Ad/Marketing Communication

This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law.

1. Introduction

In the second part of this series “AI and Homelessness” (Part 1 can be read here), I thought it best to show a practical example of what happens with very basic AI prompts in homelessness decisions. I will reserve any legal analysis for Part 3, as this post is already quite extensive. If low on time, or not interested in the process, you may want to go straight to my comments below.

I am introducing a completely fictitious individual, “Ceres.” I will set out her situation and then ask ChatGPT to make a homelessness decision based on three prompts:

1. Asking ChatGPT to make the decision itself.
   
2. Asking ChatGPT to create a decision showing she is not in priority need.
   
3. Asking ChatGPT to make a decision finding that she is in priority need.

Once these decisions are presented, I will provide some brief observations, but the fuller analysis will be covered in Part 3.

Please remember at all times:

1. Nothing here is legal or practical advice. It is for illustrative purposes only.
   
2. The sample fictitious homelessness representations and authority decisions are not models or templates to be replicated.
   
3. No view is expressed on whether any AI system is safe, confidential, or lawful. Always take legal advice before use.

2. Ceres’ Story

Ceres is a 34-year-old woman who became homeless following years of domestic abuse. Born and raised in a small town, she married her partner in her early twenties. Over time, the relationship turned abusive, subjecting her to escalating emotional and physical violence and leaving her fearful and isolated.

After several attempts to leave, Ceres finally fled her home with few belongings, no stable support system, and very little savings. She spent some time sleeping on a friend’s sofa but eventually exhausted that option and ended up on the streets.

Ceres has been diagnosed with recurrent depression, marked by persistent sadness, fatigue, and low self-esteem. She often struggles to complete basic tasks like preparing meals or maintaining personal hygiene. Past trauma has magnified her condition, sometimes triggering severe anxiety, insomnia, and social withdrawal.

Ceres also has learning difficulties affecting her reading comprehension and short-term memory. While she can perform most daily activities, she needs more time and support to understand written documents, fill out forms, or navigate official procedures. She might appear disengaged, but in reality, she requires more accessible communication.

These compounding issues, homelessness, a history of domestic violence, mental health needs, and learning difficulties, create substantial barriers to stable housing. Though support services exist, extensive paperwork and complex legal processes can be daunting. Ceres struggles with appointments and finds it difficult to articulate her circumstances, making her particularly vulnerable to slipping through gaps in the system.

It remains a challenge for local authorities, charities, and other services to fully grasp Ceres’ needs when her communication difficulties prevent her from conveying information consistently or promptly. Even well-intentioned and resourceful caseworkers might miss crucial details about her history and vulnerabilities.

Ceres qualifies for Legal Aid and is referred to solicitors who provide some legal help. They make initial submissions on her behalf (Annex 1). She is placed in temporary accommodation while waiting for the local authority’s response.

3. The Ficticious Local Authority

A fictional homelessness officer at a fictional Local Authority handling homelessness has found ChatGPT helpful for drafting letters and other tasks. This person wonders how far ChatGPT could assist in making homelessness decisions. The following prompts are tested:

Prompt 1 (Let ChatGPT decide the application):
“You work for a local authority in the UK handling homelessness applications under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Based on the representations made by Ceres below, review the relevant criteria under section 189 of the Act and make a clear, reasoned decision in a formal letter as to whether or not Ceres is in priority need, clearly explaining your rationale.”

Prompt 2 (Decision finding applicant not in priority need):
“You work for a local authority in the UK handling homelessness applications under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Based on the representations made by Ceres below, generate a clear, concise, and reasoned decision letter determining that she is homeless but is not in priority need under section 189 of the Act.”

Prompt 3 (Decision finding applicant in priority need):
“You work for a local authority in the UK handling homelessness applications under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Based on the representations made by Ceres below, generate a clear, concise, and reasoned decision letter confirming that she is homeless and in priority need under section 189 of the Act.”

4. The 3 AI Decisions on AI and Homelessness

The following decisions were generated using “Chat GPT o1 Pro Mode,” which is one of the more advanced modes offered by this LLM. It requires a bit more time to produce an answer. Below is the approximate time taken for each decision.

Let Chat GPT decide (3m3s)

[On Local Authority Letterhead]

[Date]

[Name and Address of Applicant/Representative]

Dear [Applicant Name/Representative],

Re: Decision on Homelessness Application under Part VII, Housing Act 1996 – Ceres

We write further to your representations on behalf of Ceres in respect of her application for homelessness assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. We have carefully considered all the information provided, including details of domestic abuse, mental health issues, and learning difficulties. This letter sets out our decision regarding whether Ceres is in priority need under section 189 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended.

---

1. Background and Relevant Legal Framework

1. Homelessness
   Under sections 175–177 of the Housing Act 1996, a person is homeless if they have no accommodation available in the UK or elsewhere, or if it is unreasonable for them to continue to occupy their current accommodation. Domestic abuse (including psychological, emotional, and financial abuse) is a prime example of circumstances making it unreasonable for a person to remain in their home.
2. Priority Need
   Section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1996 identifies categories of applicants who have a priority need. Two key provisions are particularly relevant here:
   • Section 189(1)(e): This stipulates that a person who is homeless as a result of domestic abuse has a priority need.
   • Section 189(1)(c): A person is in priority need if they are vulnerable due to old age, mental illness, or another special reason.
3. Vulnerability Test
   In Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30, the Supreme Court clarified that a person is vulnerable if, when homeless, they would suffer more harm than an ordinary person would. This test includes consideration of mental health diagnoses, learning disabilities, and the cumulative impact of past trauma.
4. Duty to Provide Accommodation
   • Section 188(1): If there is reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible, and in priority need, interim accommodation must be provided.
   • Section 193: If the applicant is found to be homeless, eligible, in priority need, and not intentionally homeless, the local authority must secure suitable longer-term accommodation.

---

2. Assessment of Ceres’s Circumstances

1. Homelessness
   We are satisfied that Ceres is homeless within the meaning of the Act. She has been forced to leave her home due to domestic abuse and is without secure or settled accommodation.
2. Eligibility
   Ceres, a British national who has resided in the UK her entire life, is clearly eligible for assistance under section 185 of the Housing Act 1996.
3. Priority Need
   • Domestic Abuse (Section 189(1)(e)): Ceres became homeless as a result of domestic abuse. The information provided demonstrates she was compelled to leave her former residence to ensure her safety. This meets the automatic priority need threshold under section 189(1)(e).
   • Vulnerability (Section 189(1)(c)): Additionally, Ceres faces significant mental health challenges (including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress symptoms) and has learning difficulties that affect her daily functioning and ability to navigate statutory processes. In line with Hotak, this increases her susceptibility to harm beyond that of an ordinary homeless person. These combined factors independently support a finding of vulnerability.
4. Intentionality
   There is no indication that Ceres acted in a deliberate or reckless manner to render herself homeless. Fleeing domestic abuse cannot be considered intentional homelessness.

---

3. Decision

Having considered all the evidence and the relevant legislation, we conclude that:

• Ceres is homeless within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
• She is eligible for assistance due to her British nationality and permanent residence in the UK.
• She is in priority need under section 189(1)(e) because she is homeless due to domestic abuse. Moreover, her mental health needs and learning difficulties would also render her vulnerable under section 189(1)(c).

Accordingly, the local authority accepts that Ceres is owed the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, subject to the usual inquiries regarding intentional homelessness (which, based on the evidence, do not appear to apply).

---

4. Next Steps

1. Interim Accommodation (Section 188)
   We will arrange immediate interim accommodation to prevent her from becoming street homeless while we complete any outstanding inquiries.
2. Main Housing Duty (Section 193)
   As Ceres has been determined to be in priority need and not intentionally homeless, the local authority will secure suitable longer-term temporary accommodation until she can be offered a settled housing solution.

Should you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact our office on [Local Authority Contact Number] or via [Email Address].

Yours sincerely,

[Name]
[Position]
[Department, Local Authority Name]

Find Applicant not in Priority Need (3m12s)

[On Local Authority Letterhead]

[Date]

[Name and Address of Applicant] [Reference Number]

Dear Ceres,

Re: Decision under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996

Thank you for your application for housing assistance. We have now completed our inquiries under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. This letter explains our decision, the reasons for it, and how you can seek a review if you disagree.

---

1. Homelessness

We are satisfied, in accordance with sections 175–177 of the Housing Act 1996, that you are homeless. You do not have secure accommodation available to you, and it is accepted that you left your previous address.

---

2. Eligibility

You are a British citizen with no immigration restrictions, having lived in the UK all your life. Under section 185 of the Housing Act 1996, you are eligible for assistance.

---

3. Priority Need

Under section 189 of the Housing Act 1996, a person has a priority need if they fall within specific categories, such as being made homeless by domestic abuse (section 189(1)(e)) or being vulnerable due to mental health, disability, or another special reason (section 189(1)(c)).

a) Domestic Abuse (Section 189(1)(e))
We have carefully considered your statements and any supporting information regarding domestic abuse. While we recognise that you left your previous address because of difficulties in your relationship, our assessment is that the evidence does not demonstrate that you are currently homeless as a direct result of abuse likely to continue or recur. In reaching this view, we have taken into account all available information regarding any risk of harm and whether accommodation remains unsafe or unreasonable to occupy. On balance, we do not find that the circumstances meet the statutory criteria for domestic abuse as the principal cause of your current homelessness.

b) Vulnerability (Section 189(1)(c))
You have highlighted mental health issues (including depression and anxiety) and learning difficulties. In line with Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30, we have examined whether these conditions mean you would suffer more harm than an ordinary homeless person if not provided with accommodation. Although we acknowledge the challenges you face, we have concluded that these do not indicate a level of vulnerability that places you in a significantly more harmful position than someone else also experiencing homelessness. As such, we do not consider you to be in priority need under this provision.

For the above reasons, you have been determined not to be in priority need under section 189 of the Housing Act 1996.

---

4. Conclusion

Our inquiries confirm that you are:

• Homeless and
• Eligible for assistance,
  but not in priority need within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Therefore, the full housing duty under section 193 of the Act does not arise in your case.

---

5. Right to Request a Review

If you disagree with this decision, you have the right under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 to request a review within 21 days of receiving this letter. A different officer, not involved in making this original decision, will carry out the review. If you wish to request a review, you may do so in writing to the address at the top of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

[Name] [Title/Position] [Local Authority Housing Department]

Find Applicant in Priority Need (1m 30s)

[On Local Authority Letterhead]

[Date]

[Name and Address of Applicant] [Optional Reference Number]

Dear Ceres,

Decision Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996

I write to inform you of the Council’s decision regarding your homelessness application under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Having considered the information you provided and the relevant legislation, our conclusions are as follows:

---

1. Homelessness (Sections 175–177, Housing Act 1996)

You have no secure or settled accommodation to occupy, as you were compelled to leave your former home due to domestic abuse. Sofa-surfing does not constitute suitable or settled housing. We therefore conclude that you are homeless within the meaning of the Act.

---

2. Eligibility (Section 185, Housing Act 1996)

You are a British citizen with no restrictions on your right to reside in the UK. You are therefore eligible for assistance.

---

3. Priority Need (Section 189, Housing Act 1996)

Under section 189(1)(e), an applicant who has become homeless as a result of domestic abuse is automatically deemed to have a priority need for housing. Additionally, under section 189(1)(c), those who are vulnerable due to factors such as mental health conditions or learning difficulties can also be in priority need.

• Domestic Abuse
  You have clearly been made homeless due to domestic abuse, fulfilling the criteria in section 189(1)(e).
• Vulnerability
  You experience significant mental health issues and learning difficulties, which place you at greater risk of harm when homeless. This further supports priority need status under section 189(1)(c), but the automatic criterion under section 189(1)(e) is sufficient on its own.

---

4. Intentional Homelessness (Sections 191–196, Housing Act 1996)

You were forced to leave your home for personal safety. There is no indication that you have deliberately taken actions to render yourself homeless. Consequently, we do not find you to be intentionally homeless.

---

5. Conclusion

In view of the above, the Council has decided that:

1. You are homeless under section 175.
2. You are eligible for assistance under section 185.
3. You are in priority need under section 189(1)(e).
4. You are not intentionally homeless under sections 191–196.

---

6. Next Steps

As a result of this decision, the Council owes you the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. We will make arrangements to secure suitable interim accommodation under section 188(1) while we continue and finalise any remaining inquiries. A Housing Officer will contact you shortly to discuss your accommodation options and any support available to you.

If you have any questions, please contact [Name/Department] at [Contact Details].

Yours sincerely,

[Name] [Job Title] [Local Authority]

5. Comment

It is important to note that the prompts I used were intentionally simple, and the representations were not particularly sophisticated or detailed. With adjustments to both the prompts and the representations, the resulting decisions are likely to become significantly more comprehensive and specific.

The legal analysis of these AI-generated decisions will feature in my next post, but I am particularly struck by their fluency and apparent authenticity. Could you readily identify these as AI-generated decisions? If so, what precisely gives it away? Is it the style, tone, legal references, or perhaps something subtler?

I anticipated that ChatGPT might refuse to generate at least one of these review decisions or request additional information or context. It didn’t. It produced each decision swiftly, within just four minutes.

Simply instructing the AI to frame the decision as either “in priority need” or “not in priority need” resulted in clearly differentiated letters, reflecting notable variations in tone, reasoning, and reference to relevant legal principles. These nuanced differences highlight an intriguing aspect of generative AI’s responsiveness to seemingly minor changes in instructions.

This raises several interesting questions including:

• How much do subtle shifts in prompts alter the outcome of AI-generated decisions?
  
• If AI-generated decisions become commonplace, what implications does this have for transparency and accountability within public sector decision-making?
  
• Could reliance on generative AI inadvertently introduce or perpetuate biases and discrimination?
  
• How can local authorities ensure they adequately record and preserve prompts and processes to maintain transparency, especially when such AI tools significantly influence outcomes?
  
• What about the Public Sector Equality Duty?

I will be considering these issues and more shortly. In the meantime, local authorities may wish to reflect on whether generative AI can be lawfully incorporated into homelessness decision-making processes at all. If it can, how will you establish clear procedures covering all aspects of implementation, including the choice of AI model, the crafting of prompts, and the meticulous maintenance of records?

Finally, it will be fascinating to observe how these AI-generated outputs evolve with future iterations of models like ChatGPT, particularly concerning their sophistication, consistency, and alignment with established legal standards.