Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness case. We found fault because the Council failed to consider its duties in a timely manner, offer her appropriate interim accommodation, send appropriate decision letters and make a timely decision about its main homelessness duty. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council made a remedy offer to Miss X of permanent accommodation it considered was suitable. This did not remedy the lack of interim accommodation or the overall distress caused to her. It has therefore agreed to make an apology and payment to her to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. She says the Council has been too slow to consider whether it owes her a main homelessness duty, has incorrectly banded her on its housing register and has made errors when considering her priority and eligibility. She also says the Council’s communication has been poor.
2. Miss X says this has caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty and that she has not yet been able to secure settled accommodation due to the Council’s errors.

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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation begins in May 2024 when Miss X contacted the Council to raise her homelessness case.
7. I will not investigate any matters prior to May 2024 as these are out of time for us to consider. I see no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate further back in time to previous homelessness approaches to, or accommodation arranged by, the Council as part of its duties at the time.
8. My investigation ends when we accepted Miss X’s case for further assessment on 13 August 2025. This was after she had initially approached us in January 2025 but had not completed the Council’s complaint process. This was also after she had then completed the complaint process and been signposted to us on 8 May 2025.
9. Miss X’s complaint to us spans more than 12 months and is therefore late. However, I consider it reasonable to exercise discretion to include the time of her homeless approach to the Council in May 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
11. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

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) Accommodation offered under this duty is classed as ‘interim accommodation’ (IA).

The main housing duty

16. 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).

Ending a duty

17. Part 6 of the Act says a housing authority can make an offer of social housing.
18. Section 14.26 of the Code states that a housing authority can bring the relief duty to an end through a final accommodation offer or final Part 6 offer.

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

19. The scheme states that applicants who are owed a homelessness prevention or relief duty will sit in Band 2A.
20. The scheme includes information about making a direct offer of accommodation. This states that most property will be let through its choice-based lettings system. However, the Council can offer a home directly without advertising the property if it considers circumstances justify this.

What happened

21. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
22. Miss X had made previous homelessness approaches to the Council and had been accommodated under its homelessness duties. This was before the period of my investigation.
23. In mid-May 2024, Miss X approached the Council to say she was homeless. Miss X explained her circumstances. The Council said she was not eligible for assistance as she could not produce proof of residence.
24. On 31 July 2024, Miss X provided proof of eligibility and the Council accepted a relief duty to her. It placed her in IA in a hotel outside of its area. The Council did not send formal notification it had accepted the relief duty.
25. Miss X made a complaint to the Council in mid-August 2024. Part of this was that her IA was unsuitable as it had no cooking facilities.
26. Between August and mid-October 2024, the Council made efforts to find private rented sector (PRS) accommodation for Miss X. No formal PRS accommodation offer was made to Miss X at this time.
27. Miss X emailed Officer J at the Council in November 2024 to express her continued unhappiness. Miss X said Officer J, in August, had told her that her diagnoses and ongoing homelessness would likely make her eligible for Band 1B on its housing register. She was unhappy that her account had recently been reactivated and she was still in Band 3.
28. Miss X chased Officer J for a response to this later in November. Miss X chased a different officer for a response on the same issues in mid-December 2024. Miss X did not receive a reply to any of the three emails.
29. Late in December 2024, the Council discussed Miss X’s case with a solicitor working on her behalf. The Council advised the solicitor it had moved Miss X to Band 2A on its housing allocation list with a priority date of 31 July 2024. The solicitor wrote to advise Miss X of this.
30. Miss X made a complaint to us in January 2025. We asked the Council if Ms X had completed its complaints procedure. The Council said Miss X had agreed to close her June and August 2024 complaints to it. It said it had not logged Miss X’s complaint to it on 18 November 2025 due to an oversight and that it would now do so.
31. Officer J responded to Miss X’s complaint on 26 February 2025. The response said that as her case was still being assessed, she was still in Band 3 and it still owed her the relief duty. The Council also said that if it accepted a full housing duty (the main duty) for Miss X, she would qualify for ‘reasonable preference’ and would be moved to Band 2A. The Council explained why Miss X did not automatically qualify to be in Band 1B.
32. The Council moved Miss X to different IA in March 2025. This was self-contained accommodation which was also out of the Council’s area.
33. Miss X escalated her complaint and Council responded at stage two of its process on 8 May 2025. The Council repeated its stage one response that her case was still at the assessment stage, she was currently in Band 3 and she would not automatically qualify for Band 1B. The response signposted Miss X to us.
34. The Council passed the case onto its ‘backlog team’ in July 2025. Miss X again approached us about her complaint in August 2025. We accepted this as she had now finished the Council’s complaint processes.

After the period of my investigation

35. The Council’s backlog team reviewed the case in August, November and December 2025.
36. The Council transferred Miss X’s case to its complex assessment team in April 2026. It began to make attempts to contact Miss X without response.

The Council’s suggested remedy

37. At the end of April 2026, the Council responded to my enquiries about the complaint. As part of this response, it suggested a remedy for Miss X. The Council said it was going to offer Miss X a formal final offer of settled accommodation in a social housing property under Part 6 of the Act which would bring its homelessness duty to an end.
38. In May 2026, Miss X confirmed she had spoken with the Council and matters were progressing with a viewing arranged on a property it was offering to her.
39. In June 2026, Miss X confirmed she had viewed the property but not accepted it. The Council sent her a letter to say it had ended its relief duty and advised Miss X of applicable appeal rights.

Analysis

40. In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged and apologised that it had not taken several actions on Miss X’s case when it should have done. I will address these under the separate headings below. The Council’s suggested remedy is outlined above.

Miss X’s eligibility to be considered as homeless

41. When Miss X presented to the Council as homeless in mid-May 2024, it initially decided she was not eligible for assistance as she did not have settled status.
42. The Council’s responses to me highlighted that it was unsure why it had questioned Miss X’s status when it had already accepted her as homeless in the past. The Council accepted this was fault as it should have considered her as being eligible straight away. It said it would update its systems to show her priority date as mid-May 2024. I agree with the Council’s stance. If Miss X had proven her eligibility in the recent past, there was no need for it to question her eligibility in 2024. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. It meant she lost the opportunity to be housed in IA until the Council’s relief duty was later established. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Relief duty notification

43. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed there was no evidence of it notifying Miss X of its relief duty to her when it made the decision in July 2024. It sent evidence of this being sent to Miss X at the end of April 2026 when it responded to my enquiries.
44. Not sending the decision letter was procedural fault. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and frustration. It also meant she was not made aware of her appeal rights about the decision. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Decision on relief duty and related housing banding

45. The Council should have decided whether it owed Miss X the main housing duty 56 days after it granted the relief duty. Instead, Miss X was repeatedly told her case was still under assessment all the way through to the Council’s final response to her in May 2025. The Council should have advised her of its decision by 25 September 2024. Had it not made a mistake with her eligibility status, this date would have been 12 July 2024. Not making the decision about the main housing duty was fault. It caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
46. The Council’s responses to me also indicate that telling Miss X she would stay in Band 3 during the assessment period was incorrect. Both the stage one and two responses took the same incorrect stance.
47. In response to me, the Council confirmed Miss X should have been told she was in Band 2A whilst under assessment and if the main duty had been accepted then she would have been placed into Band 1B backdated to the date of her application. The Council apologised for the misinformation and said it was unable to explain how the mistake happened. Giving incorrect information to Miss X was fault. It caused her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

The Council’s suggested remedy

48. I welcome the Council’s suggested remedy and have seen evidence of its offer of permanent social housing it considered was suitable for Miss X to occupy.
49. Miss X’s decision not to accept the offer of accommodation and the Council’s subsequent ending of the relief duty are not the subject of this complaint or my investigation. I am satisfied the Council offered the property as it said it would and that this was an appropriate remedy.
50. In considering the injustice to Miss X, I also made recommendations to the Council to reflect the loss of opportunity to reside in IA from May to July 2024 and for the injustice suffered from the identified fault above. The Council has accepted these and this is discussed below.
51. The Council has recently accepted and completed service improvement recommendations in an unrelated complaint. It completed a range of monitoring and training linked to its duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Therefore, I do not intend to make any further service improvement recommendations here.

Back to top

Agreed action

52. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Miss X for the identified injustice;
• pay Miss X £625 to remedy the lack of IA from mid-May to late-July 2024, this is two and a half months at £250 per month; and
• make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £500 to recognise the overall distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified injustice.
53. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
54. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

56. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman