Summary: Mr B complained the Council delayed accepting a duty to house him and in providing him with accommodation, confused his application with his brother’s, suspended his housing register application and placed him in the wrong band. The Council wrongly registered Mr B’s homeless application in his brother’s name, failed to consider its discretionary power to provide interim accommodation, delayed providing temporary accommodation, delayed lifting the suspension on the housing register application and delayed referring his case to the medical adviser. That left Mr B with uncertainty about whether he missed out on accommodation and caused him distress. An apology, payment to Mr B, backdating of his priority and training for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Council:
• confused his housing register application with his brother’s;
• delayed accepting a duty to house him;
• delayed providing him with accommodation;
• wrongly suspended his housing register application; and
• placed him in the wrong band on the housing register.
2. Mr B says the Council’s actions have had a significant impact on his health and well-being and led to him having to sleep rough.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Mr B and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Housing Act and code of guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (code of guidance) set out councils' powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. 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)
11. Once a council is satisfied someone is homeless it must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation. 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)
12. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. The threshold for triggering the section 188(1) duty is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need and is not homeless intentionally, the council has a duty to make accommodation available. This is called the main housing duty. Accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. The code of guidance says housing authorities will want to ensure people who are sleeping rough and eligible for assistance are supported to apply to them for housing assistance, and should seek to prevent applicants from starting to sleep rough during the course of the relief duty. Specific considerations in relation to applicants who are (or are at imminent risk of) sleeping rough and are or may be owed the relief duty include:
• (a) working with other agencies and/or commissioned services to ensure rough sleepers are aware of, and have support to seek, housing assistance from the authority and in the provision of appropriate accommodation and/or support;
• (b) if the authority does not have reason to believe that the applicant may have a priority need and has not therefore provided interim accommodation under section 188(1), the use of discretionary powers to secure emergency accommodation to prevent nights on the streets, taking into account the risk of harm applicants may face.
• (c) if using discretion to enquire into whether an applicant has a local connection, remembering that normal residence does not require a settled address and may include periods sleeping rough. For further guidance on local connection see Chapter 10. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 13.7)
16. Where the housing authority is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days (section 189B(4)). Housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 14.17)

The Council’s allocations scheme

17. The Council’s allocations scheme sets out various bands it places applicants into. Band 2 includes urgent medical cases. Bands 3 includes those owed a homelessness duty and those with medical needs.
18. The Council may consider priority on medical grounds where an applicant or a member of their household suffers with medical conditions or disabilities which are adversely affected by the current housing. Applicants will not receive priority, irrespective of the seriousness of their medical condition or disability, if the current housing situation is not having an adverse impact on their health or their current accommodation is suitable for their needs. The level of priority awarded will depend on the extent to which their health or disability is adversely affected by their current housing situation.
19. Applicants who want an assessment for medical priority should complete an online medical assessment form and provide any supporting evidence. The onus is on the applicant to provide the information to complete the assessment.
20. Where the Council receives a request for priority on medical grounds it will confirm the outcome of the assessment in writing within eight weeks. If the applicant disagrees with the outcome of the decision they can request a review.

What happened

21. The Council received a homeless referral for Mr B on 2 May 2024 and carried out an interview on 9 May. The Council accepts it wrongly opened the homeless application in Mr B’s brother’s name. All the Council’s letters to Mr B were addressed in his brother’s name but the Council sent them to Mr B’s email address.
22. The Council accepted the relief duty on 10 May and emailed the letter to Mr B, along with a personalised housing plan. As part of the actions in that personalised housing plan the Council told Mr B he needed to provide medical evidence.
23. Mr B contacted the Council on 23 July to tell it he had stayed at his friend’s house until two days previously when he was kicked out. Mr B said he was sleeping on a park bench and had not showered in two days. Mr B made clear the effects on his mental health. The Council referred Mr B to his caseworker.
24. Mr B contacted the Council again on 14 August to report sleeping rough. The Council told him about street link and advised him to get in touch with his caseworker to schedule an appointment.
25. The Council asked Mr B for a copy of his up-to-date medical history on 14 August and details of any medication/treatment he was receiving, as outlined in his personalised housing plan. Mr B raised concerns about sharing confidential and sensitive information with the Council.
26. Mr B contacted the Council again on 18 September and said he was sleeping rough. The Council made a referral to adult social care due to some comments Mr B had made about self harm.
27. Mr B provided the Council with medical information on 24 September.
28. On 21 October the Council sent Mr B a letter to his email address confirming it had accepted the main housing duty which meant it had a duty to secure accommodation for him.
29. Mr B contacted the Council on 12 November to raise concerns about it not providing him with accommodation and said he was sleeping rough. The Council referred the case for temporary accommodation. The Council emailed Mr B on 18 November to offer him temporary accommodation.
30. Mr B put in a complaint on 4 March 2025. Mr B said the Council had confused him with his brother which meant he could not bid on the Council’s housing register.
31. On 10 March the Council wrote to Mr B to tell him it had placed him in band 3 on the housing register. In response Mr B asked the Council to complete a review and said he should receive band 2 due to his medical conditions and disability and that he needed an extra bedroom for his carer.
32. On 12 March the Council suspended Mr B’s housing register application due to concerns about which brother had moved into the temporary accommodation.
33. On 7 October the Council referred Mr B’s case to its medical adviser to consider whether to award medical priority.
34. On 13 October the Council lifted the suspension on Mr B’s housing register application.

Analysis

35. Mr B says the Council delayed accepting a duty to house him and in providing him with accommodation when he presented as homeless. Mr B also says the Council confused his housing register application with his brother’s application.
36. There has been confusion in the Council’s handling of this case. First, when Mr B put in his homeless application the Council wrongly opened that under his brother’s name. All the Council’s letters then went out in Mr B’s brother’s name, although the Council sent them to Mr B’s email address. All of that is fault.
37. I am satisfied the Council delayed accepting the main housing duty for Mr B. The Council accepted the relief duty on 10 May 2024 and that will normally only last for 56 days. However, the Council did not accept the main housing duty until 21 October 2024. I consider it likely though that delay occurred because the Council did not receive medical evidence from Mr B until September 2024. That is despite the fact the Council asked Mr B for the medical evidence in May 2024. I therefore do not criticise the Council for the delay accepting the main housing duty.
38. Mr B is concerned the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he first presented as homeless. The Council says it did not provide interim accommodation in May 2024 because it did not consider there was evidence Mr B was in priority need. As I say in paragraph 13, the bar for providing interim accommodation is low and the Council only needs to have reason to believe the applicant is in priority need.
39. Having considered the documentary evidence from the Council’s interview with Mr B in May 2024 I note for the priority need section of the assessment the Council recorded that other than anxiety and depression Mr B did not have any other medical, mental health or mobility issues. I also note the referral the Council received for Mr B did not identify any medical or mental health issues. The officer dealing with the case also spoke to the team leader and both agreed Mr B did not meet the threshold for interim accommodation. In those circumstances I have no grounds to criticise the Council for not providing Mr B with interim accommodation. I appreciate the Council reached a decision Mr B disagrees with. However, as there is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision I have no grounds to criticise it.
40. In reaching that view I recognise the Council accepted a duty to house Mr B in October 2024 as it was satisfied Mr B had a priority need. However, by that point the Council had more information about Mr B’s circumstances and had received medical information.
41. However, I am concerned the Council did not review whether it should provide Mr B with interim accommodation when he reported sleeping rough. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr B first reported sleeping rough on 23 July and then again in August and September 2024. As I say in paragraph 15, the code of guidance is clear the Council has a discretionary power to provide interim accommodation even if it does not have reason to believe an applicant is in priority need. I would therefore have expected the Council to consider providing interim accommodation when Mr B reported he was sleeping rough. Failure to do that is fault.
42. I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had properly considered Mr B’s circumstances in July 2024 when he reported sleeping rough and the impact it was having on his mental health the Council would have provided him with interim accommodation. I therefore consider Mr B missed out on interim accommodation between 23 July and 18 November 2024.
43. Mr B says although the Council allocated temporary accommodation in November 2024 he could not access the accommodation because it was registered in his brother’s name and his brother moved in. Although I am satisfied the Council issued the letter about the temporary accommodation in Mr B’s brother’s name the Council did not post the letter. Instead, the Council emailed it to Mr B’s email address, as recorded on his homeless application. I am therefore satisfied the only person the Council could have provided the interim accommodation to is Mr B. If Mr B’s brother somehow had access to Mr B’s email address and moved into the accommodation I am satisfied that was not due to any fault by the Council.
44. I therefore recommended a financial remedy for Mr B for the period he was without accommodation due to fault by the Council (between 23 July and 18 November 2024). The Ombudsman will normally recommend an amount between £150 and £350 per month. I recommended £350 per month as I was satisfied Mr B was sleeping rough. That makes a total financial remedy of £1,400. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
45. Mr B also says the Council confused his housing register application with his brother’s application which meant he could not bid for housing. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council placed Mr B on its housing register from 10 March 2025. I am satisfied though the Council suspended Mr B’s housing register application when a query arose about who had moved into the temporary accommodation. I cannot criticise the Council for suspending the application while it investigated. However, the Council says it could not prove any fraud and yet it did not lift the suspension on Mr B’s housing register application until October 2025. Delay lifting the suspension is fault and meant Mr B could not bid on properties for longer than necessary.
46. Mr B says the Council placed him in the wrong band on the housing register as he has urgent medical needs. I am satisfied Mr B asked the Council to review his banding on 10 March 2025. Despite that, the Council did not refer the case to its medical adviser until 7 October 2025. That delay is fault. That means Mr B has some uncertainty about whether he would have received increased banding had the Council properly considered his case. The Council has also only awarded band 3 from March 2025 when it should have awarded band 3 from the point at which it accepted a duty to house Mr B in October 2024. That is also fault.
47. I recommended the Council apologise to Mr B and pay him an extra £500 to reflect his distress and the uncertainty he has experienced. That makes a total financial remedy of £1,900. I further recommended the Council backdate Mr B’s band 3 award to October 2024. If the Council’s current medical assessment results in a change to Mr B’s banding I recommended it backdate that new banding to March 2025, when he asked for a review.
48. I also recommended the Council arrange a training session for officers dealing with homeless applications to cover priority need, the circumstances in which the Council should provide interim accommodation and the Council’s discretionary power to provide interim accommodation to those who do not have a priority need when they report they are rough sleeping. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

49. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr B for the distress and uncertainty he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr B £1,900;
• backdate Mr B’s band 3 priority to October 2024 when the Council accepted the main housing duty; and
• if the Council awards medical priority it should backdate that priority to March 2025 when Mr B sought a review.
50. Within three months of my decision the Council should carry out a training session for officers dealing with homeless applications to cover priority need, the circumstances in which the Council should provide interim accommodation and the Council’s discretionary powers to provide interim accommodation where a person is rough sleeping.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman