Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he approached it for support with his housing in April 2024. We found the Council at fault for delay making homelessness enquiries and decisions, failure to issue required decision letters, failure to properly determine his housing register eligibility, failure to investigate concerns about the suitability of his accommodation, and poor complaint handling. These failures caused Mr X significant uncertainty about his housing situation for over two years, deprived him of statutory review rights, caused distress and frustration, and put him to considerable time and trouble pursuing the matter. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, complete outstanding homelessness and housing register decisions, investigate the condition of his accommodation, and make service improvements to prevent similar failings in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he approached it for support with his housing in April 2024. Specifically, he says the Council:
1. Delayed assessing his homelessness application;
2. Gave him incorrect and misleading information;
3. Cancelled his Homefinder UK application;
4. Failed to register him on its housing register;
5. Failed to provide him with adequate support; and
6. Failed to properly consider his mental health.
2. Mr X says that as a result he has remained in unsuitable and unsafe accommodation without assistance.

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. 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.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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

What I found

Relevant legislation and information

Disrepair

8. Private tenants may complain to their council about a failure by the landlord to keep the property in good repair.
9. Local authorities have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (introduced by the Housing Act 2004, Part 1) to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk.
10. If a council considers a Category One hazard exists in residential premises, they must take appropriate enforcement action in accordance with section 5 of the Act. Councils have discretion to take enforcement action if a Category Two hazard is identified.

Homelessness

Legislation and statutory guidance

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.

Homeless definition

12. 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 or might reasonably be expected to live with them, to 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

14. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty

15. 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)

The main housing duty

16. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Priority need

17. 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.

Review rights

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage; and
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

Housing allocations

The published scheme

19. 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))

The Council’s housing allocations scheme

20. Under the Council’s housing allocations scheme, applicants must meet the following criteria to qualify for the housing register:
• Have continuously lived in the borough for at least three years;
• Be entitled to rehousing priority or housing points under the scheme;
• Not have sufficient financial resources to secure suitable accommodation independently; and
• Not have engaged in behaviour that the Council considers unacceptable or unreasonable.

Health and independence priority

21. The Council’s housing allocations policy states that an applicant may be awarded Health and Independence Priority where:
• They have a disability or a severe and long-term medical condition that significantly affects their health or independence in their current home;
• They are unable to enter or leave their home, or access essential facilities within it;
• All reasonable alternative solutions to address these difficulties have been explored;
• Moving to more suitable accommodation would significantly improve their ability to access and use their home; and
• Suitable properties are available that are likely to meet their needs.

Homelessness rehousing points

22. The Council awards rehousing points to applicants who are homeless, have previously been homeless, or are at risk of homelessness. The level of points awarded depends on the homelessness duty owed:
• 10 points where the Council owes the relief duty and/or does not owe the main housing duty;
• 100 points where the Council owes the main housing duty; and
• 200 points where the applicant is seeking to move into private rented accommodation.

Reasonable preference

23. 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))

Decisions and review rights

24. 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.

25. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
26. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.

Review procedures

27. 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.

Council’s complaints procedure

28. The Council’s complaints procedure states that:
• Stage 1 complaints should be investigated and responded to within 10 working days; and
• Stage 2 complaints should be investigated and responded to within 20 working days.

What happened

29. In October 2023, Mr X contacted the Council seeking assistance to move from his privately rented accommodation.
30. In November, the Council requested further information. Mr X promptly provided details of his disabilities, health conditions and concerns about disrepair at the property, including mould and poor water quality.
31. Having received no further update, Mr X contacted the Council in February 2024 and March to chase progress. He was advised that a housing officer had been allocated to his case and would contact him shortly.
32. Later that month, Mr X provided his housing officer with photographs of the property and further information about its condition. He explained the property was affected by extreme temperatures, water leaks and poor water quality, which he said were affecting his health. He also discussed a previous property he believed was available and asked for assistance to move there.
33. In April 2024, the Council completed a homelessness assessment. This recorded the information Mr X had provided about his housing circumstances, health conditions and the condition of the property. The Council accepted a relief duty, issued a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP), agreed to approve a Homefinder UK application, referred Mr X to relevant support services and sought medical information from his GP.
34. Mr X subsequently registered with Homefinder UK.
35. Later that month, Mr X provided the Council with medical evidence which it sent for independent medical advice.
36. In May, the Council referred Mr X to an organisation that assists individuals to find private rented accommodation.
37. In June, Mr X attended the Council’s offices after his landlord proposed a rent increase. Mr X did not wish to agree to the increase because he wanted to move. The Council advised him to seek legal advice regarding his tenancy and the condition of the property and referred him to its private rented sector service.
38. Between June and October 2024, Mr X continued to provide updates and photographs showing the high temperatures within the property. During this period, he contacted the Council on 14 occasions seeking updates, reporting ongoing concerns about the property and requesting assistance to move.
39. In October, Mr X attended a further appointment. The Council agreed to make a referral to Bridge Housing, an organisation that helps find homeless households permanent and affordable social housing. It also advised him that he was unlikely to be found in priority need (and therefore would not be owed the main housing duty) and explained that he could request a review of any future decision. The Council also resubmitted his medical information for independent assessment.
40. In November, following further chasing by Mr X, Bridge Housing confirmed it had received the referral and would contact him when suitable accommodation became available. Mr X requested accommodation close to his support network, free from mould, away from cell towers and radio transmitters, and in a quiet area. Bridge Housing explained that any accommodation offered would be based on assessed housing needs rather than personal preferences and requested further health information.
41. Later that month, Bridge Housing informed the Council that it could not assist Mr X because he was not homeless, threatened with homelessness or living in temporary accommodation. Homefinder UK also determined that he was not eligible because he was suitably accommodated in private rented housing.
42. Mr X then asked the Council to place him in temporary accommodation, citing the impact of the property on his physical and mental health.
43. In February 2025, Mr X complained to the Council. He said it had communicated poorly and had failed to provide a formal decision on his homelessness application, causing distress and uncertainty. He requested that a senior officer review his case, make a homelessness decision and reassess his medical needs.
44. The Council acknowledged that it had not issued a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. It said the case had been escalated to a manager for urgent review and Mr X would be contacted by the end of the month. It also said th medical information submitted in May 2024 had been referred for independent medical advice, although it could not confirm whether that assessment had been completed.
45. In March, Mr X completed a Health and Disability Housing Needs Form and provided further information about the disrepair at the property.
46. In May, the Council completed a medical assessment and concluded that Mr X did not meet the criteria for Health and Independence Priority on the housing register. It clearly explained the reasons for this decision.
47. Mr X requested a review and submitted additional evidence. Initially, the Council advised that it could not review the decision because it had not yet determined whether it owed him the main housing duty. It later completed a review and upheld the original decision, explaining why he did not meet the criteria for Health and Independence Priority.
48. In September, Mr X escalated his complaint. He remained dissatisfied with the handling of his case and said he had been incorrectly advised that he could seek a review of the Health and Independence Priority decision. He also complained his Homefinder UK application had been cancelled without explanation, he had not been registered on the housing register, the Council had failed to consider his mental health, and there had been significant delays in dealing with his housing application.
49. In November, the Council responded. It said the case had initially been considered as a homelessness application but was later treated as a housing register application. It explained that a review of the Health and Independence Priority decision had been completed and had upheld the original decision. The Council maintained that Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register and advised him to contact Homefinder UK directly regarding the cancellation of his account. It acknowledged there had been delays in progressing his case.
50. Mr X immediately requested a further escalation of his complaint.
51. In June 2026, the Council issued its final complaint response. It accepted that there had been delays and periods of poor communication and apologised. It explained that Mr X’s Homefinder UK account had been cancelled because he had not confirmed a change in circumstances. The Council said consideration of his housing register eligibility had run alongside, rather than replaced, his homelessness application. It also said referrals to Bridge Housing and Homefinder UK had been made promptly but progress had been affected by restrictions Mr X placed on the accommodation he would accept. The Council stated that a homelessness decision would be made by the end of the month and offered Mr X £150 in recognition of the delay.
52. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that:
• It had not issued any homelessness decisions to Mr X;
• It had not decided whether Mr X qualified to join the housing register;
• Delays in the case were caused by officer availability and failures to reallocate the case when necessary;
• Mr X had been encouraged to raise concerns about the condition and disrepair in the property directly with his landlord and had been referred to the private rented sector team;
• Although referrals for Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) inspections would normally be expected in cases such as this, no referral had been made. The Council has since referred the matter to Environmental Health;
• It had not yet decided whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue occupying the property; and
• It recognised the delays and intended to make a discretionary referral to Bridge Housing and the private rented sector service.

My findings

Homelessness application and delays

53. In April 2024 the Council completed a homelessness assessment and accepted that it owed Mr X the relief duty. However, it never issued a formal relief duty decision letter. The Council has since confirmed it has not decided whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue occupying his accommodation. It has also confirmed it has never issued a decision on whether it owed him the main housing duty.
54. The evidence shows Mr X first approached the Council for housing assistance in October 2023. The Council did not complete a homelessness assessment until April 2024, around six months later. This delay was fault.
55. Once the Council accepted the relief duty in April 2024, it was required to take reasonable steps to relieve Mr X's homelessness and subsequently determine whether any further homelessness duty was owed.
56. The Council failed to issue a written relief duty decision and failed to make a decision on whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty. This was fault.
57. These failures meant Mr X was not properly notified of the Council's decisions and was deprived of the opportunity to exercise his statutory review rights. This was a significant injustice.
58. At the time of this investigation, more than two years after Mr X first sought assistance and more than two years after the Council accepted the relief duty, no main housing duty decision has been made. This delay is significant fault.
59. The Council's records indicate officers considered it likely Mr X would not be found to be in priority need. However, no formal decision was ever reached. As such, Mr X remained unable to challenge any adverse decision through the statutory review process.
60. I cannot say what decision the Council would have reached had it properly considered the application. That decision remains one for the Council to make.
61. However, the Council's failures left Mr X in prolonged uncertainty about his housing position, deprived him of important review rights and caused significant distress and frustration.
62. The Council has offered Mr X £150 in recognition of delays. Given the length of delay and the uncertainty caused, I do not consider this adequately remedies the injustice.

Housing register application

63. The Council told me it has never made a decision on whether Mr X qualified to join its housing register.
64. This is inconsistent with its complaint response of November 2025, which stated Mr X was not eligible because he did not qualify for Health and Independence Priority.
65. The Council's allocations scheme requires applicants to have priority or points in order to qualify for the housing register. The Council accepted a homelessness relief duty towards Mr X in April 2024. Under its allocations policy, applicants owed the relief duty receive homelessness points.
66. On the evidence available, it is unclear why Mr X was not considered for housing register membership on the basis of the homelessness points arising from the accepted relief duty.
67. If the Council considered Mr X did not qualify to join the housing register, it should have issued a clear decision explaining the reasons and notifying him of any review rights. The Council has confirmed it did not do so.
68. The Council's failure to make a clear decision on Mr X's housing register eligibility, and to notify him of any review rights, was fault.
69. This caused Mr X uncertainty about whether he should have been registered on the housing register and whether he may have missed opportunities to bid for accommodation.

Medical assessment and consideration of health needs

70. The Council referred Mr X's medical information for independent consideration in or around May 2024. However, it did not complete its medical assessment until May 2025, a delay of approximately 12 months. This was fault.
71. However, once the assessment was completed, the Council considered the information available, reviewed the additional evidence Mr X provided and explained why he did not meet the criteria for Health and Independence Priority.
72. I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council's eventual decision-making process. I cannot question the merits of a decision properly reached simply because Mr X disagrees with it.

Consideration of the suitability of Mr X's accommodation

73. Throughout his contact with the Council, Mr X consistently reported concerns about the condition of his accommodation. These included mould, water leaks, poor water quality and extreme temperatures within the property.
74. These concerns were directly relevant to both the Council's homelessness enquiries and its duties under housing standards legislation.
75. The Council has confirmed it would ordinarily expect a referral to be made for consideration under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It accepts that this did not happen in Mr X's case. The failure to refer Mr X's concerns for investigation was fault.
76. The Council has also confirmed it has not yet decided whether it was reasonable for Mr X to continue occupying the property. This was a key issue in determining whether he was homeless and should have formed part of its homelessness enquiries.
77. I cannot determine, even on the balance of probabilities, whether an HHSRS assessment would have identified hazards requiring enforcement action, nor can I determine whether the Council would ultimately have concluded the accommodation was unreasonable to continue occupying.
78. However, the Council's failures deprived Mr X of a proper assessment of these issues and caused significant uncertainty about whether earlier action may have been taken.

Homefinder UK

79. The evidence shows Homefinder UK later decided Mr X was not eligible for its service because it considered him suitably housed within the private rented sector.
80. This appears difficult to reconcile with the Council's continuing acceptance of a homelessness relief duty. However, Homefinder UK is an independent organisation and not operated by the Council.
81. I have not seen sufficient evidence to determine precisely why Homefinder UK reached its decision or whether it did so as a result of incorrect information supplied by the Council.
82. Nevertheless, the Council's failure to properly progress and determine Mr X's homelessness application created confusion about his housing status which may have affected referrals made on his behalf. This contributes to the uncertainty already identified.

Support provided by the Council

83. Following acceptance of the relief duty, the Council took some steps to assist Mr X, including making referrals to Homefinder UK, seeking medical advice and later referring him to Bridge Housing.
84. However, the evidence shows Mr X repeatedly had to chase the Council for updates and progress. The referral to Bridge Housing was not made until several months after the relief duty had been accepted.
85. While some support was provided, the Council's overall case management lacked urgency and effective oversight. This was fault.

Communication and complaint handling

86. The evidence shows Mr X repeatedly contacted the Council seeking updates on his case. Between June and October 2024 alone he contacted the Council on numerous occasions without receiving substantive progress.
87. The Council has acknowledged there were periods where updates and progress were not provided as promptly as they should have been.
88. I have also identified inconsistencies between information provided to Mr X in complaint responses and information later provided to this investigation. This contributed to confusion about the status of both his homelessness application and housing register application.
89. This poor communication was fault and caused frustration, distress and avoidable time and trouble.
90. The Council also failed to comply with its published complaint timescales. While the initial complaint response was provided within time, the subsequent complaint responses were significantly delayed. The final response was issued 131 days late. This was fault and caused Mr X additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint.

Conclusion

91. Overall, I find fault in the Council's handling of Mr X's case. The Council delayed making enquiries into his homelessness application, accepted the relief duty but failed to issue the required decision letters, failed to make a decision on whether it owed the main housing duty, failed to properly determine his eligibility for the housing register, delayed consideration of his medical information, failed to refer concerns about the condition of his accommodation for investigation, and communicated poorly throughout. The Council also failed to deal with his complaint in accordance with its published timescales.
92. I have taken account of the significant cyber incident experienced by the Council in November 2025 and recognise this affected access to systems and the delivery of housing services. However, the substantial delays and failures identified in this investigation had already occurred before the cyber incident and cannot be attributed to it. While the cyber incident may have contributed to some later delays in progressing the case, it does not alter my findings of fault.
93. I cannot say what decisions the Council would have reached had it acted without fault. However, its failures left Mr X in prolonged uncertainty about his housing situation, deprived him of statutory review rights, caused distress and frustration, and put him to significant time and trouble pursuing the matter.

Back to top

Action

94. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within six weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to: 
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Pay Mr X a total of £1,150. This is instead of its proposed £150 remedy. Comprising:
1. £1,000 to recognise the prolonged uncertainty, distress and loss of review rights caused by the Council's failures; and
2. £150 to recognise the time and trouble caused by the Council’s poor complaint handling.
• Consider Mr X's eligibility for the housing register in accordance with its allocations scheme, taking account of the homelessness relief duty accepted in April 2024. If the Council decides he is eligible, it should register him and award any points due from the date he ought reasonably to have been registered;
• Complete an inspection of Mr X's accommodation under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System and determine whether any Category 1 or Category 2 hazards exist. If hazards are identified, the Council should decide what enforcement action, if any, is appropriate and notify Mr X of the outcome; and
• Complete its homelessness enquiries and determine:
1. whether it is reasonable for Mr X to continue occupying the property;
2. whether he is homeless within the meaning of the Housing Act 1996;
3. whether he is in priority need; and
4. what homelessness duty, if any, is owed.

The Council should then issue all required decision letters and notify Mr X of any review rights.

95. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to issue a briefing note to relevant staff using this case as a case study. The briefing should reinforce: the requirement to issue homelessness decision letters, notify applicants of review rights, properly record homelessness decisions and ensure appropriate referrals are made where housing conditions may affect the suitability of accommodation.
96. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

97. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman