- Thorough and accurate assessments of needs
- Timely reviews and clear communication of applicants’ formal appeal rights
- The pursual of measures to advance the suitability of accommodation provision for disabled people
- Clear and regular communication with applicants; and
- Effective collaboration and information sharing between departments (such as social care) and councils (where there is a two tier council structure, and even when there is only one)
Common Issues and Complaints
- Housing Shortages and Service Failures
The guidance alludes to the fact that housing shortage is a national issue but one that disproportionately affects disabled homeless people. Consequently, the shortage of affordable housing has resulted in the Ombudsman making increased findings of ‘service failure’, in cases where councils have failed to meet their statutory duties.
It is recommended that councils take steps at both an individual and a strategic level to improve the supply of interim and temporary accommodation to meet their statutory duty to homeless people.
Despite raising this valid concern, the guidance does not provide any solutions for councils facing chronic housing shortages nor does it discuss how councils might work regionally or nationally to increase the supply of accessible accommodation, given that it is having a detrimental impact on the ability of councils to administer services.
Report Example – Case Ref: 23 010 560
Overview – Mateo, his wife and their children were homeless. Mateo has a medical condition, as does one of his children. On review, the Council accepted that their temporary accommodation was statutorily unsuitable as Mateo was vulnerable to infection with the extensive damp and mould in the property. The Council put the family on a transfer waiting list. The family spent a further 19 months in unsuitable accommodation before moving to a new property, constituting service failure.
Remedy – The Council was instructed to pay Mateo for each month spent in unsuitable, temporary accommodation.
- Assessment of Need
The guidance states that Housing Authority assessments must specifically identify property features or adaptations essential for each applicant’s disability. They must also be thorough and accurate to prevent unsuitable accommodation being offered later. [CASCAIDr comment – this is the law because Housing law is governed by public law principles one of which is to take all relevant considerations into account and even imposing a strong duty of adequate enquiry by council officers.]
Report example – Case Ref: 23 003 461
Overview – Arthur has severe and enduring mental health conditions and was hospitalised as a result (not under s3). On discharge from hospital, he was homeless, and the Council provided him with accommodation in a hostel with shared facilities. The Council’s assessment of his housing needs found that he required a room in shared house or a one-bed property.
The Council was at fault for failing to consider information about Arthur’s mental health in its assessment. Self-contained housing would have been identified as a requirement much sooner, had the function been properly discharged. Consequently, he spent seven months in unsuitable accommodation.
Remedy – The Council was ordered to apologise, make a financial payment to Arthur in recognition of the seven months of living in unsuitable accommodation and remind staff of the importance of considering the individual applicant’s housing needs before providing accommodation with regard to suitability.
- Suitability Reviews
Statutory rights to a review of suitability exist under the Housing Act for all offers of accommodation other than interim accommodation pending inquiries.
The guidance asserts that councils must inform applicants of their right to request a review if they believe the accommodation offered is unsuitable. It states that reviews must be completed within 8 weeks and Councils must consider disability related needs thoroughly in the review process. Any delays or failure to act can result in stays in unsuitable accommodation.
Report example – Case Ref: 23 010 082
Overview – Adele, who has physical and mental health conditions, was homeless with her child. She requested a suitability review of her temporary accommodation from the council due to the size, location and layout affecting her physical and mental health. The review, which took seven months to complete, found that the accommodation was unsuitable for Adele.
Reviews should take eight weeks to complete and thus, the Council was at fault. Had the review been completed on time, it would have decided the accommodation was unsuitable five months earlier. This created a five-month delay in looking for alternative accommodation.
Remedy – The Council was asked to apologise to Adele and pay her a sum equating to each month of the delay.
- Aids and Adaptations in Interim and Temporary Accommodation
The guidance states that councils must consider, and where reasonable, provide, aids and adaptations in interim and temporary accommodation, especially in cases where it is likely that the accommodation will be occupied for a prolonged period. This includes minor adaptations, such as grab rails, ramps or suitable bathroom facilities. Even temporary accommodation must be safe and usable for disabled applicants, and councils should co-ordinate with social care services for the benefit of disabled people.
[CASCAIDr comment: and be transparent about Disabled Facilities Grants, although the authority may consider adaptations impractical due to the property’s temporary nature or condition].
Report example – Case Ref: 21 015 013
Overview – Adrian and his family had been homeless and lived in temporary accommodation since 2008. In 2014, Adrian became a full-time wheelchair user. The accommodation was unsuitable for his needs and whilst the council acknowledged this, it did not make any offers of alternative housing. He lived in unsuitable accommodation for eight years, often falling when trying to enter the property which had a step at the front door, causing physical harm. Injustice was caused.
Remedy – The Council was ordered to pay Adrian compensation for each month spent in unsuitable accommodation from July 2014, totalling 99 months and £29,700.
- Collaborating and Communicating
The guidance stresses the importance of effective collaboration and communication between council departments and with external bodies. Poor communication often leads to unsuitable placements and delays. Sharing relevant information, especially about disabilities and care needs is vital to ensure appropriate accommodation and support.
Report example – Case Ref: 22 007 276
Overview – One of Julia’s children, Sophie, has significant disabilities and uses a specialist wheelchair, requiring help with daily activities. Julia was homeless so the Council arranged a two-year tenancy with a private landlord in another council area, ending its duty. An Occupational Therapist later said the flat was unsuitable for Sophie.
The Ombudsman’s Investigation found the Council allowed Julia’s case to drift for 3 years. The family spent 42 months in unsuitable accommodation due to faults in allocation, aggravated by poor practice and communication, poor processes for responding to contacts and a lack of coordination.
Remedy – A payment of more than £20,000 to Julia and Sophie was required. The Council also agreed to commission an independent external review and produce an action plan of the homelessness service.
Council Duties on Homelessness
The Guidance notes the statutory framework which sets out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness:
- The Housing Act 1996 (the Act)
- The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code)
Under section 176 of the Act, it is not necessary to be on the street to be homeless. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to in that accommodation.
Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when requesting assistance from the Council:
- is likely to become homeless within 56 days: or
- is served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days.
If someone contacts a council seeking 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 over whether they owe any other duties to them.
As per section 184 of the Act and paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5 of the Code, the threshold of the duty to make inquiries is relatively low.
Interim accommodation must be secured by councils for applicants where there is reason to believe that they may be homeless, not INeligible for assistance by reason of their immigration status and are in circumstances that amount to priority need, as outlined in section 188 of the Act.
If satisfied that an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness, an assessment must be undertaken by the Council, with the applicant’s full knowledge, and should include:
- the circumstances that have caused person to be homeless or to be threatened with homelessness
- their housing needs
- their support needs
If satisfied that applicants are not ineligible for assistance, councils must help them secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is known as the prevention duty. In deciding next steps, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases.
Under the relief duty, councils must act reasonably to secure accommodation, if they are satisfied that applicants are homeless and not ineligible for assistance. The relief duty typically lasts for 56 days and when ended, councils must notify applicants in writing, in accordance with section 189B of the Act.
If, during or after the relief duty, councils are also satisfied that applicants are homeless, eligible for assistance, and have priority need, the main housing duty comes into force. This main duty requires councils to secure long-term, suitable accommodation.
Under section 206 of the Act, councils must ensure that all accommodation provided to homeless applicants, even interim and temporary accommodation, is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.
This requires an individual assessment with the suitability of accommodation depending on the needs, requirements and circumstances of the applicant, as per the Housing Act Code 17.4 and 17.9.
Comments on some of the weaknesses of the Guidance
Lack of relevant structural and administrative recommendations
There is no explicit summary within the guidance of the most common issues and complaints identified across all cases in a coherent format.
Whilst the guidance does present some useful case stories to illustrate the issues, the reality is that without statistical analysis of wider patterns in common complaints investigated, it is not straightforward for practitioners to quickly identify patterns or prioritise areas for improvement.
The guidance misses an opportunity to make learning from complaints more accessible, understandable and concise for practitioners seeking to avoid similar issues.
The guidance clearly encourages improvement after findings of fault; however, it falls short in advocating for ongoing, proactive monitoring of outcomes for disabled homeless applicants or publicly available annual reporting on such matters. Furthermore, the guidance does not devote any attention to how councils can monitor, audit or practically improve their compliance with Public Sector Equality Duty in the context of eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations in homelessness decisions.
It should be observed that whilst the guidance highlights individual service failure, no systemic recommendations are offered for councils to address structural barriers (such as chronic shortage of accessible housing).
It is a concern that there is a limited focus on prevention and early intervention. The guidance mainly focuses on responses to homelessness after it has occurred which is entirely understandable in such a document. However, there is no proactive advice that it recommends for councils to take to prevent homelessness in the first place – risking or perhaps reflecting the normalisation of a culture of reactive homelessness decision making, missing opportunities to intervene before disabled people reach crisis point.
The guidance highlights visible and physical disabilities throughout. However, given that no statistical analysis is presented, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the authors of the guidance have picked which stories to feature in its document, based on the types of mistake being made. It is therefore disappointing that there is a notable lack of attention paid to hidden disabilities (like autism, learning disabilities and chronic illness).
Lack of relevant statutory provisions and notable legal precedent
With regards to statutory provisions, the guidance does not explicitly reference the fact that the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 substantially amended Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. These relatively recent statutory changes are fundamental to current homelessness law and are vital for practitioner knowledge.
For example, it is notable that the 2017 Act extended the definition of ‘threatened with homelessness’ from 28 days to 56 days; introduced the duty to assess all eligible applicants and create personalised housing plans; and placed prevention and relief duties on local authorities for eligible applicants, regardless of priority need.
There is also no regard shown in the guidance for the interplay between other statutory instruments which are vitally important for practitioner knowledge when making decisions about homeless disabled people. For example, the Equality Act 2010 which protects disabled people from discrimination and requires reasonable adjustments in housing and the Human Rights Act 1998 which can be engaged in housing decisions (for example: the right to respect for private and family life).
There is no discussion on the interrelationship between local connection between Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 and its lack of relevance for Part 7. Local connection rules under Part 6 apply primarily to the allocation of social housing and can affect where and how an applicant can be offered housing. This has limited relevance for Part 7 duties concerning prevention and relief and the main duty owed to homeless applicants.
Absent from the guidance is significant legal precedent, namely the R (Campbell) v London Borough of Ealing case which deals with local authority obligations under the Care Act 2014 and Housing Act 1996, specifically the effect of section 23 of the Care Act 2014. It was held that local authorities are not required to provide ‘ordinary’ accommodation under the Care Act 2014 if the individual is eligible for housing under the Housing Act 1996 (e.g. even if they are merely ON a social housing register or awaiting allocation). The Care Act 2014, section 23 effectively prevents the Care Act from being used to meet housing needs through Adults’ Social Care functions, if councils have duties under the Housing Act 1996, and means that most British individuals will not be able to access accommodation ‘plus’ (the shorthand for the direct provision of accommodation as part and parcel of the Care Act duty) despite having eligible needs for care and support, unless they lack mental capacity to contract for a tenancy.
It should be observed that following Begum, individuals lacking mental capacity (a large proportion of disabled people) to engage with the Housing Act remain outside section 23 restrictions. Thus, the position is that such individuals cannot meaningfully participate in allocation schemes or homelessness applications, placing accommodation decisions on departments with community care responsibilities as opposed to the Housing Authority. Of course, facilitation of a move into supported living is not necessarily the provision of accommodation; it is merely helping a person to help themselves sort out their own housing, so we are not suggesting that that supported route into ordinary housing is no longer open to ASC teams.
In practice, section 23 restricts Care Act accommodation for a large cohort of British clients, creating difficulties for ASC Teams to accommodate intentionally homeless applicants with obvious care needs, those with serious mental health issues who do not qualify for section 117 aftercare by dint of their route into psychiatric hospital, and individuals requiring urgent accommodation under section 19(3).
The guidance does not provide an adequate discussion on how the legal test of ‘vulnerability’ should be applied in practice. Notably, there is no reference to the Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council case which ruled that ‘vulnerability’ should be assessed comparatively given that any homeless person would be effectively ‘vulnerable’. Thus, it was held that the test is whether the applicant would be ‘significantly more vulnerable’ under section 189 of the Act than any other ordinary person who finds themselves homeless. The decision makes clear that the prevalence of certain conditions (like mental health issues or substance use) among the general homeless population is irrelevant to the assessment. The focus is on whether the applicant, because of their circumstances (such as disability), would suffer more harm or be less able to cope than an ordinary person if rendered homeless.
The guidance, whilst noting that all accommodation provided to homeless applicants must be suitable, does not discuss how the concept of suitability differs between interim and temporary accommodation and permanent accommodation. For interim or temporary accommodation, councils must provide suitable accommodation, but it is subject to different considerations due to context, when what is being allocated is shorter term rather than longer-term accommodation. For example, suitability can be influenced by the expected length of stay (for example, the accommodation may be deemed suitable for a very short period but unsuitable for longer periods). Councils are under a continuing obligation to review the suitability of accommodation over time. What is suitable today may become unsuitable as circumstances, duration, or a household’s needs change. This is crucial knowledge for legal compliance with sections 206 and 210 of the Housing Act 1996 and ultimately, effective assessment and decision-making in practice given that councils are under a continuing obligation to review suitability over time, at the request of applicants.