Leavingsosoon- read my first post again. Children over the age of ten sharing a room are not automatically 'statutorily overcrowded' in law and therefore not classed as homeless, including in these statistics.
If every child over the age of ten sharing a room was classed as homeless we'd have a national epidemic! I have clients sharing a single room with three of four young kids and it's not enough for them to be stat overcrowded!
You say the 'grey areas' are the ones described by carol, so:
-People who are within 28 days of the end of a tenancy and have informed the council about this. Correct, though more likely when they are 28 days away from the execution of a warrant of possession rather than end of tenancy (i.e. they've been through the court possession process and paid costs/ facing paying costs for this totalling, as a minimum, £360).
-People who are over-crowded -
you need 1 bedroom for each couple, each person over 21. Correct, though rarely results in stat overcrowding (therefore 'homeless') definition as other rooms of a minimum (tiny) size can be used as a bedroom, including a living room
Under 21, no mixed sex sharing over 11 - so a family with DS and DD over 11 need 3 bedrooms. Correct, but again rarely results in stat overcrowding definition because of other room available. Overcrowding law also doesn't count when it's due to the 'natural growth' of the family. So a child turning 11 doesn't suddenly mean you're homeless if you only have 2 bedrooms for them and a younger sibling
As well as anyone in temporary accommodation. Correct. They're there because if they weren't, they'd be street homeless. If they had friend/s family to sofa surf with temporarily, they would (and many have for a long time).
Since nobody has referred to it yet, the legal definition of homeless can be found under s. 175 of the Housing Act 1996 (Part VII):
(1)A person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, which he—
(a)is entitled to occupy by virtue of an interest in it or by virtue of an order of a court,
(b)has an express or implied licence to occupy, or
(c)occupies as a residence by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of another person to recover possession.
(2)A person is also homeless if he has accommodation but—
(a)he cannot secure entry to it, or
(b)it consists of a moveable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation and there is no place where he is entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it.
(3)A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(4)A person is threatened with homelessness if it is likely that he will become homeless within 28 days.
it is point (2)(a) above which generates the most legal debate but there is now extensive case law precedent about what is or isn't 'reasonable to continue to occupy'. I'm sure it won't come as a surprise when I tell you that your living circumstances have to be very dire indeed for it to be legally 'unreasonable'.