Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it responded to Mr X’s homelessness. It was at fault in failing to offer to translate key homelessness letters, but this did not cause Mr X a significant injustice. The Council has agreed, through training or guidance, to ensure staff consider whether document translation is required.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide assistance to relieve his homelessness and ignored medical evidence he provided. This has caused him distress and frustration and left him without appropriate accommodation.

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. 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)
4. Most homelessness decisions carry a right of review, followed by a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

9. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
10. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) When a council decides this duty has come to an end it must notify the applicant in writing.
11. If a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them, whilst it makes enquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) A council may decide an applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.
12. It is a matter of judgement for councils whether the applicant’s circumstances make them vulnerable and therefore whether they are in priority need. In assessing and deciding on this, councils must consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances and consider the impact of homelessness on the applicant when compared to a non-disabled person. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 8.16)
13. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it may owe them a main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. This is a duty to secure accommodation for them. Until it is able to discharge this duty, it is required to provide temporary accommodation. This accommodation should be suitable for the applicant and those who live with them. If an applicant considers the temporary accommodation is unsuitable, they can ask the council to carry out a statutory review of its suitability, following which they can appeal on a point of law to the county court.

What happened

14. Mr X’s first language is not English. In mid-January 2025 Mr X contacted the Council. He had separated from his wife and so had nowhere to live. The Council told Mr X he could not be excluded from the house without a court order. It asked him to complete a medical form which it passed to its medical adviser to consider if Mr X could share accommodation or continue to share his current home. The response from the medical adviser said they did not necessarily consider the conditions long and enduring and that no medical priority applied for an application to the housing register.
15. The Council invited Mr X for an interview. Mr X told the Council he required an interpreter which it arranged.
16. In February Mr X’s landlord told the Council he was the lead tenant on the property he had lived in with his wife and children.
17. Following the assessment, in early March 2025, the Council produced a personalised housing plan. This set out Mr X's medical conditions which included issues with his mental health and urinary incontinence. The Council advised him to search for private properties and to get advice on his tenancy as he had the right to live there, as the main tenant. It decided Mr X was not homeless as he still had a joint tenancy.
18. In mid-March Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision he was not homeless. He said he had to live on the street as he was separated from his wife.
19. In mid-May 2025 Mr X told the Council he was no longer on the tenancy of the house he had previously shared with his wife. The Council considered the information Mr X provided and overturned its decision. It wrote to him with the review outcome. Mr X provided a summary form his GP.
20. The Council asked its medical advisor for an opinion on Mr X’s vulnerability. It considered the GP printout but considered Mr X’s urological issues did not make him more vulnerable than an ordinary person. So the Council did not award Mr X priority. At this time, Mr X was staying at a night shelter.
21. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-May to advise that it accepted the relief duty.
22. In late May the Council nominated Mr X for a room in shared accommodation with a social landlord in a different Council’s area which would be available in late June.
23. Also in late May, through a charity, Mr X requested a review of the decision he was not in priority need. He provided a copy of a letter from his GP in support of his application. This said shared housing was likely to be unsuitable due to Mr X’s complex needs. It referred to his mental health conditions, OCD and urological issues which meant he used the toilet frequently. It said his mental health had deteriorated since he was relocated away from his home and support system. It urged the Council to consider Mr X’s case a high priority and to provide him with safe, secure and appropriate accommodation that met his health and wellbeing needs.
24. In late June the Council wrote to Mr X to advise that it was offering him accommodation in the shared property it had previously nominated him for, with a view to ending the relief duty. Mr X moved into the property in early July.
25. Also in early July, through a charity, Mr X requested a review of the suitability of the shared accommodation. Mr X referred to his urinary issues and use of a catheter, difficulties sharing a bathroom and fear of infection. Mr X said he needed accommodation in the Council’s area due to hospital appointments and he wanted to be nearer his children so he could see them more often. The Council wrote to Mr X that it noted his review request and would make a decision by early September.
26. The Council asked its medical advisor for their view on the property’s suitability.
27. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid-July to end its relief duty. It considered the room in a shared house was suitable for Mr X. It was in a reasonable condition, was affordable and met his medical needs.
28. Mr X via his MP, provided the Council with another letter from his GP in late July 2025. This noted Mr X’s mental health had deteriorated significantly since being relocated away from his home and support system. He was now only able to see his children once a week due to the distance. It said sharing a bathroom and kitchen had triggered intense PTSD and OCD related anxieties. It strongly recommended the Council urgently consider more suitable housing for Mr X closer to his family and support network in non-shared accommodation.
29. The medical advisor told the Council, in late July that they could not find anything medically amiss with the current accommodation and there was no compelling reason why shared accommodation was unsuitable.
30. The Council wrote to Mr X in September 2025 that it was ‘minded to’ conclude that the property was suitable. It said it had considered the size and condition of the property and it considered it met Mr X’s medical needs. It said with reasonable adjustments and an understanding household the accommodation would not present barriers to his OCD or other concerns. It accepted moving out of the borough was disruptive but said the property was in the town centre, near a train station with regular trains. It invited him to make oral or written representations.
31. A solicitor acting on Mr X’s behalf wrote to the Council that it had failed to consider all his circumstances and that it was unlawful for the Council to purely rely on the medical officer’s advice and not make its own decision. They said Mr X wanted to make oral presentations. In mid October 2025 Mr X made oral representations with the aid of an interpreter.
32. The Council wrote to Mr X in mid October 2025. It decided the property was not suitable in the long term but Mr X could stay until the end of his tenancy. It summarised the information it had taken into account including Mr X’s representations. It said the Council would make an alternative offer of accommodation but due to the chronic shortage in eth borough it may take up to three months.
33. Mr X’s tenancy was due to end in early January 2026. Mr X was concerned he would be homeless. The Council arranged to meet with Mr X and an interpreter in mid January 2026. It explained that his tenancy had become a rolling month by month tenancy so he would not be evicted. It was looking to nominate him for a property.
34. The Council allocated Mr X a one bedroom property in its area later in January 2026.

Findings

Homelessness

35. When Mr X first approached the Council, his name remained as the lead name on the tenancy of the property he previously lived in with his wife. The Council was not at fault for deciding Mr X was not homeless as he had a right to live at that property.
36. In mid-May Mr X overturned its decision and accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty. It sought its medical adviser’s opinion and at that stage decided it did not have reason to believe Mr X was in priority need. There was no evidence of fault in the Council reached that decision.
37. The Council provided Mr X with accommodation in a shared property in early July and in mid-July ended its relief duty. Mr X had a right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation and he used that right. The Council issued a ‘minded to’ decision in early September 2025. It agreed to Mr X’s request to make verbal representations which he did with the assistance of a translator. Following this the Council decided Mr X’s current property as suitable short term but not long term. It has since provided him with alternative accommodation. There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council carried out the review and no evidence of significant delays in the way it did so.

Reasonable adjustments

38. The Equality Act places an anticipatory duty on organisations to ensure its services are accessible. It should not wait until a person asks it to do something. The records show the Council used a translator when discussing Mr X’s case with him which was appropriate.
39. However, homelessness letters are legal and complex. The Council was aware English was not Mr X’s first language and I have seen no evidence the Council offered to translate the letters for Mr X. This is fault. There is no evidence this caused Mr X a significant injustice as Mr X was able to seek prompt advice and support from a charity and solicitor with his homelessness. However, this may cause an injustice to others in future so I have recommended a service improvement.

Back to top

Agreed Action

40. Within two months of the final decision the Council has agreed to provide training and or guidance to ensure homelessness staff, when using a translator during interviews, asks if document translation is required and records its consideration of this.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman