Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed processing his homeless application and it did not taken any action to help him in line with its duties. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application and its failure to provide him with interim accommodation. These faults caused Mr X frustration and distress, and he was deprived of suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr X and make payments to reflect his injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his homeless application in 2022. He also complained the Council delayed processing his homeless application in 2024, and it did not take any action to help him in line with its duties.
2. Mr X says the matter caused distress and upset and his mental health suffered. He said he had no option but to rough sleep because of the Council’s failures.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated how the Council handled Mr X’s homeless application from 2024. I have not investigated matters from 2022 as they are late (as per paragraph four of this statement), and I am satisfied Mr X could have bought his earlier concerns to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

9. 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. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. 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)

What happened

13. Mr X completed an online homeless application on 19 March 2024. He said he had received an eviction notice which said he had to leave his property.
14. Mr X says he visited Council offices five times after completing his application to get help and support, but it did not help him. The Council does not have records of these visits.
15. Mr X complained to the Council in April. He said it had failed to provide him with any help and support.
16. Mr X’s GP wrote a letter in support of his application. He said Mr X was homeless and was suffering from a mental health crisis.
17. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the end of May. It said the team was busy, but it would look at his application and decide if it could help him.
18. The Council assigned an officer to Mr X’s case in June. She contacted Mr X in mid-June and completed an assessment of his circumstances. Mr X explained he had been evicted from his house in March, and he was suffering from mental health issues. The officer asked Mr X for some further information, which he provided the following week.
19. The Council emailed Mr X at the beginning of July. It said it owed him the relief duty, and it also sent a personalised housing plan (PHP). The PHP said Mr X should provide details of what he had done to find alternative accommodation. The Council provided links to websites in the PHP where Mr X could look for housing. It said it had sent his medical documents to its medical advisor to assess whether his medical conditions met the priority need threshold. It said it could only offer interim accommodation to clients who met the threshold.
20. Mr X emailed the Council a few days later. He said the links in the PHP did not work and there was nothing in it that would help him resolve his homelessness. He also said he had been rough sleeping for over three months, and therefore he wanted to know when he would receive a response. He chased for a response the following week and attached further medical information. The Council responded and said it had sent the further information to its medical advisor. Mr X sent a further email two days later and asked when it would respond to his email about the PHP.
21. Mr X did not receive a response to his emails and so sent two further chasers.
22. Mr X referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure in August. He said it had failed to provide him with interim accommodation. He also said the housing officer had not responded to his emails or provide support.
23. The Council emailed Mr X on 21 August and said he did not have priority need. It sent a further letter the following week and said it was ending the relief duty, and it did not owe him any further homelessness duties. It said he could ask for a review of both of its decisions within 21 days.
24. The Council issued a further response to Mr X’s complaint in October. It apologised for the delay in assigning his case to an officer and progressing his application. It offered £250 for the delays in responding to his complaints and progressing his homelessness application.

Back to top

Analysis

25. There are no statutory time limits for making decisions in homelessness cases. However, we would expect authorities to conduct assessments, take necessary actions and make decisions, in a reasonable timeframe. Mr X approached the Council on 19 March 2024, but it did not contact him to start its assessment until mid-June 2024. This was not a reasonable timeframe, and I therefore find the Council was at fault. This caused Mr X frustration, distress and upset. Mr X’s landlord evicted him from the property at the beginning of April 2024 and so the Council’s delays had a significant impact on him.
26. Mr X told the Council the links to help him search for housing in the PHP did not work. It was clear he was asking for help to resolve his homelessness. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s emails about this or provide him with any further help. This is not in line with the Council’s relief duties. This fault caused Mr X distress and left him feeling the Council did not want to help him.
27. The Council was also at fault for its delays in responding to Mr X’s complaint. It should have responded at both stages within 20 working days. It exceeded these timescales at both stages, and significantly so at stage two. These faults caused Mr X further frustration.
28. The section 188 duty to arrange interim accommodation during the relief stage is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty, and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources.
29. The Council awarded Mr X the relief duty, and therefore it decided he was eligible for assistance and homeless. As the Council made enquiries about Mr X’s medical conditions, it must have had reason to believe he was in priority need. Therefore, it should have offered him interim accommodation. Its failure to do so is fault. The Council should have started assessing Mr X’s homeless application in April 2024. This would have been a reasonable timescale (paragraph 25). If it had completed its assessment then, it is more likely than not it would have had enough information to believe Mr X was homeless, eligible and in priority need. It should have therefore offered him interim accommodation then until it made its non-priority need decision on 21 August 2024. The Council’s fault means Mr X was deprived of suitable accommodation, which is a significant injustice. Mr X told the Council repeatedly he was street homeless and had nowhere suitable to live.
30. The Council apologised to Mr X and offered him £250. While I welcome the Council’s attempts to resolve this matter, I have made further recommendations to fully reflect Mr X’s injustice.
31. We have asked the Council in other similar cases to produce an action plan on what it is doing to address the delays in processing homeless applications and review its procedures to ensure it responds to complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. I have therefore not made any further service improvement recommendations in this case.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. By 16 June 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by faults in this statement.
• Pay Mr X the £250 it offered in its complaint response for his frustration, distress and upset.
• Pay Mr X a further £600 to reflect the time he was without suitable accommodation.

33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

34. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman