Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to correctly respond to her homelessness application. We find no fault in the Council’s actions as it took a considered approach to reach a solution based on the individual circumstance of the case.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to correctly respond to her homelessness application. Miss X told us that as a result, her family’s needs have not been met, and the process has been detrimental to their physical and mental health. Miss X also told us the family have been in crisis, their relationships have broken down, and they have been unable to access work, therapy and education. Miss X would like the Council to issue its homelessness decision based on professional evidence and provide suitable accommodation.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. Miss 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

Legal and administrative background

5. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Homelessness

6. 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.
7. 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 to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
8. There is no simple, single test for reasonableness. Council’s must assess reasonableness on a case by case basis.
9. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 says if a Council has reason to believe a person may be homeless, or threatened with homelessness within the next 56 days, the housing authority must make enquiries to decide if they are eligible and, if so, whether it owes them a duty.
10. 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.

11. If a Council decides there is no reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, there is no right to a review of this decision.

Housing allocations

12. 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))
13. 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))

14. 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.
15. 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.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

16. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to anybody which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
17. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
18. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

19. The following is a summary of key events. It is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
20. Miss X submitted a homelessness application to the Council in December 2023. In the application Miss X explained she believed the family was homeless due to being split across two properties, experiencing antisocial behaviour and the two homes did not meet the family’s disability needs. Miss X provided an occupational therapy report in support of her application.
21. On receiving Miss X’s application and need for reasonable adjustments, the Council assigned the case to a team manager rather than a housing officer. The team manager requested to meet with Miss X, her advocate and other relevant professionals to discuss the application. This is the Council’s usual process for progressing an application. Miss X declined a meeting and requested to communicate via email.
22. In response to our enquiries the Council explained it was necessary to undertake an assessment of the suitability of Miss X’s property and determine whether it was reasonable for the family to continue living there. The case manager contacted relevant agencies between January 2024 and April 2024 to gather further information to support the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s application.
23. In April 2024, following a complaint from Miss X, Miss X’s case was reallocated to a different service manager. This manager remained in contact with Miss X, supporting agencies and other local housing authorities between April 2024 and October 2025. During this time the Council took steps to explore bespoke solutions to Miss X’s case.
24. Records from May 2024 show the Council did not consider Miss X or her family were at risk of anti-social behaviour, and it did not believe it owed Miss X a duty to provide interim accommodation.
25. In June 2024 the Council told Miss X it had concerns around the circumstances of the occupational therapy report. Due to these concerns, the Council felt it was necessary to obtain additional evidence from both the occupational therapist and other professionals involved in supporting Miss X and the family.
26. The Council’s view remained that there was insufficient professional evidence that the family met the homelessness criteria. The Council did however recognise the family’s medical needs, and it worked with Miss X, multiple agencies and other Council’s to explore bespoke solutions to Miss X’s case. The Council opted to secure Miss X a suitable property through its allocations process as this allowed the Council discretion to make direct offers. This option also allowed Miss X to refuse properties she did not determine to be suitable.
27. During a meeting in September 2024, it was agreed the Council would pause the homelessness application to allow it to pursue direct matches. The Council made Miss X aware that a direct match was the best opportunity to resolve her housing needs.
28. Between April 2024 and October 2025 the Council remained in email communication with Miss X while suitable housing options were explored. The Council offered meetings with Miss X and her advocate when it was appropriate to do so.
29. Miss X was rehoused in October 2025.

My findings

30. The Council took reasonable steps between December 2023 and April 2024 to consider Miss X’s homelessness application and whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to occupy her property.
31. The question of ‘reasonable to occupy’ is for the Council to determine and it is clear from its records the Council did not consider Miss X’s circumstances met the legal definition of homelessness. The Council has provided records of its consideration and its reasoning for reaching this view. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s homelessness application.
32. Had the Council issued a ‘not homeless’ decision in May 2024, it would have had no further duty to support Miss X. Despite the Council’s decision Miss X was not homeless, it recognised the family’s needs, and it took a considered, bespoke approach to explore alternative housing solutions through its allocations scheme.
33. Furthermore, had the Council issued a decision that Miss X was homeless, its duty to secure her accommodation would have been restrictive in a way it felt would not be suitable to her needs.
34. Although the Council did not issue a homelessness decision, in the circumstances of this case, I consider the steps taken by the Council to address Miss X’s housing needs were reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, we do not find the Council at fault for its decision to meet Miss X’s housing needs through a flexible approach.
35. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of its duty to provide reasonable adjustments. The Council allocated Miss X’s case to a senior member of staff to ensure her needs were met. The Council remained in email contact with Miss X which was her preferred choice of communication. When the Council did offer meetings, it took steps to ensure these were accessible.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman