Summary: Miss X complained on behalf of Mr Y that the Council failed to assess his homelessness applications or to arrange alternative accommodation. We found the Council delayed in considering Mr Y’s homelessness application, including whether to provide any interim accommodation. The Council has accepted the fault and agreed to pay £3150 to Mr Y for the delays and in recognition of the avoidable stress and uncertainty.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to assess Mr Y’s homelessness application and failed to make a decision about relief duty for over 6 months. She said the Council also failed to review the application after Mr Y told the Council he had received a notice seeking possession of his property. This deprived Mr Y of the right to appeal and prevented him accessing alternative accommodation. The Council also failed to update Mr Y’s Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) and failed to provide him with alternative accommodation. Mr Y suffered distress and uncertainty.

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 the 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr Y 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

Homelessness Relief Duty

6. Under Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act), councils must take reasonable steps to help an eligible homeless applicant secure suitable accommodation for at least six months. This duty is usually referred to as the relief duty. It is the duty owed to applicants the council is satisfied are eligible and homeless.
7. Relief duty arises regardless of whether the applicant may be in priority need or intentionally homeless; and is a duty to “take steps” to help the applicant. Section 175 of the Act says a person is homeless if they:

• have no accommodation available to them anywhere in the world; or
• have accommodation but cannot gain entry to it; or
• have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to occupy it.

8. The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) reinforces this duty. Chapter 13 explains that authorities must act promptly and effectively to relieve homelessness, including issuing decisions in writing and advising applicants of their rights to request a review.
9. Councils must also complete an assessment under Section 189A of the Act, which includes the applicant’s housing needs, circumstances leading to homelessness, and any support required. This assessment should inform the Personalised Housing Plan (PHP), which must be tailored, regularly reviewed, and updated.
10. The Code states authorities must consider whether applicants have a priority need for accommodation. Section 8.14 of the guidance outlines categories of vulnerability that qualify for priority need, including:

• mental illness or learning disability or physical disability;
• ceasing to occupy accommodation because of violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out; or,
• any other special reason.

11. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. Councils should be able to decide whether they owe the main housing duty on day 57 after accepting relief. Councils have discretion to continue the relief duty beyond 56 days if the main housing duty is not owed. Any decision that the duty has come to an end must be notified in writing giving the reasons why it has ended and notifying the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.

Main Housing Duty

12. In most cases, if homelessness is not successfully relieved, a housing authority must decide if it owes the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Act. The duty is owed to applicants who are eligible, homeless, have a priority need for accommodation and are not homeless intentionally.
13. Councils should be able to make this decision on day 57 from the date of being satisfied the applicant is homeless in almost all cases. If a council needs to make more inquiries, the Code says it should take no more than a further 15 working days. The main housing duty provides a statutory right to review the suitability of accommodation and greater protection from eviction. It may also result in increased priority for social housing. Delay accepting the duty can therefore result in significant injustice.

What happened

14. In January 2024, Mr Y made a homelessness application to the Council. The Council then interviewed Mr Y but did not issue a decision on the relief duty or tell Mr Y of his appeal rights.
15. In May 2024, the police wrote to the Council urging support for Mr Y due to his deteriorating mental health linked to an incident. The Council did not review Mr Y’s application.
16. In June 2024, Mr Y received a notice seeking possession of his current property. He told the Council, and it said it would follow up the matter but took no action. The Council requested a medical report but decided Mr Y did not have priority need. The Council made no decision about relief duty.
17. At the end of June 2024 Miss X made a complaint on Mr Y’s behalf. The Council called Mr Y without notice, recorded him as uncooperative, and requested another medical report without submitting new evidence. It decided again that Mr Y did not have any priority need but issued no decision about relief duty.
18. In early July 2024, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It apologised for the delays and the unannounced call, and acknowledged Mr Y’s mental health issues. However, it still did not issue a decision about relief duty. In mid-July 2024, Miss X raised a stage two complaint.
19. In August 2024, the Council issued the PHP again but did not update any of the information about Mr Y’s housing needs. The Council also wrote to Mr Y to accept the relief duty. It responded to the stage two complaint, apologised for the delays, and offered £250 as a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Mr Y.
20. In September 2024, the Council offered Mr Y temporary accommodation in a house of multiple occupancy, which he declined due to his health needs. In October 2024 Mr Y stayed temporarily with a family member. Discussions were held about relocating, but he chose to remain in the area due to his support network.
21. In December 2024 the Council requested another medical report and determined Mr Y had priority need. Then in January 2025, the Council offered another property, but the landlord did not allow pets. Mr Y needed to take his support dog. The Council agreed to note this on his record for future offers.
22. In February 2025, the Council ended the relief duty and accepted the main housing duty.

Analysis

23. The Council’s failure to make a timely decision on relief duty in January 2024 was fault. It should have issued a decision after its initial interview, considered whether it should offer Mr Y interim accommodation and given him a right of appeal against the decision. Mr Y was left without accommodation and deprived of his right to appeal, causing him avoidable uncertainty and distress
24. The PHP issued in January lacked detail and was not updated until August 2024, despite additional information about Mr Y’s needs and circumstances being provided to the Council in the interim. This was fault and meant Mr Y did not receive tailored support.
25. The Council missed two opportunities to review Mr Y’s case: firstly in May 2024 when the police provided further information about the impact of Mr Y’s accommodation on his mental health, and again in June 2024 when Mr Y informed the Council he had received a possession notice. The failure to act on either occasion was fault which contributed to his anxiety and distress.
26. The Council’s decision that Mr Y did not have priority need in June 2024 was questionable given the low threshold set out in section 8.14 of the Code of Guidance. This likely delayed access to accommodation for Mr Y. Also, the unannounced call in June failed to account for Mr Y’s mental health needs. This was fault and caused distress.
27. The Council’s delay in accepting relief duty until August 2024 was fault. It should have done so much earlier, especially after receiving the possession notice and police letter. This was a delay of around six and a half months after Mr Y’s homelessness application and the Council’s first assessment of his housing needs.
28. The relief duty continued until February 2025, well beyond the statutory 56-day limit. This meant the Council delayed by approximately four months in accepting the main duty. This was fault and caused prolonged uncertainty to Mr Y.
29. The Council has since provided temporary accommodation to Mr Y, so there is no ongoing injustice. However, given the length of the delays, and the distress and uncertainty experienced by Mr Y, there has been significant injustice.
30. We have investigated similar cases in recent months and made recommendations in these cases. As a result, the Council recently completed a review of its procedures relating to housing and homelessness assessments and reviews. Therefore, I am not making service improvement recommendations in this case.

Back to top

Action

31. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr Y, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mr Y in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology;
2. Pay Mr Y £1950 (£300 per month for six and a half months) for delay in issuing a decision about relief duty; and
3. Pay Mr Y £1200 (£300 per month for four months) for the delay in accepting main housing duty.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman