Summary: Ms E complained about the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. She said the Council failed to communicate with her, to follow the correct process and then offered her properties which were not appropriate for her needs. Ms E says the Council has caused her mental and physical health to deteriorate due to the stress it has caused her. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a symbolic payment in recognition of injustice caused to Ms E.

The complaint

1. Ms E complains about the way the Council handled her homelessness application; Specifically, she says:
• the Council has not dealt with her application as it should have;
• the Council’s communication with her was poor; and
• the Council categorised her as eligible for community supported housing when it is inappropriate for her.
2. The Council offered £80 as a symbolic payment for its poor communication. Ms E says this does not reflect the significant impact the Council has had on her and is seeking an increase to this offer.

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. 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.

5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms E and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms E and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

8. 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.
9. 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)
10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council 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)
11. 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)
12. The Code states where an applicant has been served a Section 21 notice of eviction then it is unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the expiry of a valid section 21 notice, unless the council is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation for a reasonable period to provide an opportunity for alternative accommodation to be found.
13. The Code further states it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord. It states it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation up until the point at which a court issues a warrant or writ to enforce an order for possession.

The prevention duty

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

15. 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

16. 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

17. The Localism Act 2011 introduced new freedoms to allow councils to better manage their waiting list and to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs.
18. 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))

What happened

19. Ms E contacted the Council in June 2023 and said she had been told by her landlord that her rent was increasing to an amount which was unaffordable to her. She told the Council she had been served an eviction notice by her landlord which would expire on 5 August.
20. The Council advised Ms E that she did not need to leave the property when the notice period ended as she had a legal right to stay. It also provided some links to information from a homelessness charity about her rights.
21. In July, the Council assessed Ms E and noted that she was over 60 years of age and was struggling with her mental health.
22. The Council did not contact Ms E again until September when the Council accepted the prevention duty and issued a Personalised Housing Plan. The plan stated the Council owed Ms E a duty to take reasonable steps to help keep her current accommodation, or if that was not possible to help her find something else that was suitable before she became homeless.
23. In November 2023, the Council offered properties to Ms E which she declined because they were too far for her. She remained in her private rented property.
24. Ms E’s landlord took court action to remove her from the property and obtained a possession order from the court. Ms E provided the Council with a copy of the Possession Order in December 2023.
25. In January 2024, the Council ended its prevention duty and accepted it owed her a relief duty.
26. The Council’s joint assessment panel considered Ms E and made a decision she was eligible for its Community Supportive Housing. In February 2024, the Council ended its relief duty on this basis.
27. Ms E disagreed with the Council’s decision and asked for a review.
28. Whilst awaiting the outcome of the review, the Council offered a property to Ms E. She viewed the property and told the Council she could not accept a property in that specific area as it was very close to where her ex-partner, who had been abusive to her, still lived. The Council noted this and said it would not offer another property near her ex-partner’s street.
29. In April and again in July 2024, Ms E told the Council she did not need Community Supportive Housing. She says the housing was appropriate for those with mobility needs, and those who were far less independent than she is. She says the property would affect her mental health as it is more appropriate for elderly or more dependent residents.
30. In June 2024, the review panel upheld the Council’s decision.
31. In July the Council offered another property to Ms E and she attended a viewing. Ms E found the property was again very close to the street she had asked the Council to avoid.
32. Ms E was notified bailiffs had been booked to evict her in July 2024, so she then left the property and stayed with friends. Ms E stayed with different friends until she found a private rental property in November 2024 where she has remained since.
33. The Council made a direct offer of a suitable property in August 2024, which Ms E declined as she said the Council had caused too many delays and she was unhappy with how it had dealt with her homelessness application.
34. The Council confirmed its duty had ended as Ms E had declined its offers of suitable accommodation.
35. The complaint was accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman’s office in March 2025. The Council wrote to Ms E in April 2025 and said that as Ms E did not wish to accept an offer of a Community Supportive Housing property, it had registered her for a studio property with a back dated registration date of February 2024 – when it had originally ended its relief duty.
36. Ms E remains unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application and the distress she says it caused to her. She says the Council offered £80 in recognition of its poor communication with her, and this does not reflect the significant impact it has had on her.

Analysis and Findings

37. When Ms E contacted the Council in June 2023, she was threatened with homelessness in accordance with the Homelessness Act 1996. This means the Council owed her the prevention duty from its assessment in the first week of July. Failure to accept its prevention duty at this point is fault.
38. On accepting the prevention duty, the Council should have provided advice and support to see whether it was possible for the landlord to agree not to evict Ms E, or to help her to find alternative accommodation. The fact that this did not happen is an injustice to Ms E.
39. Given the landlord had increased the rent and Ms E did not agree with the new rent, it is more likely than not that the Council could not have prevented Ms E’s subsequent homelessness. This limits the impact of the failure as it seems the eviction was unavoidable. It does leave Ms E with some uncertainty however as to whether the Council could have made any difference to her circumstances.
40. Although the Council assessed Ms E and provided some information to her in July 2024, it did not take any further action for two months.
41. The Council advised Ms E that she had a legal right to remain in the property even after the eviction notice expired. Although this is true, the Code sets out that it is not generally reasonable to expect someone to stay beyond the expiry of an eviction notice. The Council’s failure to take any action here is fault.
42. The Council was aware the notice would expire in early August 2023. Its failure to consider whether it owed the relief duty at that point is fault.
43. If the Council had considered and accepted the relief duty in August, it is likely it would have then taken the same steps as it eventually did in January 2024.
44. If Ms E’s matter was considered by the Council’s joint assessment team, there is no reason to believe she would not have been accepted as eligible for Community Supportive Housing at that time.
45. The injustice caused by a delay in accepting the relief duty is therefore a five month period when Ms E was being pressured by her landlord to vacate the property, while she had no certainty as to what support the Council would provide to her or when.
46. The Council is entitled to decide how to allocate its housing stock to best suit the needs of the people in its area. The Council has provided a copy of its allocations policy which sets out that residents over the age of 60 will be considered for Community Supported Housing, and a decision will be made by its joint assessment team.
47. The decision made by the Council to offer Ms E a property from its Community Supportive Housing is therefore a decision it is entitled to make.
48. However, the Council’s allocation policy does not say what the Council will do if an applicant wants to join the housing register for general needs properties.
49. After the complaint was accepted for investigation by this office, the Council wrote to Ms E to confirm she had been added to its housing register with a backdated registration date to when it confirmed she would be on the Community Supportive Housing scheme.
50. It is logical that if the Council is backdating the registration date to when Ms E should have been added to its register, the correct date is in August 2023.
51. With regard to the £80 the Council offered in recognition of its poor communication. I agree with Ms E that this does not reflect the significance of the injustice caused by the faults identified in this investigation.
52. If the Council had accepted its relief duty in August 2023, it is more likely than not it would have offered a Community Supportive Housing properties. If the Council had agreed to then put Ms E on the register for general needs housing, I cannot say she would have received an offer of a property before she complained to this office. As the demand for those properties is so great and Ms E does not have priority need I cannot conclude she has missed out on an offer of housing she would have accepted.
53. It is my view that Ms E may well have chosen to stay in the property she was in until she was notified bailiffs had been instructed in July 2024.
54. I have therefore recommended the Council make a recognition payment of £650 to acknowledge the delays causing distress and uncertainty in what would have been an already difficult time for Ms E.

Back to top

Agreed Action

55. Within one month of the decision, the Council should:
• apologise to Ms E. 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.
• make a payment of £650 to Ms E; and
• backdate Ms E’s registration on the housing register to August 2023.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take some action in acknowledgement of this.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman