Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and the behaviour of Council officers. We found no fault on the substantive parts of the complaint. However, there was a delay to share its non-priority decision. The Council’s apology was enough to acknowledge the limited injustice this caused Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr D, complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He said it:
• failed to provide him with support when he asked for help;
• wrongly found he was not in priority need and caused delay in sharing its decision; and
• communicated poorly and in a condescending and unsympathetic manner.
2. He also said it had placed him in an incorrect band on its housing register and about the treatment he received while in a short-term shelter, but the Council had failed to respond to these in its complaint’s responses.
3. Mr D said, as a result, he experienced distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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

7. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr D’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr D and considered the information he provided;
• considered the information the Council provided; and
• had regard to the relevant law, guidance, and policy to the complaint.
8. Mr D 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. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless it must make inquiries to satisfy itself what, if any, duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 (1))
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, from 3 April 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.32 and 18.33)
11. Homeless applicants may request a review by the Council within 21 days of the decision on their homelessness application. And if still dissatisfied, can appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Homelessness Code of Guidance section 25)

Interim accommodation

12. While a Council is carrying out inquiries in an applicant’s case it must also secure accommodation for the applicant 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)
13. A person may be in priority need if they:
• are at risk of domestic abuse;
• are a pregnant woman or live with a pregnant woman;
• have dependant children living with them or who are reasonably expected to live with them;
• lost their accommodation because of an emergency such as a flood, fire or other disaster;
• or someone they live with is vulnerable because of old age, mental health condition or disability. (Housing Act 1996, s189(1))

Relief and main housing duties

14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty.
15. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that where the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days.
16. If the applicant’s homelessness has not been successfully relieved by then, the Council will owe them the main housing duty. The Council must ensure suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until that duty is completed. (Housing Act 1996, section 193(2))

Council’s housing allocations policy

17. The Council allocates eligible applicants on its housing register in accordance with their assessed needs and priority. The bands are:
• Band A – Urgent need for rehousing.
• Band B – Homeless households.

This includes those who have been accepted as unintentionally homeless and owed a main housing duty.

• Band C – Unsatisfactory Housing conditions.

This includes those assessed to meet Medical priority 2 under the Council’s scheme.

• Band D – Threatened with homelessness or living in insecure accommodation.

This includes households who are owed a prevention or relief duty, or in insecure accommodation and would have a priority need if homeless.

18. The Council’s scheme sets out how it awards priority based on medical needs following an assessment. This is set out in two priorities:
• Medical Priority 1 – includes those with urgent medical need for alternative accommodation such as serious or life-threatening illness or disability which affects the applicant’s health very severely; and
• Medical Priority 2 - includes those with a non-urgent medical need for social housing such as significant mental health issues and social housing will demonstrably contribute to alleviating the impact of the medical condition.
19. An applicant can request a review of the Council’s decision within 21 days of being notified about a decision.

What happened

20. In early 2024 Mr D lived in an accommodation which had been rented by his family. Mr D was not a tenant listed in the tenancy agreement. The landlord served notice for the tenants to move out.
21. Mr D subsequently rented a private accommodation where he was living with his landlord. This was a short-term agreement.
22. In May 2024 Mr D asked the Council for help as he would become homeless when the agreement with his landlord was ending, and he could no longer afford the rent as he had lost his job.
23. The Council said it called Mr D soon after and triaged his homelessness application, but Mr D ended the call. It attempted to call him back, but he did not respond.
24. In June 2024 Mr D contacted the Council again for help with homelessness. It allocated an officer who spoke with Mr D and explained it would need to contact his landlord to confirm his homelessness. It said Mr D ended the call and it again tried to call him back.
25. In July 2024 Mr D again contacted the Council for homelessness support. It completed an initial assessment with him and a vulnerability assessment soon after. It told him it would contact his GP for information and his landlord to attempt to reduce the rent payable.
26. The Council contacted Mr D’s landlord a week later which did not lead to a rent reduction, but it was confirmed he would become homeless. It also asked his GP for information, but the GP initially told the Council he was not known to it.
27. A call took place between Mr D and the Council’s allocated officer. Mr D became upset due to the GP issue. He said the officer’s behaviour was poor but also said he had been rude during the call. The officer ended the call with Mr D.
28. The Council received Mr D’s medical information from his GP shortly after.
29. The Council allocated a new officer to Mr D’s case following his request. It also asked him for details of the landlord for his previous accommodation or the family members details, which he shared.
30. Mr D moved out of his accommodation in August 2024. He saw the Council the same day. It provided him with information about shelters he could approach for support.
31. The Council made its decision on Mr D’s homelessness application shortly after. It found he was homeless and eligible for support, but he was not in priority need. However, it did not share its decision with Mr D at the time.

Mr D’s complaint

32. Mr D complained to the Council in August 2024. He said:
• he had been homeless for three weeks sleeping in his car, which worsened his health conditions and depression;
• it had not helped him since May 2024 when he first asked for help and its officers had been unhelpful, unresponsive, and rude and unempathetic;
• he disagreed with its decision he was not in priority needs and its decision to award him Band D on its housing register; and
• he had stayed in two shelters, but these were poor and there had been issues with the manager.
33. Two days later, the Council shared its non-priority decision with Mr D, which explained its medical assessor had considered the information it had received from Mr D and his GP, but it had found his circumstances did not put him at greater risk of suffering more harm than an ordinary person if made homeless. It referred Mr D to support services and explained his review rights.
34. The Council also responded to his complaint, which it did not uphold. It found it had progressed his application and communicated appropriately. It explained the steps it had taken to assess his case and its findings. However, it apologised for not having issued its non-priority decision in early August 2024 due to an error.
35. Mr D asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He repeated his complaint and provided some additional information. He also said it had not responded to the difficulties he had in the shelter accommodations.
36. Mr D also responded to the Council’s non-priority decision. He disagreed with several points of what he could and could not do and referred to his medical circumstances and support he had previously received. He said he could provide evidence of this. Shortly after, he asked the Council to review its non-priority decision.
37. In its final complaint response, the Council did not change its view. Mr D subsequently asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
38. In October 2024 the Council completed its review of Mr D’s non-priority review, which upheld its original decision that he was not in priority need.

Analysis and findings

Council’s handling of Mr D’s homelessness

39. I have not found fault in how the Council handled Mr D’s homelessness application from May to July 2024. This is because following his application in May and June 2024 the calls were ended and the Council attempted to contact him again. It continued the application when he again got in touch with the Council in late July 2024.
40. In late July 2024 when Mr D got back in touch with the Council it progressed his application and sought the necessary information to confirm whether it owed Mr D a prevention and relief duty, including whether he was priority need.
41. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its decision that it owed him relief duty, but he was not in priority need. In reaching my view, I was conscious:
• the evidence shows Mr D’s GP did tell the Council it did not have him on its records, but then soon after shared the medical information it had requested. It is clear this caused Mr D some upset and a short delay, but this was not due to fault by the Council;
• it considered Mr D’s circumstances, the information he provided, and his medical information to reach its view he was not in priority need. I have seen no evidence of fault in the process it followed, it therefore reached a decision it was entitled to make; and
• it found Mr D was owed a relief duty and provided a personal housing plan which he agreed to. I acknowledge Mr D wanted the Council to provide him with accommodation. However, as he had not been found in priority need, this was not something the Council was required to provide. Instead, it made referrals to shelters and other support which may have been helpful to him in the interim until he found appropriate accommodation.
42. However, the Council was at fault for failing to share its non-priority decision with Mr D in early August 2024 when it reached its decision. It was not until around two weeks later it shared this with him. This was fault. The Council acknowledged the fault and apologised to Mr D.
43. While this caused a delay for Mr D to seek a review of the Council’s non-priority decision, I found this did not cause him a significant injustice and its apology was appropriate to acknowledge the impact this caused. This is because Mr D has since sought a review of its decision, and the outcome was unchanged.

Council’s communication and officer behaviour

44. Based on the evidence available, I have not found the Council failed to respond to Mr D’s contacts or caused unnecessary delays in communicating with him. The information provided by the Council and Mr D shows it acknowledged his contacts and responded within reasonable timescales.
45. Also, I acknowledge Mr D believes the officers allocated to his case were rude and unsympathetic, and he found the Council letters insulting. However, I have not found evidence of this in the Council’s emails and decision letters to Mr D. Its communication was factual and necessary to obtain the information it needed to reach its decisions, and its decision clearly set out why it had reached its views.
46. I understand some phone calls with the officers were challenging and Mr D agreed he was rude towards officers. However, based on the evidence available, I cannot say whether the officer behaviour was inappropriate during the calls. It is, however, not fault by the Council for ending calls with applicants if the individual’s behaviour is inappropriate or the call is no longer productive.

Other issues

47. The Council referred Mr D for support to relevant organisations with his agreement. This included shelters where he had the opportunity to receive support through short term accommodation and food. I understand Mr D had issues with two shelters and were unhappy with a manager. However, these were not commissioned by the Council or provided under its homelessness duties. It was therefore not responsible for the placements and the experiences Mr D had. These were therefore not complaint points I would expect the Council to respond to, and Mr D should address such concerns to the shelters directly.
48. The Council placed Mr D in Band D of its housing register, which he said was incorrect as he was homeless.
49. I found the Council correctly applied its allocations policy. This is because:
• it had found Mr D was homeless and eligible for assistance, but he was not in priority need. He therefore did not qualify for Band B priority; and
• Band C priority is for applicants in unsatisfactory housing conditions with an assessed medical need, which did not apply to Mr D.
50. Mr D was therefore not entitled to a higher priority based on the information available to the Council at the time of its decision. If Mr D’s circumstances changes, he can inform the Council or he can request a review of its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault on the substantive parts of the complaint. However, there was a delay to share its non-priority decision. The Council’s apology was enough to acknowledge the limited injustice this caused Mr D.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman