Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed dealing with Ms Y’s homeless application and it delayed offering Ms Y interim accommodation. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Ms Y’s homeless application and its delays in offering her interim accommodation. These delays caused Ms Y frustration, distress and upset and she was deprived of suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to make payments to Ms Y to reflect her injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed dealing with Ms Y’s homeless application and it delayed offering Ms Y interim accommodation.
2. Ms X says this has caused significant distress and upset to Ms Y and her family. Ms Y has had to live in accommodation that is unsuitable for her needs.

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 may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

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 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, 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). This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
13. 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)

What happened

14. Ms Y lives in privately rented accommodation with her husband and young child. She contacted the Council for housing advice in late June 2024. She said she was living in accommodation that was unsuitable for her needs. She provided the Council with an occupational therapy (OT) report. This report said Ms Y’s accommodation was small and did not provide space for her to rehabilitate herself or have access to any aids. The therapist said Ms Y could not live independently due to her difficulty using the stairs. She also noted Ms Y needed adaptations to her house, but her landlord had declined them.
15. Ms X (who is Ms Y’s advisor) complained to the Council in early August. She said the Council had failed to contact Ms Y and assess her application. The Council responded to the complaint in mid-August. It said it would contact Ms Y the following week to arrange an appointment to complete a full homeless application.
16. Ms X contacted the Council in late September and referred Ms Y’s complaint to stage two. She said she had chased the Council several times and it had failed to take any action. She said Ms Y was still living in unsuitable accommodation.
17. The Council issued its stage two response to the complaint in late October. It said there had been an unacceptable delay in reaching a decision on Ms Y’s homeless application. It said it would issue a decision within 14 days. It also said it failed to respond to numerous requests and emails regarding Ms Y’s housing needs, and there was an initial delay in it assigning a case officer. It apologised for the distress caused. It said it would implement training for the caseworker and arrange a meeting with relevant managers to identify any further improvements.
18. The Council completed its assessment of Ms Y’s application in early November. It decided it owed her the relief duty, and it drew up a personalised housing plan. It completed a placement form for Ms Y the following week and made a request for interim accommodation.
19. After hearing nothing further from the Council, Ms X referred Ms Y’s complaint to us in January 2025. A few days later, the Council offered Ms Y interim accommodation. Ms Y declined the Council’s offer as she said it was unsuitable.

Back to top

Analysis

20. There are no statutory time limits for making decisions in homelessness cases. However, we would expect authorities to conduct assessments, take necessary actions and make decisions in a reasonable timeframe.
21. Ms Y approached the Council in late June 2024, but it did not complete its assessment and decide it owed her the relief duty until November 2024. This was not a reasonable timeframe and is fault. But for this fault, the Council would have accepted the relief duty sooner and taken steps to help Ms Y secure suitable accommodation sooner. When the relief duty expired after 56 days, it would have then had to decide whether it should accept the main housing duty. The Council’s delay has caused Ms Y distress and upset and uncertainty about what may have happened.
22. The Council also failed to keep Ms Y updated and it did not respond to emails about her housing needs. This caused Ms Y further distress and upset.
23. The section 188 duty to arrange interim accommodation is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty, and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources.
24. The Council awarded Ms Y the relief duty and started looking for interim accommodation for her in November 2024. Therefore, it accepted she was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need. It did not offer her interim accommodation until late January 2025. This delay is fault. The Council should have started assessing Ms Y’s homeless application in late July 2024. This would have been a reasonable timeframe. If it had completed its assessment then, it is more likely than not it would have had enough information to believe Ms Y was homeless, eligible and in priority need. It should have therefore offered her interim accommodation then rather than in January 2025. The Council’s fault means Ms Y has been deprived of suitable accommodation. This is a significant injustice.
25. The Council apologised to Ms Y when it responded to her complaint. While I welcome this, I am not satisfied just an apology is sufficient to address Ms Y’s injustice as outlined above. I have made further recommendations.
26. I understand Ms Y has concerns about the suitability of the interim accommodation the Council offered and the progress of her case since January 2025. However, these are new issues that are not covered in this investigation. Ms Y will need to make a further complaint to the Council if she remains unhappy.
27. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it provided me with evidence its staff have completed training on their duties under homelessness legislation. The Council has also implemented a new performance management framework to ensure more regular supervision and effective caseload management. We have also made recent recommendations on other similar cases for the Council to review its homelessness service and processes to prevent delays. Therefore, I have not recommended any further service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. By 26 September 2025 the Council has agreed to

• Pay Ms Y £200 for her distress, upset and uncertainty.
• Pay Ms Y £1,500 to reflect the injustice caused by the delay (July 2024 to January 2025) in offering her interim accommodation.

29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. There was fault by the Council, which caused Ms Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman