Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its delay in completing a review of its decision about Miss X’s homelessness. We have also found the Council at fault for its inconsistent communication with Miss X during the same period. We find these faults caused injustice for Miss X and her child, meaning they experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty, and were deprived of suitable accommodation for longer than they otherwise would have been. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused. There are parts of Miss X's complaint we have not investigated. We explain why in our statement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council:
1. Delayed completing a review of a homelessness decision; and
2. Failed to respond to correspondence, calls and complaints about this,
2. Miss X said the Council’s faults left her and her child homeless and in unsuitable accommodation for longer than they otherwise would have been. Miss X also said the Council’s faults negatively affected their wellbeing, causing avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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. 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. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Miss X told the Ombudsman she had concerns about the accommodation the Council had helped secure for her from June 2025. She said she was unclear what housing duty the Council had been acting under when it helped secure this accommodation. She also said she had concerns about the suitability and condition of the accommodation. She said the Council had not responded to her concerns.
8. These concerns were not part of the complaint Miss X brought to the Ombudsman and the Council has not yet had the opportunity to respond to these matters as a complaint. The restriction in paragraph 4 therefore applies and I have not investigated these matters.
9. It would be open to Miss X to make a formal complaint to the Council about these matters. Miss X could then ask the Ombudsman to consider them further, if she was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Homelessness

12. 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. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with themto continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

Applications

13. 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)

Priority need

14. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

15. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Relief duty

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Reviews

17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including whether a decision on whether or not they are found to be homeless. The Council must complete this review within 56 days, or eight weeks, of the request.

Back to top

What I found

18. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
19. On 20 December 2024, Miss X approached the Council as homeless, owing to her tenancy coming to an end amid concerns for her and her child’s safety.
20. On 7 January 2025, the Council decided Miss X was not homeless, because she had available accommodation and the Council considered it reasonable for Miss X to reside there.
21. On 17 January 2025, Miss X sought a review of the Council’s decision.
22. On 5 February 2025, the Council wrote to Miss X to confirm it had received her review request. It said it would complete the review on 2 April 2025 and asked Miss X to provide any other information she wanted the Council to consider. Miss X wrote to the Council to provide information about her circumstances. Summarised:
• Miss X asked the Council to urgently place her and her young child in suitable accommodation. Miss X said she was not intentionally homeless, having had to leave her previous accommodation due to safety concerns.
• Miss X said since then, she and her child had been sofa-surfing in different places, causing significant distress. The instability had visibly impacted Miss X’s child. Miss X said she and her child were vulnerable, due to recent family trauma coupled with constant instability and uncertainty.
• Miss X said her child needed the stability and security that housing would provide, to develop and maintain relationships with teachers and peers.
• Miss X asked the Council to consider the impact of their circumstances and the review procedure on their wellbeing.
23. On 6 May 2025, Miss X complained to the Council about poor service from its homelessness team, delays in the review procedure and poor communication.
24. On 28 May 2025, the Council wrote to Miss X confirming it had overturned its original decision. The letter set out the enquiries made. The Council said it changed its decision because Miss X informed the Council she had left her accommodation, which the Council confirmed through its enquiries. It said the matter would now be passed back to its housing solutions team, who would contact Miss X directly.
25. On 13 June 2025, the Council responded to Miss X's complaint:
1. The Council set out its findings and conclusions. The Council said it had changed its homelessness decision due to information Miss X provided as part of the review. It said the delays were due to the need to make further enquiries, as well as a high volume of review requests.
2. The Council accepted it had not consistently responded to Miss X’s calls and messages.
3. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint, accepting this would have caused Miss X distress, particularly while living in unsettled accommodation. The Council offered an apology.
26. The Council told the Ombudsman it then helped Miss X secure private rented sector accommodation, which I understand Miss X moved into on 17 June 2025.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

27. The Council decided Miss X was not homeless following her initial approach and provided a right of review against that decision. In making this decision and providing the appropriate review right, the Council did not act with fault. I have not therefore considered the Council's original decision. The review procedure is the appropriate mechanism through which to challenge an initial adverse decision. The Ombudsman would expect individuals to exercise this right if they are unhappy with the outcome of their homelessness approach. This is what Miss X did.
28. Miss X sought a review on 17 January 2025. In accordance with the timescales set out in paragraph 17, the Council should have completed its review within 56 days, or by 14 March 2025.
29. The Council accepted it did not complete its review until 28 May 2025, a delay of around 11 weeks. It said in addition to making additional enquiries about Miss X’s case, the delay was due to a backlog of cases and staffing shortages.
30. I have found the Council at fault for this delay.
31. Miss X complained the Council communicated poorly with her during this period. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had not consistently responded to each of Miss X’s contact attempts and said it should have responded to all of her emails and messages.
32. I note the Council accepted fault in its communication with Miss X and make the same finding.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

33. The Council overturned its original decision on review, deciding Miss X was homeless. The Council confirmed to the Ombudsman it also accepted the relief duty when it decided Miss X was homeless, though I have seen no evidence it properly notified Miss X of this decision.
34. On the balance of probabilities, had the Council acted without fault, I believe it could have made the same decision and accepted the relief duty by 14 March 2025. This is because Miss X’s circumstances in March 2025 were the same as they were in May 2025, when the Council belatedly made its decision.
35. Further, on the balance of probabilities, I find the Council would also have accepted the interim accommodation duty to provide Miss X and her child with suitable interim accommodation at this point. This is because the Council would have established Miss X was homeless and likely had a priority need, given she had a dependent child. This means the Council would have had a duty to provide Miss X with suitable interim accommodation from 14 March 2025.
36. I understand Miss X moved into private rented accommodation on 17 June 2025. This means Miss X and her child were in unsuitable and unstable accommodation between 14 March and 17 June, around 13 weeks longer than they otherwise would have been. This is an injustice.
37. Paragraph 22 sets out Miss X’s description of the impact not having suitable, safe accommodation had on her and her child. This is a summary description; the evidence I have viewed sets out the household’s personal circumstances and the impact on Miss X and her child in more detail. The avoidable distress, and certainty and frustration described in Miss X’s correspondence to the Council could have been mitigated or avoided in this period, had the Council acted without fault.
38. The Council’s inconsistent communication with Miss X during this period compounded the avoidable distress and uncertainty experienced, causing further avoidable injustice.

Back to top

Action

39. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Miss X for the injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Pay Miss X a total of £1050 to recognise the injustice caused. This is broken down as follows:
1. £900 to recognise the injustice caused to Miss X and her child by being deprived of suitable accommodation. This is a figure of £300 per month, for around three months. In recommending this figure, I have had regard for the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies. In particular, I have considered the impact on both Miss X and her child was significant, owing to their vulnerability in the context of their personal circumstances at the time. The figure is therefore at the higher end of the Ombudsman’s guidance to account for this.
2. £150 to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s inconsistent communication with Miss X during the same period.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
41. Following other recent investigations, the Ombudsman has made several recommendations to the Council in the last 12 months. These include recommendations around providing interim accommodation and completing reviews in accordance with statutory timescales. As a result, I have not duplicated these recommendations here. The Ombudsman will monitor the Council’s compliance with these recommendations, and the quality of its services, through our ongoing casework.

Back to top

Decision

42. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman