Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to consider evidence she provided in its decisions about her housing circumstances. She also said the Council failed to provide advice or follow correct procedures, communicated poorly, and sent letters to the wrong address. We have found the Council acted with fault by delaying its review of Miss X’s medical evidence. We have found the Council missed opportunities to consider whether Miss X was already homeless, or to consider planning the provision of interim accommodation. We have also found the Council communicated poorly. We cannot say how Miss X’s circumstances would have been different, but for the faults occurring, which causes uncertainty for Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, pay a financial remedy to recognise the uncertainty caused, and provide training for its officers. There are parts of Miss X’s complaint we cannot investigate. We explain why in our decision statement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her requests for help with her housing circumstances. Miss X said the Council:
1. Failed to consider information she provided about her housing circumstances in its decision-making;
2. Failed to offer appropriate advice or follow correct procedures;
3. Failed to communicate properly for a prolonged period; and
4. Sent correspondence to an incorrect address, despite being made aware of the correct address.
2. Miss X said the Council’s faults caused avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. She also said she lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she otherwise would have, affecting her physical and mental wellbeing.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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.
7. 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

8. A significant part of Miss X’s complaint concerns a property the Council allocated to her in mid-October 2024, which I refer to as Property Y in this statement. Miss X said this property was in poor condition; unsuitable for her medical needs, affecting her wellbeing; and in an area far from her support networks. Miss X also complained about the Council’s communication and decision-making from November 2024 onwards, which included closing and re-opening her housing application, affecting her ability to bid for new properties.
9. I have not investigated this part of Miss X’s complaint. These matters had not yet been the subject of a complaint to the Council and they occurred after our investigation started. I understand Miss X made a separate complaint about these matters. It would be open to Miss X to bring that complaint to the Ombudsman, in the event she is dissatisfied with the Council’s response.
10. The Council also provided Miss X with the right to request a review of Property Y’s suitability in January 2025. Miss X would be able to appeal to the county court on a point of law, if she was dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her review request. The Ombudsman would expect someone to use this review right if it was available to them and so I would not take a view on the suitability of Property Y now.
11. The restrictions in paragraph 4 and 5 therefore apply.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered information she provided.
13. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
14. Both Miss X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Homelessness

15. 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)
16. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:
• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)
17. 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.
18. The law says a person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, considering the circumstances of the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3))
19. There are several provisions relating to whether or not it is reasonable for someone to continue to occupy accommodation, including the physical characteristics of the property being unsuitable for the applicant. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 6.39, 6.40)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

20. 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

21. 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

22. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
23. Local authorities do not have to provide interim accommodation during the prevention duty, because the applicant is not homeless at this stage. However, local authorities should take the opportunity to plan for interim accommodation in advance where possible, so as to allow the household time to plan for its commitments in the event they become homeless. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 14.22)

The relief duty

24. 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)

Priority need

25. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

Decision letters and review rights

26. 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)

Back to top

What I found

Summary of events

27. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
28. In early 2024, Miss X approached the Council for help with her housing circumstances. Miss X told the Council she was living with family after her landlord had sold her former home at short notice. Miss X said the living arrangements were unsuitable.
29. The Council completed an assessment of Miss X’s circumstances and issued a Personal Housing Plan (PHP). It also confirmed it had accepted the prevention duty towards Miss X.
30. In February 2024, after making further enquiries, the Council decided to end its prevention duty towards Miss X. It wrote to Miss X to explain its decision. It provided Miss X with a right of review.
31. In April 2024, Miss X contacted the Council. She told the Council she had mobility difficulties and her current living arrangements were making these worse. The Council told Miss X she should speak with her doctor and provide new evidence about her medical conditions to the Council. Miss X sent this new information to the Council on 23 April 2024.
32. In May 2024, Miss X contacted the Council again. The Council provided general advice on bidding for suitable properties.
33. In June 2024, Miss X wrote to the Council. She said she had uploaded supporting medical evidence in April, but the Council had not contacted her about this since then, despite her seeking updates. She said her health was getting significantly worse, due to sofa-surfing with family in an overcrowded property, while having worsening mobility problems. She said this was affecting her overall wellbeing and putting her employment at risk.
34. Miss X contacted the Council several more times in June 2024, seeking a response. In mid-June, she complained to the Council.
35. On 25 June 2024, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint:
1. The Council set out the actions it had taken when Miss X first approached.
2. The Council apologised for its lack of response about Miss X’s medical evidence. It said it would allocate a new advisor and would complete a new assessment with Miss X. It said it would review any relevant medical evidence.
36. Miss X replied to the Council on the same day. She set out her concerns with its response. She also detailed the ongoing impact to her wellbeing, as well as the strain on her finances and relationships with family members. Miss X said she needed help and somewhere else to live.
37. In late June 2024, the Council escalated Miss X’s complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure.
38. On 18 July 2024, the Council completed a new housing assessment with Miss X. It issued a new PHP and again accepted the prevention duty towards Miss X. The Council wrote to Miss X to confirm this. It awarded Band B housing priority.
39. On 25 July 2024, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It set out its recent actions and said it could refer Miss X to some services that could offer support. It explained waiting times for its social housing properties were lengthy. It set out how it could offer help and advice on private sector accommodation.
40. In late July 2024, the Council completed a private-rented sector assessment with Miss X and signposted her to other support services.
41. In August 2024, Miss X contacted the Council on several occasions about her housing circumstances. Miss X chased for a response, eventually speaking with her caseworker on 20 August 2024. The Council’s records show:
1. Miss X told the Council she could not stay in certain temporary accommodation, due to the risk associated with her previous employment.
2. Miss X provided an update on her worsening health conditions, including a specific diagnosis that would mean she needed surgery. Following surgery, she would need complete rest.
42. The Council increased Miss X’s priority from Band B to Band A and backdated this to July 2024.
43. In September 2024, Miss X contacted the Council. The Council’s records show Miss X was frustrated at being unable to contact her caseworker. She also highlighted that she continued to sofa-surf and the worsening impact this was having on her health.
44. On 11 October 2024, Miss X contacted the Council seeking emergency accommodation. She said she had been discharged from hospital following surgery. She could no longer stay with family, as this would hinder her recovery. The Council’s records show on the day Miss X called, it decided to end its prevention duty and assumed the interim accommodation and relief duties. In its phone call with Miss X, it offered interim accommodation in a hostel. However, the Council’s notes show Miss X declined this as being unsuitable for reasons she had previously set out. The Councils records state Miss X would remain with her family over the weekend, before contacting the Council again the following Monday.
45. On 17 October 2024, the Council said it matched Miss X to Property Y, a social housing property managed by a housing association (Association S).
46. On 26 October 2024, Miss X moved into Property Y.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

47. When Miss X first contacted the Council in early 2024, it completed an assessment and produced a PHP. It accepted the prevention duty and wrote to Miss X to confirm this decision. The Council explained the basis for its decision and the relevant legal framework. It also provided Miss X with the right to ask for a review of this decision. A short time later, having made further enquiries, the Council decided it would discharge its prevention duty towards Miss X. It wrote to her to advise her of this decision and the reasons for it. It again provided Miss X with the right to ask for a review. The Council’s actions here were consistent with the requirements of the Code. I have not found the Council at fault for how it initially accepted and discharged the prevention duty towards Miss X.
48. In April 2024, Miss X provided a supporting letter from her doctor confirming her worsening conditions. Between April and June 2024, Miss X tried to get the Council to review this information and decide what action it needed to take. Miss X often received holding responses, or correspondence referring her to other services. Miss X repeatedly emphasised the cumulative impact the situation was having on her overall wellbeing. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had not sufficiently responded to Miss X. It offered her a new housing assessment, which took place in mid-July 2024. I agree with the Council’s assessment of its actions and have found the Council at fault for its delay in completing a new assessment of Miss X’s housing circumstances.
49. I have not found the Council acted with fault in how it accepted the prevention duty a second time in July 2024. Its actions here were also consistent with the Code.
50. From April 2024, Miss X consistently set out how the accommodation she was living in was unsuitable for her needs, due to the impact on her health. In August 2024, the Council increased Miss X’s housing priority from Band B to Band A, backdating this to mid-July 2024. The Council told me it increased Miss X’s priority because it decided she was both threatened with homelessness and had a priority need, due to her worsening ill health.
51. Given the Council accepted Miss X now had a priority need and her health conditions had worsened, the Council missed an opportunity to consider whether the accommodation Miss X then occupied remained suitable for her. The Council did not consider whether Miss X would already be considered homeless and whether it therefore owed the relief duty, on the grounds set out in paragraph 19. Even if the Council had considered this and decided it still owed a prevention duty, Miss X’s likely need for suitable interim accommodation was now foreseeable, given the prospect of otherwise having to recover from an operation in her current unsuitable environment. As paragraph 23 sets out, councils should take the opportunity to plan for interim accommodation in advance where possible. The Council had one such opportunity here, especially given that where Miss X said she could stay was restricted, due to risks from her previous employment, complicating matters. I have seen no evidence it considered this.
52. I have found the Council at fault for failing to consider whether it was reasonable for Miss X to continue to stay in her existing accommodation at the same time it decided she had a priority need. I have also found the Council at fault for failing to consider whether it should plan for Miss X to transfer to suitable interim accommodation as part of its support for her.
53. The Council’s records, and Miss X’s account of events, show Miss X frequently faced difficulty getting her calls and correspondence returned. Miss X frequently sought direct contact with her allocated caseworker regarding her worsening health and housing circumstances at a critical time, but did not have her calls or messages consistently returned. I have found the Council at fault for its inconsistent communication with Miss X during this period.
54. In early October 2024, Miss X said she was unable to return to her existing accommodation to recuperate, due to the impact this accommodation would have on her recovery. The Council’s records show it decided it could no longer assist Miss X under a prevention duty. It accepted both the interim accommodation and relief duties towards Miss X. In doing so, it accepted Miss X was homeless. However, it did not tell Miss X this.
55. The Code says these decisions must be given to the applicant in writing. They also come with relevant rights of review. I have found the Council at fault for failing to notify Miss X it had ended its prevention duty. I have also found the Council at fault for failing to tell Miss X it had accepted both the interim accommodation and relief housing duties towards her, and for failing to provide Miss X with the right to ask for a review of these decisions.
56. The Council offered Miss X interim accommodation in a hostel. The Council’s records do not show how it assessed this interim accommodation was suitable for her needs. I have found the Council at fault for this.
57. I have seen no evidence the Council sent correspondence for Miss X to an incorrect address. I have not found the Council at fault on this point.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

58. I recognise the Council accepted it had delayed reviewing Miss X’s medical evidence and conducted a new assessment. Conducting a new assessment partially addressed the injustice caused. However, had the Council assessed Miss X’s new medical evidence when she provided it, on the balance of probabilities we can say it would have reassumed the prevention duty around three months earlier than it did. This may have led to greater support and advice over time. It is clear from the Council’s records that Miss X increasingly sought contact with the Council as her health worsened. The Council’s response, particularly between mid-July and September 2024, was inconsistent, with many of Miss X’s calls and messages being passed around or going unreturned. This compounded an already difficult situation for Miss X, causing injustice through avoidable distress and frustration.
59. When the Council decided Miss X had priority need in August 2024, it missed an opportunity to consider whether she was already effectively homeless, or whether it should consider planning to help Miss X identify suitable interim accommodation, given her upcoming operation and need for recovery. The impact of these events could have potentially been mitigated with better planning and communication on the Council’s part. The Council told the Ombudsman the pressures on its homelessness services are considerable and interim accommodation is in short supply, which limits its ability to plan. I note this is the case. However, even on the balance of probabilities, I cannot say what the Council would have decided, had it turned its mind to these matters at this point, or whether it could have identified suitable interim accommodation for Miss X in time, had it looked. This causes uncertainty over whether things could have been different. This uncertainty is an injustice to Miss X.
60. The Council instead had to respond quickly and reactively to address Miss X’s urgent housing need, following her hospital discharge. The Council ended its prevention duty and accepted both the interim and relief duties. However, it did not tell Miss X about any of these decisions, explain what these new duties meant, or provide Miss X with the appropriate rights of review. This likely created a gap in Miss X’s understanding of what the Council should be doing to help address her homelessness or provide support, and what her rights were. However, these decisions were not adverse, and the Council did seek interim accommodation at the time, which is the action I would expect it to take. The failure to notify Miss X of the change in its duty did not cause a specific injustice here. However, the failure to properly notify an application of a change in the housing duty owed could cause injustice to others, if repeated in future.
61. The Council offered interim accommodation in a hostel, which Miss X declined as being unsuitable. I have seen no evidence the Council assessed how this accommodation would be suitable for Miss X’s needs. The Council then placed the onus on Miss X to contact it again, when she should not have had to do so. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration, which is an injustice.

Back to top

Action

62. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when making these recommendations.
63. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Miss X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Miss X £300 in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress identified in this statement.
64. Within three months of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide training for relevant officers on the following:
1. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 6: Homeless or threatened with homelessness. This sets out how authorities should consider the question of whether it is reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy their existing accommodation.
2. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 18: Applications, decisions and notifications. This sets out the need to issue written decisions, including explaining the reasons for adverse decisions.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

66. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman