Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to assist with her homelessness application. I found the Council at fault because it failed to provide Miss D with a reasonable level of service and she was caused avoidable time and trouble pursuing her case.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council failed to assist with her homelessness application from May 2024 onwards. She also says the Council failed to register her request for a suitability review in November 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. Miss D also refers in her complaint to a potential data protection breach. I have advised Miss D those are matters are for the Information Commissioner rather than the Ombudsman to assess. I have also not looked at the suitability of the accommodation offered in November 2024 because Miss D has, correctly, used her right to a review which the Council carried out in 2025. If Miss D is dissatisfied with the outcome of the review she has the right to progress the issue to the courts.
5. My investigation looks at the how the Council handled the homelessness application and the request for a suitability review. I have considered events covering May 2024, when Miss D asked the Council for assistance, through to the start of June 2025 when the final stage complaint response was issued by the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 28 May 2024 Miss D applied to the Council for homelessness assistance. A triage case was opened by the Council and a Triage Duty Officer noted Miss D said she had been ‘kicked out’ of the parental home and the parent had initially stated Miss D could stay but had changed their mind. She was heavily pregnant. The Council made an appointment for Miss D to meet a Housing Officer and progress her homelessness application. On 31 May a Housing Officer met Miss D and carried out a suitability assessment and an affordability assessment. Miss D provided a letter from her parent stating she could not stay at the property anymore.
9. On 4 June Miss D emailed the Housing Officer that her parent did not want the Council to carry out a home visit. She had previously told the Council that she was not allowed in the parental home. Miss D was currently sharing a friend’s bed and was nine months pregnant. She asked what the Council would do next. The Housing Officer replied the next day and said a ‘home visit has to be done’. On 7 June Miss D told the Housing Officer the information held by the Council was wrong, her parent had never stated she could stay on at the property. On 8 June Miss D complained to the Council that she was not receiving assistance with her homelessness.
10. On 19 June Miss D asked the Council for an update. The Housing Officer replied, he had been on leave but would contact Miss D’s parent that day and request a home visit. He would send Miss D information about private rental properties. Miss D said private rentals were unaffordable. The Housing Officer noted that day he called Miss D’s parent twice but got no reply.
11. The Council says the Housing Officer tried to contact Miss D’s parent on 8 and 12 July. I have no record to corroborate that happened. Instead the case notes show Miss D asked the Housing Officer for an update on 8 July and he replied the next day that he would request temporary accommodation for Miss D (subject to management approval) after a home visit was completed.
12. There is no evidence of action by the Council until 24 October when it appears Miss D contacted the Council; she had given birth and was still homeless. The Council sent her another affordability assessment to complete which Miss D retuned on 28 October. The Council says a Team Leader reviewed the case and confirmed there was reason to believe Miss D was homeless. It has failed to show me what additional evidence (if any) was considered to reach that view.
13. On 1 November the Council accepted its relief duty towards Miss D. It notified her and provided a personalised housing plan (PHP) with information on private rentals and the rent deposit scheme. On the same day the Council wrote to Miss D with a final offer of accommodation. It explained Miss D’s right to request a suitability review. On 6 November Miss D requested a suitability review for the housing offer. The Council says the same day the case was closed and the duty towards Miss D was discharged. The review request was not forwarded to the Review Team. On 7 November the Council responded to Miss D’s complaint. It accepted there had been a lack of communications since July 2024 and upheld the complaint. It also acknowledged there had been unacceptable delays.
14. On 11 March 2025 the Council says Miss D called and asked about her review request. Later that month the Review Team accepted the review request. In April Miss D complained about data protection issues and the Council had failed to pick up her review request in 2024. The Council replied on 29 April and accepted there had been a lack of timely communications by the Housing Officer along with fault in the review request not being processed in November. It apologised. Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. The Council issued its final response on 3 June. It accepted that greater care should have been given to emails by the Housing Officer regarding the review request. It apologised again. Also in June the Council sent Miss D its suitability review decision, it found the offer of housing in 2024 had been suitable.

What should have happened

Applications

15. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain 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. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

16. 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 PHP. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty

17. 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

18. 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)

Review rights

19. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their PHP at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Was there fault by the Council

20. The Council had a right to seek additional information as part of its consideration of Miss D’s homelessness application and to verify whether she could remain at her previous accommodation (the parental home). However the evidence shows me the Council made minimal efforts to investigate these matters or progress the case from the end of May 2024 onwards. The Housing Officer failed to attempt to contact Miss D’s parent for 19 days despite being aware that Miss D was heavily pregnant and stating she had no-where permanent to stay. This case should have been progressed with some urgency given Miss D’s circumstances. Instead action was only taken after Miss D chased up the Council on 19 June and the Housing Officer made two attempts to call the parent. I have no evidence of any further action being taken after that date to progress the case or verify Miss D's circumstances. There was a period of over four months where no action was taken, or any updates given to Miss D. That is unacceptable. Again, the case was only taken forward after further contact from Miss D at the end of October. A Team Leader then reviewed the case and confirmed there was reason to believe Miss D was homeless and owed a relief duty. I have no evidence to show this decision was based on any significant new facts. That shows to me the decision, that a relief duty was owed, could and should have been made in July. This also means the Council would then have had a duty to provide Miss D with either interim accommodation or make a suitable final offer of housing.
21. The Council also failed to register Miss D’s suitability review request in November. It was only because Miss D pursued this, with the Council in March 2025, that a review was subsequently undertaken. There was a delay of four months dealing with the request.

Did the fault cause an injustice

22. The handling of this case by the Council is extremely poor. Miss D was caused unnecessary time and trouble chasing up the Council and requesting updates. She did not receive an acceptable level of service at an already very stressful time and was subject to unexplained and lengthy delays.

Back to top

Action

23. To remedy the injustice to Miss D the Council has agreed to my recommendations and will:
• Pay Miss D £200 for avoidable time and trouble
• Pay Miss D £250 for the lack of service in this case.
24. In addition, the Council will look at what service improvements are needed to prevent similar failings occurring in other cases. It should set out what improvements it will make including:
• Additional guidance or training for officers on how to verify if an applicant is homeless and the need to progress a case in a timely manner
• Remind officers about the need to refer review requests to the Review Team
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman