Summary: The Council was not at fault for its initial handling of Mr X’s homelessness application and housing register application. It accepted its homelessness duty to Mr X, offered him interim accommodation and properly assessed his housing priority. The Council was at fault for later delays in deciding whether it owed Mr X a main housing duty and medical priority. This caused Mr X uncertainty but did not impact Mr X’s homelessness or housing applications. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing application. He says the Council failed to offer him suitable accommodation and his housing priority is too low. Mr X says he is street homeless which is causing him severe distress. He wants the Council to offer him a suitable property.

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. 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.
4. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Homelessness duties

7. 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.
8. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called 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)

Homelessness accommodation duties

9. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
10. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for the applicant and their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Housing Allocations

13. 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))
14. 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))

15. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
16. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

The Council’s allocations scheme

17. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.
18. To prioritise applications the Council places applicants into the following priority bands:
• Band A – Critically urgent housing needs, including applicants with a critical medical or welfare need for housing or emergency housing status.
• Band B – Serious housing needs, including applicants owed a main housing duty.
• Band C – Higher preference housing needs, including applicants with medium medical or welfare needs.
• Band D – General housing needs, including applicants without their own home or with low medical or welfare needs.
19. The Council increases the priority of applicants who served in the armed forces by one band.
20. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.

The Armed Forces Covenant

21. The Armed Forces Covenant (the Covenant) places a legal duty on public bodies to have due regard to Covenant Principles when carrying out housing, education and healthcare functions. The principles say:
• military families should not face any disadvantage compared with others in the provision of public services; and
• special consideration is appropriate in some cases.
22. We published guidance about the Covenant to raise awareness among council staff. We said they needed to ensure they considered covenant commitments appropriately when military families approached them for services or support. (Armed Forces Covenant, Guidance for Practitioners, November 2019)

What happened

23. Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance on 12 June 2025. He said he had left the armed forces and was sleeping in his car. He told the Council he was a recovering drug addict, and it should consider the risk of him relapsing in any accommodation offer.
24. The Council met with Mr X the next day and offered him self-contained interim accommodation. The Council’s records show that Mr X refused this offer. He said he would feel safer in his car and could become aggressive to other residents in the area. The Council ended its interim accommodation duty to Mr X as it said he had refused a reasonable offer of interim accommodation.
25. Mr X continued to tell the Council he was sleeping in his car. On 15 July 2025 Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register. The Council asked for more information, including proof of his discharge from the armed forces. The Council accepted a relief duty to Mr X on 21 August 2025. On 26 August Mr X provided information about his discharge from the armed forces. He also said he had medical needs which would impact what property he could accept. The Council said it would need more information before it could assess Mr X’s medical needs.
26. On 1 September 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X confirming his housing application. It awarded him priority band C. It said this was one band higher than his assessed priority as he had served in the armed forces. Mr X was eligible for a one-bedroom property. It offered Mr X a right of review if he could explain why he felt the Council had not applied its allocations policy correctly.
27. Mr X called the Council a few days later. He said he was unhappy with his banding and was still homeless. The Council’s records show it discussed Mr X’s accommodation needs with him. It explained it could make Mr X another offer of accommodation, but it would likely be outside of the local area. Mr X said the accommodation would be unsuitable due to the potential of other drug users living nearby. He said the Council was not considering his needs.
28. Over the next couple of months Mr X continued to contact the Council. He said he could not bid on suitable properties. The Council explained Mr X was seeing all the suitable available properties on its housing register.
29. The Council spoke to Mr X again in mid-November 2025. It said that if Mr X continued with his homelessness application, it was likely it would accept a main housing duty to him and make an offer of temporary accommodation. The Council said it would end its duty to Mr X if he then refused the property. Mr X said he wanted to continue bidding on houses and asked the Council to withdraw his homelessness application. The Council withdrew the application on 18 November 2025 and wrote to Mr X confirming it had ended its relief duty to him.
30. On 24 November 2025 an occupational therapist assessed Mr X and the Council completed an assessment of Mr X’s housing needs. It said Mr X needed a property a maximum of one flight of stairs above the ground floor. It noted a studio property would not be suitable due to Mr X’s difficulty sleeping and establishing a routine. The assessment said the Council should take care over the location of a property to protect Mr X’s recovery from drug addiction. It said Mr X would prefer a property that was not supported housing to maintain his independence.
31. On 31 December 2025 Mr X’s doctor emailed the Council. They said Mr X’s homelessness was impacting his physical and mental health and asked for this to be taken into consideration when trying to find Mr X suitable accommodation.
32. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2026. He said he was still homeless and recovering from a drug addiction. He said the Council had not given him any support and placed him in the wrong priority band. A week later Mr X made a second complaint saying the bidding options on the Council’s housing register were unfair.
33. The Council responded to both of Mr X’s complaints at the end of January 2026. It said band C was the correct priority band. It said it could not look at Mr X’s medical priority as he did not have a home and medical banding was linked to the impact of a property on someone’s needs. It said Mr X had refused all offers of interim and temporary accommodation. Mr X remained unhappy and asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure.
34. In mid-February Mr X bid on a one bed property. The Council offered Mr X the property, but he said it was not suitable. The Council’s records noted Mr X said the property was unsuitable for his lifestyle as he liked to play loud music. Mr X said the Council system had auto-bid for the property and he asked the Council to turn off auto-bidding, which it did. On 12 February 2026 the Council received another email from Mr X’s doctor saying the lack of accommodation was still impacting Mr X’s mental health.
35. The Council reviewed the information from Mr X’s doctor on 9 March 2026. It wrote to Mr X saying it had noted the letters from Mr X’s doctor and his housing needs assessment. It said Mr X’s banding reflected his needs, with an uplift due to his time in the armed services. It said it could not put a timescale on how long it would take to rehouse Mr X.
36. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint a few days later and accepted it should have considered Mr X’s medical information in its priority banding. It said it would reassess Mr X’s application. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
37. In early May 2026 the Council offered Mr X a new homelessness application and temporary accommodation. The records show Mr X said he was only interested in a long-term council property. Following enquiries from the Ombudsman, the Council completed its reassessment of Mr X’s housing application on 12 June 2026. It said it considered the November assessment and later letters from Mr X’s doctor to be substantial evidence. It awarded Mr X medium medical priority and upgraded his housing priority to Band B. It backdated the priority to 9 March 2026 as it said this was when it uploaded the medical information.
38. In response to our enquiries the Council said it has sought to balance Mr X’s needs with the practicalities of its housing duties. It considered its offers of self-contained accommodation did this.

My findings

Mr X’s homelessness application

39. Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance on 12 June 2025. The Council immediately offered Mr X interim accommodation which Mr X refused. The accommodation was self-contained and there was no evidence it was unsuitable for Mr X’s needs. The Council was not at fault.
40. The Council assessed Mr X’s homelessness application and accepted a relief duty to Mr X. It again discussed accommodation options with Mr X in September 2025, and he continued to refuse support. The Council was not at fault.
41. Once it had accepted the relief duty the Council had 56 days to decide whether it owed Mr X a main homelessness duty and offer of temporary accommodation. In its conversation with Mr X in November 2025 the Council intimated it would accept a main duty to Mr X but did not do so. By this time over 56 days had passed, and the Council should have decided whether it owed Mr X the main duty. This was fault.
42. On balance, I cannot say this resulted in an injustice to Mr X. The record shows the Council explained what would happen if it offered Mr X a main duty and he still decided to withdraw his homelessness application. Mr X also consistently refused the Council’s offers of homelessness accommodation, and it is likely he would have continued to do so.
43. Had the Council accepted the main duty it would also have increased Mr X’s housing priority. However, the record shows Mr X wanted to withdraw his homelessness application. While the Council was at fault for not deciding whether to accept the main housing duty, it did not result in an injustice to Mr X.

Mr X’s housing application and housing priority

44. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register on 15 July 2025, and the Council confirmed his application and priority band on 1 September 2025, after receiving information from Mr X at the end of August 2025. The Council awarded Mr X band C priority to reflect his general housing needs, with an uplift for his time in the armed forces. The priority banding reflected the information the Council had at the time. The Council was not at fault for its initial assessment of Mr X’s housing application and the priority band it awarded.
45. Following the Council’s decision, Mr X told the Council he was unhappy with his priority band several times but did not provide additional information that warranted a review of the case.
46. The Council continued to assess Mr X’s housing needs, carrying out an assessment in November 2024. The assessment specified the requirements of the type of property Mr X needed but did not refer to any medical needs that would impact his housing priority. The Council received supporting medical information in December 2025 and February 2026.
47. The Council reviewed this information in March 2026 but took no immediate action. In its stage two complaint response it accepted it should consider the medical information from Mr X. It said it would re-assess Mr X but did not do so until June 2026, after the Ombudsman asked for an update on the re-assessment.
48. The Council delayed considering the medical information from Mr X and failed to re-assess his case when it said it would in its complaint response. This was fault and caused Mr X uncertainty over his medical priority. When the Council did review the information, it changed Mr X’s banding to band B and backdated this to March 2026. While some of the information had come in sooner, I am satisfied this reflects the date the Council reviewed the information and should have decided Mr X’s medical priority. While the Council delayed reviewing the information I am satisfied this did not impact Mr X’s housing priority or effective date, as the Council back dated his housing priority.

Back to top

Action

49. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty caused by its delay assessing his medical priority. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
50. The Council’s complaint handling policy is in line with our published guidance – the Complaint Handling Code. However, we have identified fault with how it has dealt with this complaint because it failed to follow through its proposed remedy to completion. In order to prevent similar faults from happening, the Council has agreed to review how it is applying its policy in practice, using this decision as part of that review, and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints. The Council should do this within three months of the final decision.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault causing injustice and have recommended actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman