Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it handled Mrs K’s housing and homelessness applications and how it communicated with Mr X, who was acting on her behalf. The Council’s shortcomings caused them both distress, uncertainty, confusion, and frustration. The Council will apologise to Mrs K and Mr X and make symbolic payments to them both.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his ex-wife, Mrs K, that the Council:
• Failed to consider her housing and homelessness applications properly;
• Failed to communicate with Mr X or always respond to his contact about the housing situation;
• Did not deal properly with his requests for a review of the decisions made on the housing and homelessness applications;
• Did not refer Mrs K for extra care housing as promised in 2024; and
• Has not taken enough action to help find Mrs K suitable settled accommodation close to Mr X and her support network.
2. Mrs K is disabled and very vulnerable. Mr X says the Council’s failings have caused Mrs K’s mental and physical health to decline. It has caused them both uncertainty, distress, and frustration.

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 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated how the Council dealt with Mr X’s requests for extra care housing. This type of housing is accessed via a care needs assessment by the adult social care team, rather than by a medical needs decision made in pursuance of housing and homelessness duties.
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
9. Mr X and Mrs K had not complained to the Council about its adult social care support. I invited the Council to allow the Ombudsman to investigate the adult social care elements, but it opted to first try to resolve the issues via the statutory adult social care complaints process. I allowed this in accordance with the law and our guidance. For this reason, I have not investigated the adult social care functions including its handling of a request for extra care housing.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

The housing register and housing allocations

10. 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))
11. Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons:

• that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation;
• that the applicant is not a qualifying person;
• a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.

12. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
13. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
14. A person can apply to the Council for supported living accommodation. This is self-contained accommodation but residents has access to a scheme manager who may live on site who can check on them and put them in tough with support services. The Council’s supported living housing policy says that this type of housing is for the over-60’s. It says the Council will consider applications on an individual basis and the minimum age to be considered is 55.

Homelessness duties

15. 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.
16. 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 inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
17. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
18. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as 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)

Accommodation while homeless

19. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
20. 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)
21. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
22. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
23. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
24. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
25. 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)

What happened

26. This is a summary of key events and not a detailed account of everything that has happened. I have investigated the Council’s actions from April 2024 to October 2025.
27. Mrs K is disabled. She has a degenerative disease that affects her movement, cognition and behaviour. Her ex-husband, Mr X, deals with her affairs on her behalf. He supports Mrs K and advocates for her.
28. At the beginning of April 2024, Mrs K made an application to join the Council’s housing register. At this time, she was living with Mr X in the flat he rents. However, they had decided that they would separate and Mrs K would need to move out, due to the impact of her disease. Mrs K asked the Council to move her to supported living accommodation on medical grounds. She included a medical assessment report and sent medical evidence in support.
29. The Council’s supported living housing policy says that this type of housing is for the over-60’s. It says the Council will consider applications on an individual basis and the minimum age to be considered is 55. Mrs K is younger than 55.
30. The Council rejected Mrs K’s application. It said she was too young for supported living. The Council also decided that Mrs K was not entitled to any medical priority because living at Mr X’s flat was not severely or adversely affecting her medical condition.
31. The Council’s letter told Mrs K that she could request a review of the decision, but did not give her details of how to do this.
32. Mr X and a medical professional treating Mrs K asked the Council for details of its medical criteria. The Council told Mr X that there was already a review in progress and he should wait for the outcome. This was incorrect.
33. The Council reissued its decision letter in mid-June, this time with details of how to request a review. In the meantime, Mrs K’s consultant nurse and social worker had written in to support Mrs K’s application. They said that she has to leave her ex-husband’s flat and the stress of not being able to resolve this is exacerbating her symptoms. They confirmed that Mrs K is dependent on care for daily living.
34. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. He also sent a letter from Mrs K’s therapist and asked what other medical information the Council needed.
35. At the beginning of August, the Council reviewed its decision but did not change it. It suggested that Mrs K make a homelessness application if she was unable to stay at Mr X’s flat.
36. Mrs K’s consultant told the Council in a letter of support that Mrs K was distressed at the Council’s decision not to help her.
37. At the end of August, Mr X complained to the Council on Mrs K’s behalf. The Council told Mr X that it could not overturn the Council’s decision and Mrs K should apply as homeless. This was not a formal complaint response however.
38. Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two of its process. He also asked his MP for help.
39. The Council sent a formal response to Mr X’s complaint at the beginning of October. It said the Council had properly applied its policy on supported living and Mrs K was too young, but it also properly considered whether Mr X’s flat was making her condition worse. It again said that it would consider a homelessness application from Mrs K if she made one. Mr X asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage two of its process.
40. The Council responded to the stage two complaint at the beginning of November. It said:
• The housing register review was completed properly, taking into account all the relevant information.
• Mrs K should make a homelessness application.
• It should have explained that it had not treated Mr X’s earlier contact as a complaint, but as an enquiry. It apologised for this.
41. In December 2024, Mrs K made a homelessness application. The Council assessed the application at the beginning of January 2025 because it had to wait for Mr X to be available to assist Mrs K.
42. Mr X is the sole tenant of his flat, and so the Council asked him for his tenancy agreement. He sent a letter from his landlord and said the landlord would send the tenancy agreement. The Council did not accept the letter and asked again for the agreement. The Council decided it could not assess the application without proof that Mrs K was not on the tenancy agreement.
43. In February, the Council’s social care department assessed Mrs K and decided that she would need extra care housing. This is self-contained accommodation with support on site.
44. Mr X made a second homelessness application on Mrs K’s behalf in mid-February. He submitted the tenancy agreement in his sole name. At that stage, Mr X and Mrs K were in the process of divorcing, but this had not been finalised. The Council assessed the application and told Mr X and Mrs K that it accepted she was homeless and it would have a relief duty toward her. However later that day, the Council sent Mrs K a decision that it had found she was not homeless because she had the right to stay with Mr X in his flat until the divorce is finalised.
45. On 21 February, Mr X asked for a review of this decision. The Council sent him an acknowledgment of his review request.
46. On 10 March, Mr X contacted the Council to ask for an update on the review. The Council told him he had not requested a review.
47. Mr X says he had been requesting extra care housing from when Mrs K first applied for housing help in April 2024. He has knowledge of some local schemes and he says he asked the Council to consider these for Mrs K. The Council says that Mr X had submitted an application for sheltered housing, which is different and did not express a preference for extra care housing until January 2025. Applicants are added to extra care waiting lists by the Council’s adult social care team following a care needs assessment. The Council assessed Mrs K and added her to the list in March 2025.
48. Later that month, the Council’s social care team did an overview assessment and told Mrs K it had added her to extra care waiting lists for two schemes. The Council’s notes say that Mrs K will need a full care needs assessment
49. In April 2025, the Council considered whether it should exercise discretion to accept Mrs K as eligible for sheltered housing despite her being too young. It wrote to Mrs K’s GP for more information. The Council says it decided that it would not approve this because Mrs K was registered with two extra care schemes, her needs could be met that way, and she did not need exceptional approval for sheltered housing. According to the case notes I have , the Council did not record the reasons for its decision on the file and the GP did not return the completed questionnaire.
50. Mr X chased the Council for a review decision again on 12 May. The Council told him again there was no review, but its case note says the review had overturned the original decision, and it now accepted that Mrs K was homeless.
51. The following week, the Council offered Mrs K interim accommodation of a studio flat with care and support which she accepted. The flat was in a neighbouring London borough.
52. On 21 May, the Council accepted a relief duty and wrote to Mrs K about this. The Council said that general needs housing may not be suitable due to Mrs K’s disabilities and degenerative disease. It said it would look in the private sector using the Council’s scheme to find housing for homeless people. Mr X suggested nearby extra care accommodation.
53. On 13 August, the Council accepted a main housing duty. This meant that Mrs K now had additional priority on the housing register. In response to my investigation, the Council explained that it extended the relief duty an extra 28 days because Mrs K’s situation is complex. The Council has now backdated Mrs K’s priority under the main housing duty by 28 days.
54. Mr X says the Council’s approach was prolonged and disjointed which caused him and Mrs K distress and uncertainty. He says that Mrs K’s temporary accommodation is not suitable, and he asked the Council to review this.
55. Mrs K remains on the housing register. The Council says that it has recently reviewed Mrs K’s mobility needs and increased how it has recorded her mobility category because she now sometimes uses a wheelchair. It says Mrs K has the maximum amount of priority points for her situation.
56. Mr X asked the Council to nominate Mrs K for a specific extra care scheme where he feels her needs will be met. The scheme is close to Mr X and Mrs K’s support network, but it is not within the Council’s district, nor is it within the district that Mrs K currently lives in temporary accommodation. The council for the scheme says that it will only consider applicants who live in its area. In any case, the council for the area that Mrs K currently lives in, has said that it will not refer her to this scheme because her needs can be met in the community.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Mrs K and Mr X?

57. There was fault by the Council in how it handled Mrs K’s housing and homelessness applications and how it communicated with Mr X.
58. The Council applied its policy when it decided Mrs K was too young for supported living accommodation. It could have exercised its discretion to depart from the policy, but this would not have altered the outcome because it had also found she had no housing need because living at Mr X’s flat was not making her condition worse. The Council did later ensure that a senior manager had considered exercising discretion, but by this time Mrs K had been assessed and was on waiting lists for extra care housing which has on site care and support services, and so supported living was no longer appropriate.
59. It was open to the Council to decide this. However in its original decision letter in April 2024, the Council did not tell Mrs K how she could request a review of this decision. This meant that Mr X was put to time and trouble requesting the medical criteria, and it delayed progress with trying to resolve Mrs K’s housing situation.
60. The Council also caused further confusion and frustration because it wrongly told Mr X there was a review in progress when he had not yet requested one.
61. In the same letter, the Council told Mrs K she could contact the Council if she was threatened with homelessness. It was clear that Mrs K’s housing problem was not just her medical needs but also that she could not stay in Mr X’s flat because they were in the process of divorcing. The Council could have considered whether this meant Mrs K was threatened with homelessness without her having to make a homelessness application, particularly given her vulnerability.
62. The Council may not have accepted Mrs K as homeless as later, when she made a homelessness application, it at first decided that she had the right to stay in Mr X’s home until the divorce was finalised. However, it would have been much clearer for Mr X and Mrs K if the Council had considered the housing register and homelessness criteria together, and taken the situation as a whole.
63. The Council has acknowledged that it should have been clearer with Mr X when he complained to it. This led to confusion about what stage of the complaints process was in use, and it caused frustration and distress to Mr X and Mrs K. The Council has apologised for this.
64. The Council also took too long to deal with Mr X’s complaint. Its policy says it will deal with a stage one complaint within a total of 15 working days, and it will let the complainant know if it needs longer. The Council took 25 working days to respond at stage one.
65. The Council could have handled Mrs K’s homelessness application better. It is for the Council to decide what evidence it needs, but it is confusing that the first application was closed because Mr X had not supplied the tenancy agreement, and then the Council decided that Mrs K was not, in any case, homeless because she could stay in Mr X’s flat until their divorce had progressed. The Council had some evidence that the tenancy was in Mr X’s sole name and could have made that decision in January 2025, rather than wait for a second application and make the decision in February. This again delayed the homelessness review which ultimately resulted in the Council accepting the relief duty.
66. The Council also mishandled the first homelessness application because it mistakenly told Mr X that it had found Mrs K homeless, when this was not its formal decision.
67. Mr X asked the Council to review its decision that Mrs K could continue to live at his flat despite their ongoing separation and divorce. The Council mishandled this review. Its communications and record keeping were poor because it told Mr X that there was no review in progress, when it had already acknowledged his review request. The Council also failed to progress the review request. The Council took over 11 weeks to complete its review, when it should have taken 8 weeks. The Council apologised for this.
68. The Council accepted the relief duty on 21 May 2025. The relief duty usually runs for 56 days, but the Council can extend this if it is pursuing relief activities and it has notified the applicant to extend the timeframe. The Council had spoken to Mr X about the possibility of finding suitable accommodation in the private sector and that it was unlikely that it would find suitable housing from the general waiting list. However, it had not notified Mr X nor Mrs K that it was extending the relief period. The Council did not accept the main housing duty until 13 August and this is an additional 28 days. The main housing duty gave Mrs K additional priority on the housing register waiting list, and so a delay in accepting the main housing duty would disadvantage her. However, the Council has backdated the priority and this is a reasonable way to remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s delay.
69. When the Council accepted the main housing duty, the interim accommodation Mrs K was occupying changed to temporary accommodation. Mr X asked the Council to review whether this was suitable for Mrs K’s needs. I have not investigated how the Council reached its decision here, because Mrs K has the right to take this matter to the court, and as this is the route laid out in homelessness law and guidance, we would expect her to do that if she was not happy with the outcome of the review.
70. Overall, there was fault by the Council in how it handled Mrs K’s housing and homelessness applications, and in how it communicated with Mr X. This caused delay, uncertainty, confusion, distress and frustration. Although the Council mishandled aspects of the application process and this may have made the process longer, I cannot say that had it acted without fault, Mrs K would have been housed significantly sooner. This is because the Council may have decided that Mrs K was not homeless because she had the right to stay at Mr X’s flat and her needs could be managed in that property, until their divorce progressed.

Back to top

Action

71. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X and if appropriate, Mrs K, for the impact of the fault on them. 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 to Mrs K £300 in recognition of the distress, confusion and uncertainty it caused her.
• Pay to Mr X £200 in recognition of the distress, confusion and uncertainty it caused him.
72. 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 has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman