Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he approached it as homeless. We found some fault by the Council as it did not evidence it assessed the suitability of interim accommodation it offered to him. This caused uncertainty and frustration to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic payment to recognise his injustice, and take action to prevent recurrence of this fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. He had concerns with the contact the Council had with him during this period and felt unsupported. He says this caused significant frustration and distress, which severely impacted his physical and mental health needs, and he had to rough sleep and sofa surf.

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, 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. My investigation covers from July 2024 (when the Council considered Mr X’s homelessness approach) to October 2024 (when Mr X received the Council’s final response to his complaint). We expect councils to have the opportunity to formally consider new or ongoing matters under its complaints procedure first before we investigate. Mr X is entitled to make a new complaint if he is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions after this point.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I wrote to Mr X and considered his views.
6. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information (including case records) it provided, 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 received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Homelessness applications

8. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make inquiries into what, if any, duty it owes.
9. 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)
10. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30) Homeless applicants may request a review by the Council within 21 days of the decision on their homelessness application. And if still dissatisfied, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, section 25)

The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy

12. The Council’s policy says if an applicant rejects an offer, whether under S188 or S193 of the Housing Act, the Council will ask the applicant to provide reasons for the refusal. The Council will consider the reasons for refusal given and undertake further enquiries as necessary. If the Council accepts the reasons for refusal and agrees the offer is unsuitable, the offer will be withdrawn and a further offer will be made.
13. Where applicants refuse suitable interim accommodation and the Council does not accept their reasons for refusal, applicants will not be offered further accommodation and will be required to make their own arrangements. There is no right of appeal against the suitability of accommodation offered to applicants under S188 of the Housing Act 1996 (although applicants can apply for judicial review through the courts).

Background

14. Mr X has several medical and mental health conditions which severely impact on his daily living. He lived with a family member. Mr X said he has a live in carer who helps with his day to day needs and stayed in another room.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

15. On 24 July 2024, Mr X contacted the Council. His family member had given him notice to leave their property by 3 August 2024.
16. On 2 August 2024, the Council offered Mr X interim hotel accommodation outside of the area. It had no self-contained options. Mr X did not accept. In contact to me, he said it was not suitable for his long-standing conditions (due to shared access or proximity to others), his care needs, and its location away from services he needed.
17. On 6 August 2024, Mr X spoke to Caseworker 1. He wanted two bedrooms as he had a live in carer. Caseworker 1 said it did not have evidence of him requiring one. Mr X disputes this. As he refused its offer of interim accommodation, another offer would not be made until it accepted a duty. Mr X then approached us. We advised he needed to formally complain to the Council.
18. On 7 August 2024, Caseworker 1 rang Mr X who said he was rough sleeping in a specific field but constantly moving around. Caseworker 1 said the Rough Sleeper team would try to find him. They requested a year of bank statements to progress the case. The Council case record noted Mr X said he had not had a bank account that long and he used inappropriate language. He requested a change of Caseworker. Caseworker 1 arranged a meeting with other professionals to discuss Mr X’s needs. There are no notes from this meeting.
19. On 9 August 2024, Caseworker 1 called Mr X’s family member to confirm the circumstances of Mr X’s homelessness. They declined to speak to the Council.
20. On 13 August 2024, Mr X spoke to Caseworker 1. He agreed to send the bank statements directly by email after issues with uploading them. He gave the area of where he was rough sleeping.
21. On 21 August 2024, Caseworker 1 spoke to Mr X. They informed him the Rough Sleeper team had made attempts to locate him to verify his homelessness and rough sleeping. The Council case record said Mr X used inappropriate language.
22. On 5 September 2024, Mr X texted the Rough Sleeper team and it asked for his location. Mr X said he had also been sofa surfing, but the Council had not contacted him for two weeks.
23. On 17 September 2024, Mr X called the Council to make a formal complaint. He had made frequent calls to the service.
24. On 27 September 2024, the Council sent a Stage One complaint response. He was dissatisfied with Caseworker 1’s contact with him, including out of hours calls. Mr X said he sent information as requested but no progress made. The Council said:
• It acknowledged contact may not have been as frequent as he would have liked. But its caseworkers had to manage different caseloads and priorities. It also noted calls where Mr X used inappropriate language.
• Caseworker 1 had been off work for two weeks and it could not confirm receipt of the bank statements. It asked Mr X to resend them.
• It apologised if he felt distressed at questions asked by Caseworker 1 when discussing his situation. It was not the intention. It was still investigating his case, to decide on whether it owed him a duty.
25. On 30 September 2024, the Council allocated Caseworker 2 to Mr X’s case as Caseworker 1 was on sick leave.
26. On 3 October 2024, the Council updated us on Mr X’s formal complaint. Mr X had not directly escalated his complaint, but it would progress it to Stage Two.
27. On 7 October 2024, Caseworker 2 spoke with Mr X. He said he was sofa surfing.
28. On 10 October 2024, Caseworker 2 spoke with Mr X. His family member had allowed him back to stay at their property as it was winter.
29. Between 14, 15 and 16 October 2024, Mr X resent his bank statements. Caseworker 2 asked Mr X for the most recent ones to cover August to October (the period he said he had been homeless for). Mr X refused to send further information. Mr X later said he could not as he received statements quarterly. Caseworker 2 also asked for the address and contact details of where he had sofa surfed to verify this. Mr X refused to provide further information. Caseworker 2 said they were trying to assist him but could not without the information needed.
30. On 18 October 2024, Caseworker 2 told Mr X the information he sent about his carer was not sufficient to support a two-bedroom need. They acknowledged he had a carer, but it needed evidence he required a live-in carer. It said this could be confirmation from Adult Social Care or GP.
31. On 18 October 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at Stage Two. It did not uphold it. It was satisfied it had provided the relevant support around his homeless application. It said he had not provided all the requested information or full medical information about his care needs to consider. We then accepted Mr X’s complaint.
32. On 28 October 2024, the Council issued a decision letter to Mr X. It decided it was not satisfied he was homeless and so it did not owe a duty to him. The letter explained in detail why. This included concerns he had provided misleading and false information, was withholding information, and it could not verify his rough sleeping. It believed he had alternative accommodation he was not disclosing.
33. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Mr X sent it an appointment letter for Adult Mental Health services and a proof of prescription for medication he used.
34. The Council said Mr X has since made a new homeless approach to it in March 2025. It is currently working with him on this application.

Analysis

35. The Ombudsman makes impartial decisions based on evidence. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what we think is more likely to have happened.

Interim accommodation

36. The Council recognised its S188 interim accommodation duty and made an offer. But under this duty, offers should be suitable for the needs of the applicant. There is no evidence to show the Council assessed the suitability of the hotel or that it followed its policy at Paragraphs 12 and 13. I cannot see what it told Mr X about the hotel. It also did not record if, or how, it considered his reasons for refusal and what view it came to. This is fault.
37. Caseworker 1 arranged a meeting with professionals to discuss Mr X’s case. This is appropriate, however there are no notes. This is poor record keeping. It cannot evidence if it made enquiries about his needs (e.g. his carer and conditions) which could inform the suitability of the offer.
38. In a later record, Caseworker 1 said to Mr X it would not make another offer unless it owed a duty to him. This indicated it decided its offer was suitable. But if this was the case, it needed to record why. It cannot demonstrate how it decided this, particularly in view of his mental health conditions. The Council has not shown proper consideration of this at the time or recorded its decision making. This is fault.
39. When we find fault, we then consider the injustice. On balance, I cannot say if the Council would have considered the hotel to be unsuitable if it did record an assessment at the time. Accommodation can be suitable for a short period on an emergency basis while a council makes further enquiries or looks for alternatives. However, the Council’s failure to record a rationale on suitability caused Mr X significant frustration and uncertainty as to whether it properly considered his needs and if it should have considered another offer. This is his injustice.
40. Mr X said he rough slept and sofa surfed as a result. It was his own decision not to accept the hotel. But the Rough Sleeper asked for Mr X’s location several times between August and September. The Council recorded attempts to find him, but it could not locate him. This is not fault by the Council. These were reasonable steps to take to offer him support and as part of its enquiries to satisfy itself of his homelessness.

Communication with caseworkers

41. Mr X said caseworkers were rude with unprofessional behaviour, ignored him, and unnecessarily asked him to repeatedly provide information. He said this affected his mental health.
42. Emails and case records show the caseworkers contacted Mr X within general working hours, and they were factual and professional. Mr X may have disagreed with some questions asked or updates given, but this is not fault. I have not seen evidence of inappropriate behaviour by the Council on this part. Also, the Council’s records say phone calls with Mr X were sometimes challenging. Mr X strongly disputes this, but I cannot say either way. However, the Council’s records have noted this and it is entitled to consider and manage this.
43. The Council was also entitled to ask for specific information so it could reach a decision on his homelessness. At points, the Council reviewed what Mr X provided and explained why it was not sufficient and advised what was needed. This is not fault by the Council.
44. When Mr X initially sent the bank statements via email, these should have been uploaded onto his file. But the Council said it could not confirm if Caseworker 1 received them in August. This is not good practice. Councils should have systems to retrieve staff emails in circumstances with unexpected leave. This caused frustration to Mr X. But I note the Council appropriately explained the situation, and Mr X resent them later. As time had passed, it needed the most up to date statements. I understand why Mr X refused due to the concerns with his previous information, but that was his choice.

Progress of the application

45. The caseworkers carried out enquiries to decide what duty, if any, it owed to Mr X. Guidance says councils should make decisions with homeless applications within a reasonable timescale. There is no set time but there should not be an unreasonably long delay.
46. I understand Mr X made frequent calls and the Council’s contact did not meet his expectations which frustrated him, but records show the Council generally responded in reasonable timeframes.
47. At the end of August, there was a two-week gap in contact from the Council. When Mr X contacted it again in early September, the Rough Sleeper team made further attempts to find him. There was another gap of around three weeks (during which Mr X made his formal complaint, and the Council responded) as Caseworker 1 went on unexpected leave. This was outside the Council’s control.
48. I note the gaps above which caused Mr X distress. These were not significant delays, and I recognise the Council noted difficulties with Mr X’s behaviour (which he disagrees with). However, given Mr X’s vulnerabilities and potential urgency of his circumstances at the time, the Council could have managed this more effectively, for example with a named point of contact (when Caseworker 1 became unavailable) to respond to Mr X. But when Caseworker 2 was allocated, they were in regular contact with Mr X up until the Council made its decision on his homelessness.
49. Ultimately, the events Mr X complains about led to the Council formally deciding it was not satisfied he was homeless, so did not owe a duty to him. I address this below.

Not homeless decision

50. In its late October 2024 decision letter, the Council clearly set out how and why it had reached its view based on the information it considered. Mr X said several points were wrong or untrue. But Mr X had the right to request an internal review of the Council’s decision (which we would expect him to do) and then appeal to the county court if he did not agree with the outcome.
51. In any event, this happened after Mr X received the Council’s final response to his complaint. It is not within the scope of my investigation, and I am not considering this part further (see Paragraph 4).

Back to top

Action

52. The Council has agreed to carry out the following actions:
• Within one month of the final decision: Apologise to Mr X in writing for the injustice caused and pay him a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise his frustration and uncertainty.
• Within two months of the final decision: Send written reminders to relevant housing staff that they should clearly record its decision making on how it has assessed suitability of interim accommodation offered to applicants, and how it has considered any reasons for refusal.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations, and my investigation is complete.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman