Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Mr Y’s request for housing assistance and for delaying carrying out a social care assessment of his needs. The Council was also at fault for how it handled the complaint. Mr Y had to wait longer for the Council to owe him a homelessness duty, interim accommodation and establish his care needs. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make payments for the distress and frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Mr Y about the way the Council:
• Handled his request for housing help and how it dealt with local connection issues.
• Did not properly assess Mr Y’s social care needs.
• Handled his complaint.
2. Mr X said this left Mr Y without a safe place to live and without support. Mr X said pursuing this with the Council caused his significant distress.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

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. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the Relief Duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, has a priority need and is not homeless intentionally, the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is called the Main Housing Duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
13. A council must secure accommodation for applicants 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)
14. If a councils inquires determine that an applicant has a local connection with the district of another housing authority, the housing authority can refer the case to another housing authority. Where a person has a local connection with the districts of more than one other housing authority, the notifying housing authority should take account of the applicant’s preference in deciding which housing authority to notify. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 10.30 & 10.34)
15. Councils can refer applicants who do not have a local connection to their district to another housing authority in England where they do have such a connection. Before making a referral, the notifying authority must be satisfied that the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance and therefore owed the (section 189B) relief duty and that the conditions for referral are met (Section 198(A1) Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 & Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.37)
16. A council is not subject to the relief duty at the point that they have notified the applicant that they intend to refer or have referred their case to another housing authority. It follows that a housing authority will owe the relief duty until such time as the applicant has been issued with this notification. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.38)

Adult social care

17. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
18. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

What happened

19. Mr X is Mr Y’s stepfather and Mr X is registered blind.
20. In late February 2024, Mr X contacted the Council’s adult social care team and asked it to provide support to Mr Y. Mr X said Mr Y was living with him and his wife but they could no longer support him and he suffered with several learning disorders.
21. The following day the Council’s adult social care team contacted Mr X and told him it would place Mr Y on the list for a Care Act assessment. The Council also told Mr Y he could contact its housing team for support with Mr Y’s housing needs.
22. Mr X contacted the Council’s housing team on 29 February 2024. Mr X said Mr Y was living with him but he and his wife could no longer accommodate him and were going abroad.
23. On 8 March 2024, Mr X chased up a response from the Council’s housing team as he had not heard anything. Mr X also chased up a response from the Council’s adult social care team.
24. The Council’s housing team tried to telephone Mr Y in mid-March 2024 and April 2024 but could not get through to him.
25. In April 2024, the Council’s adult social care team carried out a let’s talk assessment for Mr Y. This was not a care act assessment. Notes from the assessment showed Mr Y was living with Mr X but his intention was to move to another nearby Council area. The outcome of the assessment was that the adult social care team agreed to refer Mr Y to the other Council so they could assess his needs.
26. In April 2024, the Council’s housing team spoke with Mr X about Mr Y’s case. The notes showed the Council offered Mr Y an assessment for his housing need but Mr X said Mr Y wanted to live in a different Council area and asked for help referring Mr Y to this particular Council.
27. In late April 2024, the Council referred Mr Y to the other Council for support with housing and adult social care.
28. Between April 2024 and August 2024, Mr X said Mr Y was staying at different friends addresses in the Council area. In August 2024, Mr Y was attacked and admitted to hospital.
29. In mid-August 2024, the hospital was ready to discharge Mr Y but he had nowhere to stay. The hospital contacted the Council for housing support as Mr Y said he had been staying in the Council area prior to being admitted to hospital.
30. Between late August 2024 and early October 2024, the Council was trying to establish whether Mr Y had a local connection to its area but it could not verify where Mr Y had been staying in the last six months. Mr Y would not tell the Council the specific addresses where he had been staying due to fear of getting the people he had been staying with into trouble. Internal emails showed the housing team did not consider he had a local connection. Internal emails also showed the housing team said it would not carry out a homelessness assessment for Mr Y until it could establish a current priority need.
31. On 2 October 2024, a professional meeting took place to discuss Mr Y. At the meeting Mr X raised concerns that the Council’s housing team would not accept Mr Y had a local connection to the Council.
32. On 7 October 2024, the Council decided to owe Mr Y the Relief Duty and moved him into interim accommodation.
33. In January 2025, the Council carried out a Care Act assessment for Mr Y. The Council found he had eligible needs and needed supported accommodation. The assessment said Mr Y needed support with managing his personal hygiene, maintaining a habitable home and accessing employment and the community.
34. In early February 2025, the Council decided it owed Mr Y the Main Housing Duty. Mr Y moved into supported accommodation in April 2025.

Mr X’s complaint

35. In late September 2024, Mr X complained about the Council’s housing team and adult social care team. Mr X complained about the way Mr Y had been treated and that he had not received adequate support.
36. The Council provided Mr X with a final response to his complaint on 14 March 2025. The Council said:
• It’s adult social care team told him to contact housing when he approached it in February 2024 and put Mr Y on the list for a care act assessment.
• It’s adult social care team completed an assessment of Mr Y in April 2024 and the outcome of this was that it referred Mr Y to another Council where he wanted to live.
• When Mr X approached the housing team in February 2024, the Council could not establish a local connection for Mr Y and referred him to another Council area where he wanted to live.
• It delayed handling Mr X’s complaint and offered him £150 to recognise this.
37. Mr X remained dissatisfied and contacted the Council. Mr X said it did not complete a needs assessment for Mr Y in April 2024. Mr X also said the housing team did not contact him by telephone and would only email him despite knowing he was registered blind. Mr X said as a blind person it was very time consuming and difficult for him to try to read and write multiple emails.
38. In May 2025, the Council arranged to speak by telephone to Mr X to discuss his concerns. The Council then issued a further response to the complaint on 20 June 2025. The Council said:
• In April 2024, it completed a let’s talk assessment not a Care Act assessment. The Council said at this time Mr Y was also having an Education, Health and Care needs assessment and this was not considered as part of his let’s talk assessment.
• It recognised it did not always involve Mr X in discussions about Mr Y’s care needs and communication with Mr X was not always timely or appropriate. The Council said it should have sought Mr X’s input in relation to Mr Y’s care planning.
• The housing team did communicate with Mr X while Mr Y was in hospital.
• After the professional meeting in October, the Council said it agreed to look at emergency accommodation for Mr Y if he could establish a local connection.
• It could not establish whether Mr Y had a local connection as it could not verify where he had been staying for 6 out of the past 12 months and Mr Y could not get a local connection through Mr X as Mr X had not lived in the Council area for long enough.

Findings

Adult social care

39. When Mr Y approached the Council’s adult social care team it agreed to place him on the waiting list for a Care Act assessment. While the Council did carry out an assessment of Mr Y in April 2024, this was not a Care Act assessment.
40. Once Mr Y became involved again with the Council in August 2024, it took the Council until January 2025, to carry out a Care Act assessment. This was fault.
41. Mr Y’s Care Act assessment established he had eligible needs which he needed support with. Had the Council carried out the assessment sooner Mr Y’s care needs would have been known and he could have started to get support earlier. This is an injustice to Mr Y.

Housing

42. When Mr X contacted the housing team at the Council in February 2024, it should have carried out a homelessness assessment for Mr Y or at least tried to arrange one. After Mr X contacted the housing team in February 2024, it appears it was not until April 2024, that the Council offered to carry out a homeless assessment. While this was fault, I do not consider it caused much injustice to Mr X and Mr Y as both of them wanted another Council to provide housing assistance to Mr Y.
43. When the hospital Mr Y was staying at referred him back to the Council in August 2024, the Council should have carried out an assessment of his housing needs and decided what duty it owed him. Failure to do so was fault. Instead the Council looked into whether Mr Y had a local connection to the Council area. Internal notes also showed the housing officer was waiting to see if Mr Y had a priority need before carrying out a homelessness assessment. This was fault.
44. While looking at Mr Y’s local connection is something the Council can do it should have considered whether it owed him the relief duty regardless of any local connection issues. Given Mr X had nowhere to go so could not be discharged from hospital I am satisfied on balance that had the Council carried out a housing assessment after it received the referral from the hospital it would have decided to owe Mr Y the relief duty sooner. This would have meant Mr Y should have received assistance to relieve his homelessness sooner and may well have resulted in the Council owing him the Main Housing Duty sooner.
45. The Council also should have considered whether it had a duty to provide Mr Y with interim accommodation much sooner than it did. I am satisfied given Mr Y’s medical issues had the Council considered its interim accommodation duty when Mr X was referred for housing assistance it would have provided interim accommodation sooner than it did.
46. As a result, Mr Y could not be discharged from hospital and ended up staying in hospital for around a month and a half longer than he should have. This is an injustice to Mr Y.

Complaint handling and communication

47. There was significant delays responding to Mr X’s complaint. Mr X complained in September 2024 and did not get his response until March 2025. As a result Mr X had to wait longer to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council has recognised this fault and offered Mr X £150 for the time and trouble he experienced. I am satisfied this is a suitable remedy for the delays in complaint handling and is in line with what we would recommend.
48. Mr X also complained that the Council’s housing team would not communicate with him by telephone and sent emails which he found difficult to read and respond to due to being registered blind. I am satisfied the Council was aware of Mr X’s circumstances and communication needs. While I can see the housing team decided to communicate with Mr X via email to have a record and internal email trail, I cannot see that it properly considered his request for telephone communication too. This was fault. As a result it has been harder for Mr X to communicate with the Council due to the difficulties he has with email communication.

Back to top

Agreed Action

49. Within one month of my final decision, the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Mr X and Mr Y for the injustice caused to them from the above faults. 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 Mr Y £300 to recognise the delays in providing him with suitable interim accommodation following his referral to the Council in August 2024.
• Pay Mr Y £200 to recognise the distress he suffered as a result of the delays carrying out a Care Act assessment and for the uncertainty about whether he could have received support sooner.
• Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the distress and frustration he experienced as a result of the Council not considering his requests for telephone communication and for taking the decision to only communicate via email.
• If it has not done so already, pay Mr X the £150 it offered him in its complaint response for the delays responding to his complaint.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman