Summary: Miss D says the Council failed to process her homelessness and housing register applications and did not make reasonable adjustments for her disability. I have found the Council at fault. There were substantial delays in how it progressed the applications and it failed to make reasonable adjustments for Miss D for eight months. The Council has agreed to pay Miss D redress. It will also make her a direct offer of housing and is updating its procedures for housing register applications and reasonable adjustments.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to process her housing register application from November 2024 onwards. She also says the Council failed to advise her on making a homelessness application and then delayed progressing it. Miss D is deaf and she says the Council did not make reasonable adjustments to assist 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 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. I have considered events from October 2024 through to 2 November 2025 when the case was referred to our Assessment Team. I cannot look at events after that date, if Miss D feels there has been further issues with the Council, including problems with the accuracy of her personalised housing plan (PHP), she would need to submit a new complaint to the Council and complete its complaints process before she can bring more recent matters to the Ombudsman.
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2024

8. On 5 November 2024 the Council received Miss D’s housing register application and a completed medical form. The Council says it failed to log the application, and the form was subsequently lost. On 3 December Miss D emailed the Council asking for an update. She stated she was deaf, could not speak on the telephone, was homeless and needed assistance. The Council did not reply.

2025

9. On 3 February 2025 Miss D emailed the Council about her housing register application. She had not received any updates, and she repeated that she was deaf and was homeless. On 4 February a Housing Advisor replied that he had copied in the Housing Registration Team. There is no evidence of further action being taken. On 24 April Miss D asked the Council what was happening with her case. She had been homeless since March 2023 and had health issues. The Housing Advisor replied that he could not see an application for emergency rehousing and Miss D should use a link to progress this matter. On 26 April Miss D told the Housing Advisor she had made a housing register application in 2024 and never had any updates or a decision. She had also repeatedly told the Council she was homeless. The link provided did not work. On 1 May the Housing Advisor reiterated to Miss D to complete the link. Miss D replied that she had already completed a medical form and a housing register application in 2024.
10. On 21 May the Council emailed Miss D in response to contact from her. It said to contact the Housing Advice Team about homelessness and provided a telephone number and no other contact option. Miss D then submitted a formal complaint to the Council. On 10 June an Officer emailed Miss D asking for her telephone number so they could speak to her about her complaint. On 10 June and 13 June Miss D emailed the Council that she was deaf and could not discuss matters via a telephone call. She asked for an email update.
11. On 18 June the Council issued its initial complaint response. It said the housing register application had not been logged by the Council. It had tried to call to speak about the case and asked her to get in touch. It also advised her to complete a link to submit a homelessness application (but no link was provided in the complaint response). On 20 June Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She had repeatedly told the Council she was deaf and it had failed to make reasonable adjustments and still referred to making telephone contact. She asked why no-one had previously advised her the housing register and homelessness processes were separate. She wanted assistance to make a homelessness application and asked the Council to provide a contact person who would only use email as a contact method.
12. On 1 July the Head of Housing told Miss D the Council had failed to pick up that she was deaf. They offered a BSL interpreter to assist with meetings. Miss D replied that she needed help understanding things. On 13 July Miss D told the Council that she required the homelessness assessment meeting to be a video call so her partner could be present and support her. She asked the Council to confirm if this was acceptable or if there were other reasonable adjustments it could make to assist her.
13. On 14 July a homelessness assessment meeting at the Council office was scheduled. Miss D was unable to attend. A further meeting was booked for 28 July for a video call. On that day the Housing Advisor emailed Miss D that he had called her for a telephone appointment and left her a voicemail message. Miss D replied that it was meant to be a video call and she could not speak on the phone or listen to the voicemail messages. Miss D also stated she was disappointed the Council was still not taking account of the types of communication she could use. She felt frustrated and the Council had wasted her time. The Housing Advisor replied and apologised and said they would arrange a video meeting. On 4 August the Council carried out a homelessness assessment with Miss D via a video call.
14. On 8 August Miss D met the Housing Advisor and completed a vulnerability assessment form. The Council forwarded this to its Medical Adviser for a priority assessment. I understand the same day the Council accepted a prevention duty towards Miss D, but it did not send her a duty decision letter or a PHP. The Council says the PHP was published to Miss D’s online housing account that day. On 9 August Miss D submitted a new housing register application to the Council at its request. She asked it to confirm the application would be backdated to 2024 when she made her original submission.
15. On 12 August the Housing Advisor summarised what had been discussed at the 8 August meeting. He told Miss D the Medical Advisor would consider the information she had provided to determine if she was more vulnerable than the average person if street homeless. It would then assess if she was owed interim accommodation. Various housing options had been discussed and included priority housing banding (at band B) which could result in being housed more quickly in the borough. The Housing Advisor also said the 2024 housing register application had ‘gone missing’; the Council would backdate the new application. On the same day Miss D replied that she felt the band B option was best. Temporary accommodation was not viable because of the uncertainty of where she might be located. She would need to stay near her partner who was her only source of support, and she needed to be in a familiar area. On 13 August the Medical Adviser recommended Miss D be considered as vulnerable due to her medical conditions. During August the Council asked Miss D for supporting documents including bank statements which Miss D promptly provided.
16. On 27 August the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It accepted there were faults with the initial complaint response including a link had not been provided and a telephone call had been incorrectly sought with Miss D. It apologised and said Officers had failed to check what support Miss D needed. The Council also accepted its email responses had been limited and fell short of what it expected. Officers should have told Miss D at the end of 2024 about the separate processes for homelessness and housing register applications. It said it was clear it had not responded in a ‘timely or appropriate manner’ and apologised. It confirmed the 2024 housing register application form had been lost. Miss D would submit a new application, and the Council would backdate it to 5 November 2024. Once Miss D’s banding was decided the Council would check to see if she had missed out on bidding for a home during the period of delay. It accepted there were ‘missed opportunities’ to provide support to Miss D and offered £250 for distress. It had also made service improvements including saving housing register forms, responding to emails without delay and considering if reasonable adjustments were needed for customers.
17. Miss D emailed the Housing Advisor on 15 September for an update on her homelessness application. She was currently in band G and so could not successfully bid for social housing. Miss D emailed the Housing Advisor again on 29 September asking for a response. On 6 October Miss D emailed the Head of Housing chasing up the actions on her case. The Council replied the next day that it would raise this urgently with the Housing Advisor. On 9 October the Housing Advisor told Miss D she had been approved for band B.
18. On 11 October Miss D emailed the Housing Advisor that she had not received a PHP or any duty decision letters in respect of her homelessness application. She asked what the Council would to do to assist her aside from the band B housing priority. The Housing Advisor replied that he had completed the PHP on 8 August ‘and it should have been sent then’. He said the Council did owe Miss D a ‘housing duty’ which could be interim accommodation or private rental accommodation, but this would impact on the band B award. He asked Miss D to advise on which action she would like to pursue. Also on 11 October the Council sent Miss D the PHP. On 16 October Miss D notified the Housing Advisor about what she considered were errors in the PHP. She said her band had not been changed to band B on her housing register account.

Events after my investigation

19. Miss D’s representative contacted the Council at the end of 2025 about her banding and corresponded with the Council into 2026. In February the Council advised the representative it had previously accepted in the complaint responses there had been delays in the case. It would now backdate the award of band B to 24 May 2025 which was a month after Miss D had been first advised about a homelessness application.

What should have happened

Homelessness applications

20. 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 PHPs

21. 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 prevention duty

22. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

23. 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

24. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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)

Interim accommodation

25. 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)

Making a homelessness application to the Council

26. In 2024 and 2025 an applicant could contact the Council for homelessness assistance by email or telephone. The Council would then send the person an online form to complete. Once the completed form was received the Council would assess if the person was likely to be homeless within the next 56 days. For applicants facing homelessness within 56 days the Council would book an appointment for an Officer to carry out a homelessness assessment.
27. The Council says it has changed its process in 2026. A Triage Team now handles all incoming applications.
28. If a homelessness applicant submits medical evidence as part of their application that information should be sent to the Medical Adviser for recommendations which can include whether the person is vulnerable due to their medical condition.

Housing register

29. When the Council receives a hard copy application to join the housing register this should be logged on a spreadsheet and passed to the Registration Team. An Officer will then assess the application to see if the applicant is eligible and decide on their housing priority and banding.
30. Where an applicant completes a medical form with their housing register application the Council should pass the medical evidence to a Medical Adviser for assessment and recommendations on whether the applicant has a housing medical need that attracts a higher banding level. The Council should then consider the evidence and recommendations and reach a decision.
31. The Council is moving to an online application process for housing register cases.

Reasonable adjustments

32. The Council says it will make reasonable adjustments for applicants which can include the provision of a BSL interpreter or home visits. It also says there was provision prior to 2026 for an alert to put on an applicant’s file if they could not be contacted by telephone.
33. In respect of homelessness applicants the Council says reasonable adjustments should be considered at the first point of contact with an applicant and then ‘appropriate arrangements’ are made. It has introduced a Triage Team in 2026 which records if an applicant has a disability and a Triage Officer will identify if a reasonable adjustment is required. The Council says it will add to its procedures to ensure Triage Officers actively ask if an applicant requires reasonable adjustments.

Was there fault by the Council

34. Miss D submitted a housing register application to the Council which it received at the start of November 2024. The Council accepts that it lost the form and has already apologised to Miss D for this error. Miss D had to pursue a complaint with the Council in 2025 before a new housing register application was taken from her in August. That was a delay of over nine months. During that period Miss D had asked the Council about her application, it failed to respond to her December 2024 email. The February 2025 email response from the Council also failed to progress her case. Miss D did not receive any meaningful assistance with her housing register application for several months.
35. The Council failed to provide Miss D with information about how to make a homelessness application in 2024. Miss D stated in her 3 December email she was homeless. At that point she should have been provided with information about how to make an application, instead the Council failed to reply to her email. It also missed a further opportunity to assist Miss D in February 2025. In April an Officer sent Miss D a link to make a homelessness application but the link did not work. When Miss D pointed this error out the Officer failed to help and just reiterated she should complete the (faulty) link. It took until 4 August for the Council to take a homelessness application from Miss D. That is an unacceptable delay of eight months. In addition I cannot see the Council sent Miss D a duty decision letter or PHP in August. It says a copy of the PHP was put on Miss D’s online account, but a hard copy was not provided until two months later.
36. The Council backdated the band B award to May 2025 after contact from Miss D/ her representative, that date was a month after the Council said Miss D was first advised about a homelessness application. I consider that to be fault. Miss D raised her homelessness with the Council on 3 December 2024. The Council could and should have facilitated her making a homelessness application at that point. Allowing a month for processing (as the Council did when calculating how to backdate the band B award in 2026) the band B should be backdated to early January 2025.
37. The Council repeatedly failed to provide reasonable adjustments for Miss D despite her flagging up that she was deaf and could not make telephone calls. Miss D told the Council about this in December 2024. No Officer contacted her to see what reasonable adjustments she required. It took until 1 July 2025 for the Council to accept it had failed to pick up that Miss D was deaf. At that point a BSL interpreter was offered. Whilst I accept that offer was made with good intentions the Council should have checked with Miss D to see what assistance she required as it transpired an interpreter was not helpful to her. Even after the Council accepted Miss D needed reasonable adjustments in July the errors continued with an Officer calling Miss D for a telephone meeting when the Council had agreed to a video call. I also note the poor handling of the initial complaint where Miss D was complaining about the lack of reasonable adjustments. An Officer tried calling her and left a voicemail which for Miss D was indicative of the way the Council had disregarded her deafness. I find the handling of this matter concerning. Miss D was asking for simple adjustments to help her and the Council failed to do so for eight months. The Council says it recognises it needs to improve its recording of reasonable adjustments and is updating its procedures.

Did the fault cause an injustice

38. I checked with the Council to see if Miss D lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a home during the period of delay where Miss D should have been awarded band B priority. The evidence shows Miss D did not lose a chance to secure a home.
39. The poor handling of Miss D’s case including substantial delays progressing her housing register and homelessness applications and the failure to make reasonable adjustments meant Miss D incurred avoidable distress.

Back to top

Action

40. The Council has told me that whilst Miss D did not lose out on securing a home, had the delay in her banding not occurred, it will make her a direct offer of housing within the next six months. If Miss D refuses the offer, she can remain in band B and continue to bid for housing without any penalty. I consider that a reasonable offer
41. The Council has agreed to the following actions to remedy the injustice to Miss D:
• Backdate the band B award to early January 2025.
• The Council has paid Miss D £250 for its handling of her case. Given the extent of the faults identified the Council will pay Miss D an additional £250 for distress.
• The Council will confirm with Miss D what areas she feels are suitable to live in before making a direct offer of accomodation.
42. The Council has made service improvements including moving to an online housing register application process and updating its procedures on reasonable adjustments. It will flag up those procedural changes to Officers.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman