Summary: The Council delayed reviewing its decision to remove Ms X from its housing register and delayed accepting its homelessness duties to her. This caused Ms X uncertainty, distress and meant Ms X and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for six months. The Council’s failure to offer interim accommodation also resulted in Ms X and her family facing a forced eviction and being street homeless for one night. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council removed her from its housing register, failed to properly review its decision and has since failed to properly decide her homelessness application. She says this has caused her distress and impacted her family’s wellbeing. She wants the Council to apologise, reinstate her housing priority, offer her suitable temporary accommodation and compensate her.

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. 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

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. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman about her removal from the housing register in July 2025. We assessed the complaint in November 2025 and began our investigation in January 2026. I am satisfied that by this point the Council also knew about Ms X’s homelessness complaint and had an opportunity to investigate and reply. I have therefore decided to investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application as well as her complaint about the Council’s removal of her from its housing register.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Housing allocations

8. 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))
9. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

10. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Homelessness

11. 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.
12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

13. 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 them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. 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 housing duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5
15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
16. 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 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)
17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is 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). The Homelessness Code of Guidance (section 6.35) says:
• where an applicant has received a valid section 21 notice; and
• the council is satisfied that the landlord intends to seek possession and efforts to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to remain are unlikely to be successful; and
• there would be no defence to an application for a possession order;

then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice.

18. The Code notes it may be reasonable if the council is trying to persuade the landlord to let the applicant stay a while longer while alternative accommodation is found.
19. The Code goes on to say, at section 6.36, it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy a property beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.
20. It says applicants who are owed a section 188 interim accommodation duty should not be evicted by bailiffs because of a failure by a council to provide accommodation. (6.38)

Homelessness accommodation

21. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
22. 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 interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
23. 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.

The Council’s complaint process

24. The Council operates a two stage complaints process. It says it will respond to stage one housing complaints within 10 working days or let complainants know if it needs more time to respond. The Council says it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Background

25. Ms X was added to the Council’s housing register in 2021 following a homelessness application. In 2022 Ms X moved into private rented accommodation with her children and continued to bid on council properties. The records show Ms X was offered several properties between 2022 and 2024 but declined them as she said she needed a property on the ground floor.

What happened

26. In July 2024 Ms X was shortlisted for another property and began to prepare to move home. However, in August 2024 the Council withdrew the offer. Ms X complained to the Council. She said she had been waiting to be rehoused for several years and the Council had now stopped her accepting the latest property. In her complaint she said her landlord was selling her current property and she needed to find a new home.
27. The Council explained that it had allocated the property to a family that had been waiting longer than Ms X. In September 2024 Ms X contacted the Council again. She said her landlord wanted to take possession of her current property. The Council’s records note it gave Ms X advice on how to prevent her homelessness.
28. Ms X chased the Council again in November 2024. In December 2024 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It said it was responding to Ms X’s contact from November 2024. In its complaint response the Council explained the Council should have ended its prevention duty to Ms X in 2022, when Ms X moved into a private rented property. It apologised and said it would carry out a full re-assessment of Ms X’s housing register application.
29. Ms X remained unhappy and asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process in February 2025. Later that month the Council completed its reassessment of Ms X’s housing priority. It confirmed that it was removing Ms X from its housing register as she no longer had a housing need under the Council’s allocations scheme. The Council said Ms X had moved to a property that met her needs in 2022. It offered Ms X a right of review of this decision.
30. Ms X asked the Council to review its decision. She said her need for new housing had increased as her landlord was selling her current property and she was waiting for them to serve her a section 21 notice.
31. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage two complaint in March 2025. It said it should have reviewed Ms X’s housing priority when she moved in 2022, and she was no longer eligible to be on the Council’s housing register. It confirmed it had received Ms X’s request to review that decision and would be in touch. It said it would also be in touch now Ms X was threatened with homelessness again.
32. On 29 March 2025 Ms X told the Council her landlord had now served her a section 21 notice, and she had until 31 May 2025 to move out. A local charity submitted a homelessness application on Ms X’s behalf at the start of April 2025. Over the next month Ms X submitted additional information regarding her and her children’s health for the Council to consider in its review of her housing priority. At the end of May 2025, the Council apologised for the delay reviewing Ms X’s housing priority. It said it would need to examine the medical information she had provided. It said the delay was due to the volume of review requests received.
33. Ms X replied saying her review was about the Council’s decision to remove her from the housing register. In July 2025 the Council completed its review of Ms X’s medical information and said she did not have a health need for housing priority. It offered her a right to review this decision. Ms X said that did not address the issue she had originally asked the Council to review, which was the cancellation of her housing application. She said the medical information was context for this review.
34. At the end of July 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s review request. It said Ms X did not qualify for inclusion on its housing register as she was not overcrowded and was adequately housed. It acknowledged Ms X was now threatened with homelessness and told Ms X to keep in touch with the Council about this.
35. In September 2025 the Council responded to a new complaint from Ms X about its handling of her homelessness application. It accepted it had not responded to Ms X’s homelessness application as it should have done and had not acted to prevent Ms X’s homelessness. It booked Ms X a new appointment with an officer to address the issues. Ms X met with the officer on 11 September 2025.
36. On 2 October 2025 Ms X’s landlord issued a possession order for her home. The Council told Ms X to stay in her property. The Council accepted a relief duty to Ms X on 21 November 2025. At the same time, it created a personalised housing plan (PHP) for Ms X. The plan noted Ms X’s landlord had extended the deadline to leave her property until December 2025.
37. The Council contacted Ms X again in February 2026 to ask whether she had received an eviction notice. Ms X said she had not and had no other property to go to when she did. The Council ended its relief duty to Ms X on 20 February 2026. Ms X asked for a review of this decision. The Council told Ms X this would only delay its acceptance of the main housing duty to Ms X. It offered Ms X an advice call but she refused. Ms X said she wanted all correspondence in writing.
38. Ms X was evicted from her property on 18 March 2026. In response to our enquiries the Council said Ms X had satisfactory accommodation for that evening. Ms X’s emails to the Council show she told the Council she had no other accommodation and would be street homeless with her children. The Council provided Ms X with emergency accommodation the next day. It accepted a main housing duty to Ms X on 20 March 2026. It back dated her housing application to 8 April 2025.

My findings

Ms X’s housing application

39. The Council’s allocations scheme sets out the criteria for people it considers to have a housing need and who qualify to be on its housing register. In 2021 Ms X qualified to be on the housing register due to her risk of homelessness. When Ms X moved into a private rented sector property in 2022 she no longer qualified. The Council accepts it should have removed Ms X from the register at that point.
40. Following Ms X’s complaint, the Council re-assessed her housing application and confirmed Ms X did not qualify to be on its housing register. When Ms X sent the Council medical information it considered the new information but decided Ms X and her family’s medical needs did not warrant a priority need for housing.
41. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
42. In making its decision about Ms X’s housing priority, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Ms X and its own allocations scheme and policies. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision and I cannot therefore criticise it. The Council was not at fault.

Ms X’s review request

43. Ms X asked the Council to carry out a review of its decision to remove her from its housing register in February 2025. The Council did not complete this review until July 2025. This was fault. While the Council was entitled to remove Ms X from its housing register, the delay caused Ms X uncertainty over the outcome of her review.

Ms X’s homelessness application

44. At the same time as complaining about her housing priority, Ms X made the Council aware she was threatened with homelessness. She did this in her complaint correspondence in August 2024 and then told the Council again in September 2024. At this time the evidence shows Ms X was not likely to become homeless within 56 days and her landlord had not yet served a section 21 notice. The Council owed no homelessness duty to Ms X at this time and was not at fault.
45. Ms X told the Council her landlord had served a section 21 notice on 29 March 2025, with an expiry date of 31 May 2025. At this point the Council had reason to believe Ms X and her family were threatened with homelessness and owed Ms X a prevention duty. The Council failed to accept this duty and act to prevent Ms X’s homelessness during this time. This was fault and caused Ms X uncertainty over the support she was entitled to from the Council.
46. The Council did not accept it owed Ms X a relief duty to Ms X until 21 November 2025. Had the Council acted without fault it would have worked to prevent Ms X’s homelessness for a maximum of 56 days from 29 March 2025. On balance, the Council would have then accepted a relief duty by 31 May 2025 at the latest.
47. The Homelessness Code of Guidance at paragraphs 6.35 to 6.38 sets out when a person may be legally homeless after the expiry of a section 21 notice. It says “it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy” beyond the date of a possession order and that councils should ensure homeless families are not evicted. This means by 31 May 2025 at the latest it would also have owed Ms X a duty to arrange interim accommodation at that point.
48. While the Council owed Ms X a duty to arrange interim accommodation from 31 May 2025, on balance, I am satisfied it was reasonable for Ms X to continue occupying her property after the expiry of the section 21 notice and up to the landlord issuing the possession order on 2 October 2025. During this time the Council’s failure to accept a homelessness duty to Ms X and work with her to find new accommodation caused her further uncertainty and distress.
49. When the landlord issued a possession order on 2 October 2025 Ms X’s property became unsuitable to live in and the Council should have arranged interim accommodation. The Council did not do this until 19 March 2026 and Ms X and her family remained in unsuitable housing for almost six months. This also caused Ms X a further period of distress and uncertainty over whether she and her children would be street homeless.
50. The relief duty would usually last 56 days, following which the Council would need to decide if it owed a main housing duty. On balance, if the Council had acted without fault, it would have decided it owed a main housing duty on or around 26 July 2025. At that point, the duty to arrange interim accommodation would have changed to a duty to arrange temporary accommodation. The delay in accepting a main duty, which the Council did not do until March 2026, is further fault.

Ms X’s eviction

51. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says councils should ensure that families who are owed a homelessness duty are not evicted through enforcement of an order of possession as a result of a failure to provide accommodation. Ms X and her children were evicted by bailiffs on 18 March 2026. Had the Council not acted with fault this would not have happened.
52. The Council says Ms X had alternative accommodation on the 18 March 2026 and did not require emergency accommodation. This is not supported by Ms X’s emails to the Council, which make it clear she and her children required immediate accommodation. The Council’s failure to do so caused Ms X further distress.

The Council’s complaint handling

53. Ms X complained to the Council about her housing application on 20 August 2024. The Council did not respond until 23 December 2025, a delay of 79 working days. This was fault. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two on 3 February 2025, and the Council responded on 11 March 2025, a further minor delay of six working days. This was fault. Ms X then complained about her homelessness application on 29 July 2025 and the Council responded at stage one of its complaint procedure on 2 September 2025, a delay of 15 working days. While some of these delays were minor, overall they caused Ms X additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.

Back to top

Action

54. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the uncertainty caused by its delayed review, initial failure to prevent her homelessness, the further uncertainty and severe distress caused by its failure to arrange accommodation which resulted in Ms X and her family living in unsuitable accommodation for six months.
2. Pay Ms X £250 to recognise the uncertainty caused by its failure to accept the prevention or relief duty between March 2025 and November 2025.
3. Pay Ms X £900 to recognise the uncertainty and distress caused by its failure to arrange interim accommodation between October 2025 and March 2026. This is £150 for every month Miss X and her family were living in unsuitable accommodation and is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
4. Pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress caused by her family facing a forced eviction and being street homeless for one night on 18 March 2026.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
56. Following our recent report into the Council’s handling of a homelessness case, the Council has explained the steps it is taking to resolve the issues with its homelessness service. Because the Council is already taking suitable steps, I have not made any service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman