Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness. There was some delay and poor communication but the Council has already apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. I do not find fault in the rest of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. In particular that the Council:
1. Delayed making a decision on his January 2024 homelessness application.
2. Failed to properly consider what homelessness duty it owed him in summer 2024, November 2024 and March 2025, as it did not consider the affordability of his accommodation and whether it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy the property.
3. Failed to re-assess his housing needs after his circumstances changed in August 2024 when his wife and child joined him.
4. Mislaid and did not properly consider his medical evidence.
5. Failed to use its powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to deal with his allegations of harassment by his landlord.
6. Wrongly advised him in its letter of 14 August 2024 to remain in the property until a bailiff warrant was issued, which is contrary to para 6.37 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
7. Failed to consider whether to use its powers under section 17(6) of the Children Act 1989 to provide housing as his son is a child in need.
8. Failed to keep him updated or respond to him.
2. As a result, Mr F says he and his family are living in unsuitable and overcrowded accommodation which is causing significant distress, harming their mental and physical health, and leaving him in rent arrears.

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. 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 spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the information he sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (“the Guidance”).
8. Mr F 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

Relevant law and guidance

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. The Secretary of State considers that 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. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 6.36)
11. Councils should not consider it 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. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 6.37) But tenants have a right to remain in privately rented accommodation until a court issues a warrant to enforce possession and bailiffs carry out that warrant. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 6.17)

Threatened with homelessness and the prevention duty

12. If someone contacts a council seeking 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
13. 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))
14. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
15. Once the council has accepted it owes the prevention duty, it must help the person for at least 56 days. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 14.11)
16. The prevention and relief duties may end when the council is satisfied that the applicant has suitable accommodation available for occupation and a reasonable prospect of suitable accommodation being available for at least six months from the date of the notice. (Housing Act 1996, sections 195(8)(a) and 189B(7)(a))

Relief duty and interim accommodation

17. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied they are homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
18. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found.
19. 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)

Main housing duty

20. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Housing Allocations

21. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing and how it prioritises applicants. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Child in need

22. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan.
23. Where there is no duty to provide housing under the Housing Act 1996, a council may provide housing under section 17(6). This gives councils the power (but not a duty) to provide accommodation for children in need in its area. Where the family has the financial resources to secure their own accommodation, the council is unlikely to consider providing accommodation under section 17, a position supported by the case: R (on the application of Jalal) v Greenwich RLBC [2016] EWHC 1848.

What happened

24. I have set out the key events. This is not meant to detail everything that happened.
25. Mr F moved into Property X in July 2023 with a three-month tenancy which ended on 31 October 2023. The rent was £900 per month. Property X is a two-bedroom property. Mr F occupied one of the bedrooms with access to the kitchen and bathroom which were shared with the tenant of the second bedroom. In September 2023, the other tenant left the property.
26. The landlord told Mr F that he would need to rent both bedrooms or move out. Mr F says he could not afford an increased rent so refused. The landlord issued a section 21 (no fault) eviction notice in November 2023. He increased Mr F’s rent to £1,050.
27. Mr F applied to the Council as threatened with homelessness on 19 January 2024. He said he had medical conditions and mobility issues and that the landlord had issued an eviction notice. By 12 February, Mr F had submitted supporting documents and a case officer had been allocated.
28. Mr F applied to be on the Council’s housing register but it wrote to him on 26 February to say that he was not eligible as he had not lived in the area long enough.
29. Mr F contacted the Council in May as he had not heard anything since his homeless application. The Council interviewed him on 6 June. It considered the rent was affordable. The Council issued a personalised housing plan on 26 June which said Mr F should contact estate agents and housing associations. The Council would provide information about the local housing allowance rates. The Council accepted the prevention duty but it did not send the notification letter until 8 August.
30. Mr F’s medical information was reviewed by the independent medical advisor on 2 July. They did not recommend that Mr F was in priority need for health reasons.
31. Mr F told the Council on 26 July that the landlord’s eviction notice had been rejected by the court in June and his application for a possession order had been refused. He said the landlord had now increased the rent to £1,800 but he could not afford this. He had been unable to find any alternative housing. The Council advised him to look for properties in other areas.
32. Mr F made a formal complaint on 2 August that the Council had failed to provide timely responses to his queries and had not resolved the discrepancy between the local housing allowance (LHA) rate and the rent required by the landlord. He said the Council’s guidance on managing the rent shortfall had been confusing and unhelpful. This was causing him stress and worsening his physical and mental health.
33. The Council responded on 14 August. It said Mr F was not entitled to the two-bedroom LHA rate although it noted Mr F had said he could not afford the increased rent. The Council would consider whether the rent deficit could be covered but said two-bedroom properties in the Council’s area may be unaffordable. Further information had been sent to the medical advisor and the outcome of this was awaited. The Council noted it required tenants to stay in a property until a bailiff warrant was obtained.
34. Mr F’s wife and child joined him in Property X from overseas. Mr F’s child has a disability and special educational needs. On 22 August, Mr F asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He also requested a reassessment of his housing needs due to a change in circumstances, he was concerned that Property X was not safe for his child.
35. In September, the landlord entered Property X, gave Mr F a notice to quit and locked the second bedroom. The police were called. A referral was made to the Council’s safer rent team, which spoke to the landlord and the police.
36. Mr F visited the Council on 18 September. The Council added his wife and child to his homeless application but said their circumstances could not be taken into account as they did not have recourse to public funds.
37. The Council sent its final complaint response on 23 September. It apologised for not responding to his report of a change of circumstances sooner and for not properly saving the medical documents to his electronic housing casefile.
38. The landlord served a section 8 eviction notice in November and the Council visited Property X. It then ended its prevention duty on 14 November as 56 days had passed since the duty was accepted. The Council said Mr F’s landlord had agreed to make an offer of a tenancy for six months, the possession order had not been accepted by the court and no new eviction notice had been issued. It considered Property X was suitable for Mr F and the rent was affordable. The Council closed Mr F’s homelessness case.
39. The Council’s children’s social care team assessed Mr F’s child in December. This found they were a child in need and the family were at risk of eviction as the section 8 notice had ended and the landlord could now take court action to evict Mr F. The worker wrote a supportive letter for Mr F in relation to needing temporary accommodation but children’s social care was unable to offer housing.
40. Mr F came to the Ombudsman. He then made a further complaint to the Council about poor communication and that his family’s medical needs had not been considered. He told the Council he had received a new section 8 notice. The Council responded on 24 February 2025 and advised Mr F to arrange a homelessness assessment. Mr F asked to escalate his complaint.
41. The homelessness interview was carried out on 20 March. The Council accepted the prevention duty and considered Mr F’s income and expenditure, including debt repayments. The Council found the rent of £1,800 was affordable.
42. The Council issued a new personalised housing plan which said the section 8 notice was valid and Mr F should remain in the property until the bailiff warrant was executed. He should continue to look for alternative properties. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Mr F had told them on 24 March that he could not view the PHP on his electronic case record. The Council therefore emailed it to him on 2 April. It had also uploaded nine medical reports to his case record.
43. The Council’s final complaint response was sent on 27 March. It apologised for poor communication and not always answering his calls but said it had Mr F’s medical documents and had properly followed the homelessness procedures.

My findings

44. I have considered each element of Mr F’s complaint separately below.
1. The Council delayed making a decision on his January 2024 homelessness application.
45. The Council has accepted there was fault as it did not interview Mr F until 6 June 2024, after he had applied as homeless on 19 January. Whilst the Guidance does not set out specific deadlines for homelessness enquiries, almost five months is delay.
46. However, I do not consider this caused a significant injustice to Mr F as he remained housed and the Council went on to accept the prevention duty. It is likely therefore that even if it had interviewed him sooner, the outcome would have been the same.
1. Failed to properly consider what homelessness duty it owed him in summer 2024, November 2024 and March 2025 as it did not consider the affordability of his accommodation and whether it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy the property.
47. I do not find fault in summer 2024 and March 2025. The Council considered Mr F’s income and expenditure and decided that his rent was affordable. This is a decision it was entitled to make and I have seen no fault in the way it made it. It therefore did not consider Mr F to be homeless as he had a right to remain in Property X until a bailiff warrant was executed. There was therefore no fault in the Council accepting the prevention duty.
48. In November 2024, the Council ended the prevention duty as it had passed 56 days. The Council says the landlord had agreed to offer Mr F a six-month tenancy. I have not seen the evidence of that. The landlord issued a new eviction notice in early November. I have not seen evidence that the Council was aware of that but I find it was fault to end the prevention duty as, given the notice, Mr F did not have a reasonable prospect of suitable accommodation being available for at least six months. However, I do not consider this caused Mr F significant injustice as he remained in Property X whilst the eviction proceedings were ongoing.
1. Failed to re-assess his housing needs after his circumstances changed in August 2024 when his wife and child joined him.
49. The Council has already apologised to Mr F for the delay in considering his report of a change in circumstances in August 2024. I consider this is a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. This is because Mr F’s family had no recourse to public funds so did not affect his homeless application.
50. In response to my draft decision statement, Mr F sent evidence that his wife and child have been granted immigration status that gives them recourse to public funds. But I have seen no evidence that this immigration decision had been made prior to September 2024, or March 2025, when the Council was considering his homelessness application. Nor have I seen evidence that the Council was aware of that immigration decision, as the Council’s evidence shows his family did not have access to public funds at the time. Mr F’s evidence therefore does not change my findings about the Council’s actions in September 2024 and March 2025.
1. Did not properly consider his medical evidence.
51. I have reviewed the independent medical advisor’s documents. There is no evidence of fault in the way Mr F’s medical needs were considered. As set out in paragraph 4 of this statement, I therefore cannot question the decision that Mr F was not in priority need on health grounds.
1. Failed to use its powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to deal with his allegations of harassment by his landlord.
52. After the landlord entered Property X in September 2024, the Council’s safer renting team spoke to the landlord and the police. There is therefore no evidence that the Council failed to deal with the matter or consider its powers. I do not find fault.
1. Wrongly advised him to remain in the property until a bailiff warrant was issued, which is contrary to para 6.37 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
53. Although the Guidance says councils should not consider it reasonable to stay until a bailiff warrant is executed, as tenants have a right to remain in privately rented accommodation until a court issues a warrant to enforce possession and bailiffs carry out that warrant, we do not consider it to be fault for a council to advise applicants of this right. I therefore do not find fault.
1. Failed to consider whether to use its powers under section 17(6) of the Children Act 1989 to provide housing as his son is a child in need.
54. In December 2024, the Council found that Mr F’s child was a child in need due to disability and entitled to support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. This may include the provision of accommodation, but the social work assessment said that children’s social care could not help with housing but instead wrote a supportive letter in relation to housing.
55. I do not find fault. This is because the Council has a power to provide accommodation under section 17 but this is not a duty. The Council considered Mr F’s child’s accommodation in the December 2024 child and family assessment but decided not to provide accommodation. This is a decision it was entitled to make and I have seen no fault in the way it was made.
1. Failed to keep him updated or respond to him.
56. The Council has already apologised to Mr F for not always answering his calls or responding to him. This is a proportionate and appropriate remedy in line with our guidance for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

57. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has already taken remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman