Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to properly deal with his housing and homelessness complaints. We find that the Council failed to carry out a homelessness review, determine what duty it owed him, issue a written decision and appropriately address Mr B’s complaints. This caused him avoidable distress, uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble in trying to resolve his housing situation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council failed to properly deal with his housing and homelessness complaints. As a result, he says he lived in unsuitable accommodation where he experienced harassment and discrimination from staff for around ten months. Mr B says that the Council’s failure to properly deal with his complaints led to his eviction and subsequent homelessness, which caused him significant distress and negatively affected his mental health.

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 cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
4. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated Mr B’s complaints about the Council. I have not investigated Mr B’s complaints about the housing provider as it is not within our jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman considers complaints about the management of social housing.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

Homelessness

8. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make enquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make enquiries is low. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2)
9. If the duty to make enquiries is triggered, the council must issue a decision about what duty it owes the person. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 18.34)
10. The relief duty applies when the council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure suitable accommodation with a reasonable prospect that it will be available for their occupation for at least 6 months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 13.2)
11. The relief duty can end if the Council is satisfied that the applicant has suitable accommodation for at least six months. ((Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 14)
12. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including the decision to end the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 19.3)
13. Supported exempt accommodation is a type of housing for vulnerable adults who need support to live independently and is exempt from the usual caps on Housing Benefit.

Housing Allocation Scheme

14. The Council’s housing allocation scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
15. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). Band B includes applicants who are owed the relief duty, but not the duty to accommodate, and applicants to whom the Council previously owed the relief duty but who have accepted the provision of private rented accommodation.

Background and key events

16. In April 2024, Mr B approached the Council for assistance when he became homeless. The Council accepted the relief duty and referred Mr B to a Registered Provider of Social Housing who placed him in supported exempt accommodation.
17. In May 2024, the Council accepted Mr B onto its Housing Register. He was placed in priority Band B because the Council had accepted the relief duty to him.
18. Mr B raised concerns with his caseworker about the accommodation and the behaviour of staff. His caseworker referred him to the housing provider and also contacted the provider herself to try to resolve his concerns.
19. The Council decided to end the relief duty to Mr B in August 2024 because it was satisfied that he had suitable accommodation available to him for at least six months. Mr B requested a review of this decision.
20. In September 2024, Mr B complained that the Council had failed to carry out the review. He also raised concerns about unsafe conditions in the accommodation, inappropriate conduct by the housing provider’s staff and the Council’s failure to take effective action to address his concerns.
21. In the Council’s response, it said that Mr B’s caseworker had attempted to address his concerns by contacting the housing provider, but as he remained dissatisfied, she had escalated the matter to the Council’s accommodation finding team. The Council partially upheld Mr B’s complaint regarding the conduct of a member of the housing provider’s staff. It advised Mr B that if he had any concerns about his accommodation, to speak directly to his housing provider and if he remained unhappy, to contact its temporary accommodation customer line.
22. Mr B was not happy with the Council’s response and escalated his complaint to the next stage of the complaints procedure. In the Council’s response it explained that it was not within its remit to investigate his complaints about the housing provider’s staff or unsuitable living conditions. It advised Mr B to follow the housing provider’s complaints procedure and if he remained dissatisfied, to approach the Housing Ombudsman or the Council’s supported exempt accommodation team. In relation to Mr B’s request for a review of the decision to end the relief duty, it explained that there were other methods for requesting a review, which he appeared to have not explored.
23. On 24 March 2025, Mr B received an eviction notice for failing to comply with his licence agreement. The following day, Mr B submitted a new complaint to the Council. He said his housing provider was discriminating against him and unfairly evicting him, and that the Council had ignored evidence he had submitted to support his housing application, which he had been waiting for a year to be processed. Mr B also complained that the Council had ignored his requests for all communication to be in writing, which he considered to be a reasonable adjustment for his disabilities.
24. In the Council’s response, it said that his complaint was a duplicate of his previous complaint, and it declined to investigate further. It told Mr B that in order to assess the additional evidence he had submitted to support his housing application, he needed to complete a change of circumstances form. The Council offered advice on what to do if he was homeless and it referred Mr B to our office.

Analysis

April 2024 approach

25. When Mr B approached the Council, it was satisfied that he was both homeless and eligible for assistance. This meant that it had a duty to take reasonable steps to help him secure suitable accommodation which would likely be available for at least six months. The Council did so by referring Mr B to a provider of supported exempt accommodation. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Review

26. The Council failed to review its decision to end the relief duty. This was fault. The Council accepts that it should have carried out a review. It has apologised and offered to make a payment of £250 to Mr B.
27. Mr B has been left with uncertainty about whether the decision to end the relief duty would have been overturned if the review had been carried out. I consider the Council’s apology and offer to make a payment of £250 is a suitable remedy.

Accommodation issues

28. Mr B was placed in supported exempt accommodation. The Council’s website states that tenants of supported exempt accommodation can usually complain by speaking to whoever is responsible for the accommodation, which could be the managing agent or registered provider. It says if nothing happens as a result of the tenant’s complaint, they should contact the Housing Ombudsman or Regulator of Social Housing. However, it also states its Supported Housing Improvement Programme team “respond to complaints and carry out inspections to improve poor standards with providers on behalf of tenants.” It is not clear whether complaints about poor standards should be made to this team, or to whoever is responsible for the accommodation, or both.
29. I consider Mr B received inconsistent messages from the Council about its role in handling complaints about supported exempt accommodation. The Council partially upheld a complaint from Mr B about a housing provider’s staff member, but later stated that it was unable to investigate such complaints. Mr B was referred to different Council teams at different times, but he was also told that complaints should be made directly to the housing provider. The lack of clarity and inconsistent advice about the Council’s responsibilities was fault and would have caused Mr B confusion and frustration.

2025 homeless approach

30. Where there is reason to believe a homelessness applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, the Council must make enquiries and issue a written decision about what duty it owes them.
31. While the Council referred Mr B to alternative supported exempt accommodation, it did not assess what duty it owed to him or issue a decision in writing. This was fault.

Housing register

32. Mr B has been able to bid on properties since May 2024. He was initially awarded Band B but his priority was increased to Band A in March 2025 after he submitted evidence to show he had a medical need for housing. There is no evidence that the Council delayed processing Mr B’s housing application.

Complaints

33. The Council failed to properly investigate and respond to the complaint Mr B made in September 2024 about its failure to carry out a review of its decision to end the relief duty. It should have established that Mr B had requested a review and taken action to ensure the review was carried out, rather than telling Mr B that there were other methods for requesting a review.
34. In March 2025, the Council wrongly decided that Mr B’s new complaint was a duplicate, despite it including matters which were not in his previous complaint. This was fault and meant the Council missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint, causing Mr B avoidable frustration and inconvenience.

Reasonable adjustments

35. Councils must consider making adjustments for people with disabilities if they have problems using its service. If the adjustments requested are reasonable, the Council must make them.
36. When Mr B first approached the Council, he asked for a face-to-face meeting as he had difficulty communicating by telephone. The Council accommodated his request.
37. There is no evidence in the Council’s records that Mr B asked for all communication to be in writing prior to March 2025, and I have not investigated events since then. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Back to top

Action

38. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the failings identified in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £400 to Mr B, instead of the £250 already offered. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress, uncertainty, frustration and inconvenience Mr B experienced because of the Council’s actions.
• Consider whether Mr B's request for written-only communication is reasonable. If it decides it is, the Council should take action to ensure he is not contacted by telephone.
39. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Update information on its website to clearly outline its role in complaints about supported exempt accommodation and who complaints should be directed to.
• Provide guidance to relevant staff about the Council’s role in dealing with complaints about supported exempt accommodation.
• Investigate why Mr B’s request for a review was not actioned, and take action to ensure requests are not missed in future.
• Remind complaints staff that complaints should not be dismissed as duplicates unless all matters within the complaint have previously been addressed.
• Provide training and/or guidance to ensure staff are aware that they must make enquiries and issue a written decision if they have reason to believe someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman