Summary: Miss X complained about delays and errors in the way the Council has dealt with both her homelessness application and her application for the housing register. We found there were significant delays and errors in the way the Council progressed Miss X’s homeless application which amount to fault. The Council’s failure to complete a review of Miss X’s request for medical priority is also fault. Miss X has experienced uncertainty and distress and incurred financial expense as a result of this fault. The Council will apologise and make payments to Miss X and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about delays and errors in the way the Council has dealt with both her homelessness application and her application for the housing register.
2. Miss X complained the Council failed to consider her circumstances and wrongly told her to remain in her property until she was evicted and has not provided alternative accommodation.
3. In addition Miss X complained the Council wrongly refused to award medical priority to her housing application and has delayed in considering her request to review this decision.

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. 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.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

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.
10. 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)
11. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives 'reason to believe' they 'may be' homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

The relief duty

12. 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)

The main housing duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198).

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

14. 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)

Housing allocations

15. 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))
16. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises. It uses a banding scheme to prioritise applications. Those with the highest priority will be awarded Band 1, and those with the lowest priority are awarded Band 5.
17. Councils must notify applicants in writing of decisions that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation and give reasons. The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))

What happened here

18. Miss X applied to join the housing register in May 2024. The Council awarded Miss X Band 5 priority. In July 2024 Miss X requested medical priority and provided additional medical evidence in August 2024. She chased the Council for a response the following month.
19. On 13 September 2024 Miss X told the Council she had received notice from her landlord and was due to be evicted on 7 November 2024.
20. The Council’s medical assessment panel considered the medical request and decided not to award medical priority. On 21 October 2024 Miss X asked for review of this decision. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s request but she did not receive a substantive response. Miss X contacted her MP for assistance and they asked the Council for an update. The Council told Miss X a medical assessment panel would consider her case shortly and would notify her of the outcome.
21. The Council also acknowledged that Miss X had contacted the Council regarding her eviction but due to an increase in the number of people approaching the Council as homeless it had not yet contacted her. The Council said Miss X’s case had been escalated so she would be contacted urgently to discuss her potential options.
22. A housing advisor contacted Miss X on 27 November 2024 to discuss her housing situation and asked her to provide further information. On 6 December 2024 the Council then wrote to Miss X closing her case as she had not contacted the Council since 7 November 2024. Miss X told the Council she had tried multiple times to send the information and would resend it. Miss X’s representative, Ms Y sent the requested information on 9 December 2024.
23. Ms Y contacted the Council again in January 2025 requesting updates in relation to both Miss X’s homeless application and her request for a medical priority review. The Council told Ms Y that Miss X was on the waiting list for a case worker.
24. In early March 2025 Ms Y sent the Council details of Miss X’s court hearing listed for 11 April 2025. A homeless prevention officer (HPO) arranged to speak with Miss X on 4 April 2025 to discuss her situation and carry out an assessment of her needs. The officer asked Miss X to inform them of the court decision and said they would arrange a further meeting in May 2025
25. The court granted Miss X’s landlord possession of the property at the hearing on 11 April 2025 and required Miss X to leave by 23 May 2025.
26. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council in early April 2025. She also contacted us for assistance with her complaint. We referred this back to the Council to respond under its complaints process.
27. The HPO sent Miss X a copy of the assessment document on 19 May 2025 and asked her to confirm the information was correct and to provide income and expenditure information. Ms Y told the Council Miss X was reluctant to accept private rental properties due to the costs. She also needed a ground floor property due to her health issues and access to a garden for her mental health.
28. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 20 May 2025. Miss X was not satisfied by the response and asked for her complaint to be considered further.
29. The Council then wrote to Miss X on 25 June 2025 advising it had accepted a relief duty. It also confirmed it believed she may have a priority need due to her health issues. The Council told Miss X it had a duty to provide interim temporary accommodation. It also sent Miss X a retrospective Personal Housing Plan and encouraged Miss X to work through the actions.
30. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 26 June 2025. It acknowledged the delay in providing a decision on Miss X’s homeless application, which should have been issued in a timely manner and apologised for this. The Council also confirmed that based on Miss X’s medical evidence it considered ground floor or level access accommodation, served by a lift no higher than first floor would be suitable to meet her needs.
31. In its response the Council also wrongly advised Miss X to contact the Housing Ombudsman Service if she remained unhappy, rather than us.
32. Miss X asked the Council to amend her priority on the housing register to reflect her homelessness and for this to be backdated. In early July 2025 the Council confirmed Miss X had been awarded Band 2 priority on the housing register based on her homelessness..
33. In early September 2025 Miss X received a notice of eviction from the court. The eviction would take place on 15 October 2025. The Council wrote to Miss X on 17 September 2025 accepting the main housing duty.
34. The Council nominated Miss X for a direct offer of a property which would be available at the end of October 2025. The Council subsequently advised Miss X the property was no longer available and that there were not currently any other properties she could be nominated for.
35. During a conversation on 8 October 2025 the HPO said they would seek approval for temporary accommodation. They said if this was agreed the Council would generally source accommodation on the day of the eviction. The officer agreed to check whether, given Miss X’s circumstances, the Council would provide accommodation before the eviction date.
36. The HPO subsequently confirmed the request for temporary accommodation had been approved from 14 October 2025. However they advised Miss X most accommodation would not accept Miss X’s cat and that the Council could not provide a female only hotel.
37. The Council’s records show there was no suitable accommodation available on 14 October 2025. Miss X asked to be put on a waiting list for temporary accommodation that would allow her cat and said she would sofa surf with a friend in the meantime. Miss X told the Council she could only stay with her friend for four weeks.
38. In response to my enquiries the Council says there was a delay in accepting a homeless duty as the Council had a backlog of cases which were being assessed by urgency when allocating to an HPO. It says it still owes Miss X the main housing duty, which it accepted in September 2025. And that Miss X is currently being considered for a direct offer of a property.
39. In response to the draft decision the Council says its homelessness service capacity and capability of response has increased significantly since Miss X’s case. And delays in assessing cases has reduced significantly.
40. The Council also says it has reviewed it processes for housing applications and has introduced new technology driven solutions. This has enabled officers to be more focussed on complex categories. The Council aims for all assessments to be carried out with 30 days from April 2026. In addition the Council has created two new bespoke review officers to increase its review capacity, with the aim of completing all reviews within 56 days.

Analysis

41. It is clear from the documentation that there have been delays and errors in the way the Council has dealt with Miss X’s homelessness application.
42. Miss X presented as homeless in September 2024, having received a notice to quit which expired in November 2024. But the Council did not allocate an officer to assess Miss X’s case until April 2025. It was then a further two and a half months before the Council accepted it owed Miss X a duty. By this stage the court had granted Miss X’s landlord a possession order.
43. The delay in accepting a homeless application and accepting a duty to assist Miss X is fault. Although the Council also accepted a duty to provide interim accommodation at this stage, it did not offer Miss X alternative accommodation. This is also fault.
44. When the Council accepted the main housing duty in September 2025 it again failed to offer Miss X temporary accommodation. It instead told Miss X it would arrange for accommodation on the day she was evicted. Although the Council then agreed to provide accommodation the day before Miss X was evicted, it could not source suitable temporary accommodation. The failure to provide temporary accommodation is fault.
45. Once the Council accepted a duty to provide Miss X with temporary accommodation it should have immediately taken action to source this. It should not have told Miss X to remain at her property until her eviction by bailiffs.
46. I also consider the Council’s failure to respond to Miss X’s request to review her medical priority is fault. Miss X requested a review in October 2024, but there is no record that this has been actioned. Miss X’s priority on the housing register was updated to reflect her homeless status in July 2025, but there is no evidence of any further consideration of her medical needs.
47. Having identified fault I must consider whether this has caused Miss X a significant injustice.
48. Miss X experienced uncertainty, distress and frustration, as a results of the errors and delays in the homelessness process, at what was already a difficult time. But for the Council’s faults I consider, on the balance of probabilities the Council would have accepted a homeless duty and a duty to provide temporary accommodate for Miss X months earlier.
49. I recognise that given Miss X’s reluctance to rehome her cat the Council may have been unable to immediately identify suitable temporary accommodation, which Miss X would have accepted. But consider the Council would have sourced temporary accommodation or made a direct offer significantly sooner. And that Mrs X could have avoided the court costs involved in the possession proceedings.
50. The delay in accepting a homelessness duty also delayed the increase in Miss X’s priority banding on the housing register. This together with the failure to review her medical priority exacerbated her distress and uncertainty.
51. I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise this distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

52. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X for the distress, and uncertainty she has experienced as a result of the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• pay Miss X £750 to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty she has experienced as a result of the fault identified;
• reimburse Miss X the court and bailiff costs she incurred in the eviction proceedings;
53. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
54. The Council has also agreed to:
• provide details of the action it is taking to reduce the time it is taking to allocate and assess homeless applications;
• carry out a review of its procurement of temporary accommodation and identify ways of increasing the supply of different types of self-contained temporary accommodation;
• provide guidance/ training for officers to ensure that homelessness applicants who the Council accepts a duty to provide interim accommodation for, receive suitable accommodation;
• issue a reminder to its staff who respond to complaints about housing and homelessness, about the difference between the Housing Ombudsman and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, and where to direct complainants.
55. The Council should take this action within three month of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman