Summary: There was fault with the way the Council considered Ms Y’s homelessness and housing register applications. This meant she had to wait longer to receive a housing register decision and homelessness assistance. There was no fault with how the Council considered Ms Y’s application for discretionary housing payment. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms Y for the distress and anxiety caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Ms Y, that the Council:
1. Did not properly process Ms Y’s homelessness application.
2. Has not properly decided Ms Y’s housing register application.
3. Wrongly refused Ms Y’s application for Discretionary Housing Payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have not investigated Ms X’s concerns about delays assessing Ms Y’s housing register from 2020 to 2023. This is because it took more than 12 months for Ms X to complain to us about this and I can see no good reasons why she could have not complained sooner.
9. I have also not investigated the Council’s initial decision not to find Ms Y in priority need in August 2024. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision and it was overturned.
10. The scope of this investigation covers matters from October 2023 to July 2025, the end of the complaints process. Any complaints Ms X may have after July 2025, she would need to raise as a new complaint with the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
14. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. This is called the Prevention Duty. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief Duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need (people with dependent children; pregnant women; people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age) the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is called the Main Housing Duty. But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Housing register

20. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
21. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

22. The Council’s housing allocations scheme matches properties to suitable applicants on the housing register. When allocating a property the Council places applicants in priority order based on the band they are in and their priority date within that band.
23. Applicants with medical issues can be placed into bands 1, 2 or 3, depending on the severity of the medical condition and how it this is impacted by someone’s home.

What happened

24. There has been extensive correspondence between Ms X, her legal representatives and the Council’s housing service since October 2023. In this section of the statement I summarise key events only and do not refer to every single contact and communication.
25. Ms Y lives in a privately rented property and has a number of medical conditions including mental health issues. She was also the victim of domestic abuse in the past.
26. In October 2023, the Council told Ms Y it had placed her into band 3 on its housing register for overcrowding. This was despite Ms Y living alone in a three bedroom property.
27. Ms X contacted the Council and said it put Ms Y into the wrong band. Instead of looking into this the Council told Ms X she had to request a review of its decision to place Ms Y into band 3 for overcrowding. Ms X asked the Council to review this decision in late October 2023. In November 2023, Ms X emailed the Council and asked it to put the review on hold as she was seeking legal representation. She sent the Council her representations in June 2024.
28. Ms Y applied to the Council for homelessness assistance in October 2023. Ms Y told the Council her landlord gave her a section 21 notice to leave her property. The Council contacted Ms Y and Ms X to try to book in a homelessness assessment. The Council also asked Ms X to provide several documents so it could verify whether she was at risk of homelessness.
29. In December 2024, the Council wrote to Ms Y and said it did not have reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness as she had not provided the supporting documentation it asked for.
30. In February 2024, Ms Y applied for Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP). Ms Y could not afford her rent as she was living in a three bedroom property alone and could not make up the shortfall after housing benefit.
31. The Council told Ms Y in March 2024 it had rejected her claim for DHP. This was because it had given her DHP several times over the past few years and her rent arrears had gotten worse. The Council said Ms Y’s tenancy was not affordable and DHP was there to help with periods of short term financial hardship.
32. After contacting Councillors Ms Y was referred back to the Council’s housing team in March 2024. This was to assess her homelessness as her landlord was trying to evict her and she could not afford the rent.
33. In April 2024, the Council carried out an assessment of Ms Y’s housing needs. The Council also spoke with Ms Y’s landlord who told it they were taking steps to remove Ms Y from the property. The Council decided to owe Ms Y the Prevention Duty and said it would pass the medical information Ms Y had supplied to its medical assessor and decide what accommodation was suitable for Ms Y. The Council also gave Ms Y a PHP which specified areas which were high risk for her due to domestic abuse.
34. In early June 2024, the Council wrote to Ms Y and told her it had closed her housing register review. In mid-June 2024, the Council wrote to Ms Y and issued her with a new decision saying she was in band 2 on the housing register due to her medical needs. Then in late June 2024, the Council wrote to Ms Y again and told her she was in band 3 on its housing register. The Council said it had withdrawn the band 2 decision as the officer involved did not properly make this decision.
35. Ms X raised a complaint with the Council about how it handed Ms Y’s housing register application and homelessness application. The Council issued its final response in July 2024. The Council said:
• It recognised placing Ms Y into band 3 for overcrowding was an error and instead it should have removed her from the housing register as she was adequately housed.
• Ms Y was placed into band 2 in error and the caseworker acted outside of the allocations policy.
• It did not think communication from Ms Y’s homelessness caseworker had been poor.
• It could not consider why Ms Y’s application for DHP was refused as this was a different department who dealt with this.
• It acknowledged it did not consider the areas of concern Ms Y said she could not live in which were listed on her PHP.
36. In early August 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X and told her it had ended its Prevention duty. The Council said it now owed Ms X the Relief Duty but did not consider she was in priority need so would not owe her the Main Housing duty. The Council also sent Ms Y a PHP.
37. Shortly after Ms X sought legal assistance for Ms Y and her legal representative asked the Council to review its decision that Ms Y was not in priority need. They also asked the Council to review the content of Ms Y’s PHP as it did not contain personalised information and not list any specific support Ms Y needed to look for housing.
38. In late September 2024, the Council issued an updated PHP. The Council also offered Ms Y a viewing for a property in the private rented sector. Ms Y did not feel she could accept this due to the nature of the tenancy and impact this could have on her mental health. Ms Y’s legal representatives raised concerns about the PHP the Council provided as it did not reflect Ms Y’s needs.
39. In early October 2024 the Council wrote to Ms Y and told her it was ending the Relief Duty as 56 days had passed. Ms Y’s legal representative asked the Council to review this decision.
40. In early February 2025, the Council wrote to Ms Y’s legal representative and told them it accepted Ms Y was in priority need. This was after the Council received a medical report from Ms Y’s legal representative.
41. On 6 March 2025, the Council decided it owed Ms Y the Main Housing duty. As a result, Ms Y moved into band 2 on the Council’s housing register. In April 2024. the Council made Ms Y an offer of temporary accommodation in an area listed as at risk on her PHP. This caused Ms Y significant distress and anxiety but the Council subsequently withdrew the offer.
42. In March 2025 and April 2025, Ms X contacted the Council as Ms Y had not received an updated PHP. In late April 2025, Ms X complained to the Council:
• Ms Y did not have an updated PHP.
• The Council made Ms Y an offer of accommodation in an unsuitable area.
• The Council had not used the correct start date for her housing register application.
• The Council bypassed Ms Y for suitable properties.
43. In May 2025 and June 2025, Ms X sent the Council medical evidence from a mental health professional. This said private rented accommodation was unsuitable for Ms Y due to how the short term nature of the tenancy would impact her mental health.
44. On 1 July 2025, the Council sent Ms Y’s case to its Exceptional Needs Panel (ENP) to consider whether the Council should only offer her social housing. The ENP decided there was no definitive medical evidence which suggested private rented accommodation was unsuitable for Ms Y, so refused her request for social tenancies only.
45. On 8 July 2025, the Council sent Ms X its final response to her complaint. The Council said:
• It agreed to change the effective date of Ms X’s housing register application to October 2024 as this was when the relief duty ended.
• It was still updating Ms Y’s PHP and would send this out shortly.
• The ENP considered Ms Y’s case for social housing only.
• It did not agree Ms Y had been bypassed for properties as there are many single applicants in band 2 on its housing register with an earlier effective date than Ms Y.
46. In late July 2025, the Council issued an updated PHP for Ms Y. Ms Y’s legal representative asked the Council to review the PHP and said the reasonable steps section was not sufficiently personalised.
47. Since the complaint process has ended the Council has offered Ms Y a property through its housing register.

Findings – Homelessness application

48. Initially when Ms Y applied as homeless in October 2023, the Council wrote to Ms X and asked her to supply documents so it could verify Ms Y’s application and whether she was threatened with homelessness or not. I cannot see that Ms X ever responded to this email and as a result the Council closed the case. I do not consider the Council at fault here for closing the case, however the letter it sent to Ms Y did not tell her about her option to review this decision. This was fault.
49. In March 2024, the Council carried out a homelessness assessment for Ms Y after she was referred back to the service. Following this the Council issued Ms Y with a PHP. Since issuing a PHP in April 2024, Ms X has attempted to challenge the content of this saying it is not reflective of Ms Y’s needs and does not specify support she needs with her housing.
50. The Council has since issued several updated PHPs however it has taken a long time for the Council to review and update Ms Y’s PHP. This was fault. By not having an up to date PHP there was uncertainty about what type of accommodation was suitable for Ms Y and uncertainty about how the Council could relieve her homelessness. However I do not consider this injustice was significant as Ms X said Ms Y would only accept social housing and did not want to move into the private sector. So even if the Council had been able to relieve Ms Y’s homelessness I consider on balance Ms Y would not likely have accepted a private rented property.
51. The Council was also at fault for delaying owing Ms Y the Relief duty. In March 2024, Ms Y applied for DHP. The Council refused this application on the basis her property was unaffordable for her. At this stage the Council should have owed Ms Y the Relief duty, however it did not do so for a further five months. While this would have meant the Council could have taken steps to help relieve Ms Y’s homeless sooner, I do not consider this caused significant injustice as Ms Y was seeking to move into social housing and not privately rented housing.
52. The Council was at fault for making Ms X an offer of accommodation in an area which was listed as unsuitable in her PHP. This caused Ms Y significant distress and anxiety given her mental health issues and history of abuse. The Council has recognised this in its complaint response, which is welcomed, but it did not offer Ms Y a remedy for the injustice this caused.
53. The Council’s ENP considered Ms Y’s request for social tenancies only. However before the ENP considered the case Ms X provided two medical letters to the Council which contained an opinion that private rented accommodation was unsuitable for Ms Y due to her medical issues. The ENP said it decided private and social tenancies were suitable for Ms Y as there was not definitive medical evidence which suggested private rented accommodation was unsuitable for Ms Y. Given the evidence Ms X provided which explicitly stated private accommodation was unsuitable, I would have expected the Council to show why it decided not to agree with this opinion and provide its justification. In response to a draft of this decision the Council explained why it decided private tenancies were suitable, however there was no record of this in the panel documents or in Ms Y’s case file.
54. While I have found the Council at fault here, Ms Y has since been offered a social tenancy, so I consider there has been no significant injustice to Ms Y here.

Findings – Housing register

55. After the Council issued Ms Y with a band 3 decision for overcrowding in October 2023, Ms X explained to the Council it had made a mistake. At this point the Council should not have insisted on Ms X submitting a review of Ms Y’s banding. It was obvious the Council had made an error with the application as Ms Y lived alone in a three bedroomed property so could not be overcrowded. Failure to amend Ms Y’s application was fault.
56. By telling Ms X to ask for a review of this decision, the Council added further delay to getting the correct decision on Ms Y’s housing register application. Ultimately it took from October 2023 until June 2024 for the Council to rectify the error in Ms Y’s housing register application. While the delay with the review was down to Ms X asking for it to be put on hold while she sought advice and prepared representations, I consider the Council should not have told Ms X to request a review in the first instance.
57. Ms Y was placed into band 3 in October 2023, I am satisfied on balance she was in the correct band at the time but just in there for the wrong reasons. While this is frustrating, I do not consider on balance she would have been offered a property on the housing register during this period. I do acknowledge that this situation caused Ms Y anxiety and frustration as something relatively simple like giving her the correct band and notifying her of this took so long to deal with.
58. Ms X also complained that in June 2024, the Council told Ms Y she was in band 2 and then changed its position and moved her to band 3 shortly after. I do not find the Council at fault here. I accept it made a mistake by telling Ms Y was in band 2 but it took steps quickly to rectify this and place her into band 3. Ms X then had rights to challenge this decision by an internal review.
59. Ms Y has now been offered a social tenancy through the housing register. I am satisfied the Council has amended her application to include the correct effective date from October 2024 before she was made this offer.

Findings – DHP

60. The Council decided not to award Ms Y DHP as it had awarded her DHP several times over the past few years and her rent arrears had increased. The Council took the view that DHP should be used to help with short term financial hardship and Ms Y’s tenancy was unaffordable.
61. DHP is discretionary, I am satisfied the Council explained why it did not approve Ms Y’s application and gave its reasons. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and I can find no fault with how it came to this decision.

Back to top

Agreed Action

62. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X and Ms Y for the injustice caused from the above faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £150 to recognise the anxiety and frustration for the time it took the Council to correctly update her housing register application.
• Pay Ms Y £200 to recognise the distress and anxiety she experienced as a result of the faults from the Council in how it handled her homelessness application.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman