Summary: Ms X complained there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application causing distress and inconvenience. We found fault as the Council delayed making a decision on whether it owed Ms X a main housing duty after the relief duty ended. We have recommended a suitable remedy in this case so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains there were failings in the way the Council dealt with her homelessness application. In particular Ms X says the Council:
• Failed to meet the statutory deadlines for making decisions on her application.
• Failed to consider her medical and mobility needs when offering her viewings of properties. And to provide suitable temporary accommodation.
• Failed to categorise her priority status correctly and to carry out medical assessments.
• Has failed to advise how she will be affected by a change in the Allocations Scheme to introduce a new band system in February 2025 due to being medically vulnerable and homeless.
2. Ms X says she has been caused distress and uncertainty because of the Council’s actions which have worsened her physical and mental health.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events between September 2024 when Ms X approached the Council as homeless and January 2025 when Ms X made her complaint to us. I have not considered Ms X’s concerns about the medical assessments carried out. This is because Ms X recently requested a review of the medical assessment and has still to complete the review process at the time she complained to us in January 2025. Ms X needs to complete the process before complaining to us about this matter.
7. I have not considered Ms X’s complaint about the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered to her. This is because Ms X would have had the right to seek a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation followed by an appeal to the county court. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to have sought a review and then appeal to the courts. This is because the courts can decide on the facts of the case and whether the Council’s original decision was correct.
8. I have not considered Ms X’s complaint about the forthcoming change in the Council’s Allocations Scheme. Ms X has not provided any evidence to show she has raised this as a complaint to the Council first. So, her concerns are premature and the change in Allocations Scheme had not taken place when Ms X complained to us. Ms X needs to address her concerns to the Council about the matter and complete the Council’s complaints procedure before complaining to us about this issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms 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

Relevant legislation and guidance

11. 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.

The relief duty

12. 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)

The Main Housing Duty

13. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39). The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
15. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. Elkundi, R (on the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601
16. The Code of Guidance says:
• 14.17 Where the housing authority is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days (section 189B(4)). Housing authorities should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty. Where the housing authority has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that housing authorities aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.

What happened in this case

17. The following is a summary of key events relevant to my consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
18. Ms X approached the Council for assistance with her housing situation in September 2024. Ms X made a homeless application and said she had physical and mental health conditions.
19. The Council carried out an assessment of her circumstances and accepted a relief duty towards Ms X. The Council said it needed to ‘take reasonable steps to help her secure that suitable accommodation becomes available for her to occupy’ under certain conditions. It issued a Ms X with a personalised housing plan (PHP) setting out the actions both it and Ms X should take. The PHP advised Ms X could now apply for the Housing Register and the relief duty remained in place for 56 days.
20. As part of PHP the Council referred Ms X to the Westlets whose role was to help applicants find accommodation with private landlords registered under the Council’s Private Sector scheme. The PHP also said Ms X would be registered under the Council’s private sector schemes to help assist her to finding a property. Under one scheme applicants search for accommodation and the Council will give a cash sum to use towards the deposit and rent in advance. Under the second scheme landlords notify the Council when they have available properties. Applicants are invited to view the properties considered suitable and affordable.
21. In October 2024 Westlets invited Ms X to view three properties located on first and second floors. Ms X declined to view them due to her mobility conditions and distance from her support network. In November 2024 Westlets offered Ms X four more viewings of properties located on ground floors, accessible by lifts. Ms X declined to view them due to her medical conditions.
22. Ms X complained to the Council in November 2024 about the lack of support from her caseworker and the Council. And she was unhappy with the properties offered by Westlets because she felt they had not considered her medical and mental health conditions.
23. The Council responded at Stage 1 of the complaint procedure in December 2024 and upheld the complaint. It accepted a delay in ending the relief duty towards Ms X which was a week over the deadline. The Council accepted a poor level of communication by Ms X’s caseworker and offered her £60 in compensation. This was £10 for the one-week delay and £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused. The Council said once the relief duty expired it had three weeks to make a decision on whether to accept the main housing duty towards Ms X. The Council said the relief duty lasted for 56 days and lapsed 21 November 2024. It was due make a decision shortly to be within the statutory deadline. If it accepted a main housing duty Ms X would be accepted onto the Council’s Housing Register, and she could bid for properties through the choice-based lettings service.
24. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. Ms X complained about the lack of suitability of the properties offered to her due to being first and second floor and not close to her support network. Ms X said she was open to offers in areas surrounding the borough. Ms X asked when the Council would make a decision on the main housing duty as the delays were impacting onto her physical and mental health.
25. The Council responded in January 2025 at stage 2 of the complaint procedure. It apologised she felt it had not provided her with the assistance she had expected. The Council advised that once the relief duty ended it had three weeks in which to make a main duty decision. But delays were being caused due to high volume of applications being processed. It was taking measures to try to reduce and avoid delays and increased the number of staff in the casework team.
26. It advised Ms X it would make a decision on the main duty within 15 days of the relief duty. This would be 12 December 2024 being working days not calendar days. But it was still making enquiries on her homeless application so had not met the deadline. The Council apologised for this and the one-week delay with the relief duty decision.
27. The Council noted it offered Ms X temporary accommodation on 13 November 2024 which she accepted. It told Ms X of the decision to accept the main housing duty in her case on 24 December 2024 and registered her for housing on the housing register. So, Ms X could now bid for a studio property. The Council said it would continue to house her in temporary accommodation until it made her a permanent offer of housing. The Council confirmed Ms X did not apply to join the R Housing housing register when she submitted a homelessness application.
28. The Council accepted it was made aware of Ms X’s mobility issues during housing needs assessment in September 2024. But did not note she needed ground floor accommodation, so the Westlets officers were unaware of mobility needs and medical conditions. And resulted in her being incorrectly offered first and second floor properties. The Council apologised but noted the other offers in November 2024 were ground floor level she would have been able to access. The Council could not say when accommodation would be available to her which is which is why it encouraged applicants to view the properties. Or to find accommodation themselves as they may find something sooner. The Council said it made seven offers of accommodation so was satisfied it had provided her with housing assistance to ensure she was prevented from being homeless.
29. The Council’s Stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint due to an additional three-week delay in ending the relief duty and making a decision on the main housing duty. It accepted three properties offered by Westlets in October 2024 did not acknowledge her mobility and medical conditions. It apologised for the level of service received which would have caused her further distress and inconvenience. The Council offered Ms X an additional compensation payment of £50 making a total of £110 including £60 offered in stage 1.

My assessment

30. The Council has accepted it invited Ms X to view three offers of properties which did not acknowledge her mobility and medical conditions. This is unfortunate and it has apologised. However, the evidence shows shortly afterwards it invited Ms X to view four more properties considered suitable as they were ground floor with lifts so no access issues.
31. The Council also offered Ms X temporary accommodation in November 2024. Ms X had a right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation if she considered it unsuitable.
32. The Council has also acknowledged a delay in making a decision on whether it owed Ms X a main housing duty. The relief duty in Ms X’s case ended on 21 November 2024. The Council says it has three weeks after that date to make a decision. However, the Code of Guidance says the three weeks only applies when ‘significant further investigations’ are still needed at day 56. Otherwise, the presumption is the decision should be made on day 57. The Council says the delays were due to a backlog. There is no recorded evidence the Council needed to make an exception in Ms X’s case.
33. The Council’s delay in making a main housing duty decision once the relief duty had ended is fault. The documents show it took the Council 23 working days after 21 November 2024 to make a decision. This was longer than the maximum allowed even if there was an exception in Ms X’s case. This has caused Ms X an injustice due to uncertainty about the decision and a delay in being able to seek a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered to her. Therefore, to remedy the injustice caused the Council should apologise to Ms X for the delay in making a main housing duty decision. And make her a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused as well as the £110 already offered.
34. The Council has accepted there was poor communication between Ms X and her caseworker. It has already apologised and offered Ms X a payment to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused, which is suitable action for it to take.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. To remedy the injustice I have identified in paragraph 33 the Council will within a month of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X for the delay in making a decision on the main housing duty once the relief duty had ended causing uncertainty, distress and delaying her right to request a review of the temporary accommodation. 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 £150 to Ms X in recognition of the distress, uncertainty and delayed right of review caused by the delay in making a decision on the main housing duty.
• By training or other means remind officers that they should issue a decision on the main housing duty on day 57 after the relief duty ends unless there are ‘significant further investigations’ still needed at day 56 which allows for an extra three weeks.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice and have made suitable recommendations in this case to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman