Homeless vs Threatened with Homelessness — Housing Act 1996 Duties
The legal distinction between being 'homeless' (s.175 HA 1996) and 'threatened with homelessness' (s.175(4) HA 1996), and the different duties local housing authorities owe in each case.
Overview
The Housing Act 1996 Part 7 (as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017) creates a tiered system of duties owed by local housing authorities (LHAs) to applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. The distinction between the two is not merely semantic — it determines which duty applies, what the authority must do, and the applicant's rights in the process. A person is 'homeless' under s.175(1)–(3) if they have no accommodation that they are entitled to occupy and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. A person is 'threatened with homelessness' under s.175(4) if they are likely to become homeless within 56 days. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 extended the threatened threshold from 28 to 56 days and created new prevention and relief duties for both categories.
Side-by-Side Comparison
Homeless (HA 1996 s.175(1)–(3))
Pros
- Triggers the 'relief duty' under s.189B — the LHA must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation for at least 6 months
- If the authority accepts the applicant is in priority need, eligible, and unintentionally homeless: the 'main housing duty' under s.193 arises — a duty to secure suitable accommodation
- Interim accommodation duty under s.188 — authority must provide immediate temporary accommodation if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, in priority need, and not intentionally homeless
- Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) must be prepared and agreed with the applicant
Cons
- Intentional homelessness (s.191) extinguishes the main duty under s.193 — only limited advice and assistance duty remains
- No eligibility for the main duty if not in priority need (s.189) — single adults without children often struggle to meet this test
- LHA review and appeal rights are available but take weeks — applicant may remain in unsuitable temporary accommodation during the process
Best For
Applicants who have no accommodation now (evicted, left accommodation, no home to return to) and need immediate help from the local housing authority.
Threatened with Homelessness (HA 1996 s.175(4))
Pros
- Triggers the 'prevention duty' under s.195 — the LHA must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness occurring
- Earlier intervention — enables authority to assist before the person becomes street homeless
- Personalised Housing Plan prepared to prevent homelessness over the 56-day period
- Authority may negotiate with landlord, assist with bond/deposit, advise on housing options — all without the person having to leave their home first
Cons
- No interim accommodation duty — applicant is not yet homeless so no immediate rehousing obligation arises
- Prevention duty ends after 56 days (or earlier if homelessness is prevented or the applicant becomes homeless) — authority is not obliged to continue indefinitely
- If prevention fails and the applicant becomes homeless, the relief duty under s.189B then applies
- Stricter evidential threshold — applicant must demonstrate they are likely to become homeless within 56 days
Best For
Applicants who have received a valid section 21 notice or section 8 notice, face mortgage repossession, or have been told they must leave by a family member within 56 days — apply immediately to the LHA.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
Anyone who receives a section 21 notice, a possession claim, or a notice to leave should apply to the local housing authority immediately — do not wait until the eviction date. The earlier the application, the longer the LHA has to prevent homelessness under the s.195 prevention duty. Once actually homeless, the s.189B relief duty applies but the authority has less time and fewer options. Seek advice from Shelter, Citizens Advice, or a local housing advice service at the first sign of housing risk.