Summary: Mr A says the Council failed to assist him with homelessness and did not issue him with a decision letter. I have found severe failings by the Council which meant Mr A was left without any support, did not have his homelessness application correctly assessed and lost an opportunity to be considered for interim accommodation. The Council has agreed to pay Mr A redress and to make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr A) says he applied to the Council in October 2024 as homeless, he received minimal contact from the case officer, was referred to another housing authority and did not receive a formal decision on his case.

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 investigated

4. I have considered events from October 2024 through to May 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 12 October 2024 Mr A applied to the Council for homelessness assistance. On 15 October a case officer called Mr A who stated he had been made homeless because of domestic abuse. He had been living in another Council area (Council X). He was now sleeping in his car. On 30 October the Council’s Customer Services emailed the case officer that Mr A was ‘homeless on the day’. The Council asked Mr A to provide documentation (ID, proof of income, etc) which Mr A submitted.
8. On 6 January 2025 Mr A complained to the Council. He was still living in his car during the winter. He had only spoken to the case officer once and they had been dismissive. He had not received any assistance, and no decision had been made on his homelessness case. On 16 January the case officer called Mr A’s parent but got no reply. On 23 January the case officer asked Mr A to contact the Council, he also tried calling Mr A’s parent again without success. On 27 January the case officer spoke to Mr A and noted he had secured a refuge placement in Council X from the end of the month. The case officer said checks were being made with another housing authority (Council Y). Mr A stated he had approached Council Y via Council X and had not heard from it.
9. On 11 March the Council responded to Mr A’s complaint. It apologised for the delayed response. It said records showed the ‘application has not progressed in a considerable period’ and apologised. It acknowledged there had been ‘unacceptable delay’ by the case officer contacting Mr A and assured him the progress of the case would be monitored. On 19 March Mr A asked the Council to escalate his complaint. He said nothing had been done with his application.
10. On 16 April the case officer emailed Council Y and Council X chasing up if Mr A had asked that housing authority for homelessness assistance. Council X said it had transferred a homelessness application from Mr A to Council Y. Council Y said Mr A had applied to the housing register but not made a homelessness application. The case officer emailed Council Y that he would advise Mr A to progress a homelessness application with Council Y. He then emailed Mr A that Council Y would progress an application because Council X had transferred the case to Council Y.
11. On 25 April the Council replied to Mr A’s complaint. It accepted the case officer had not contacted him since the previous complaint and apologised. It said it was assessing if Mr A had an active homelessness application with another Council. On 7 May the case officer emailed Mr A that Council Y would progress the homelessness application and he closed the case. The Officer noted on the case file ‘no application taken, general advice provided’.

What should have happened

Homelessness application

12. 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)

Domestic abuse

13. The Code of Guidance sets out that a council should obtain an applicant’s account to assess if there has been domestic abuse and should provide support to the applicant (paragraph 21.21) Where a council has reason to believe an applicant is homeless as a result of domestic abuse it should make interim accommodation available immediately whilst it continues its investigation of the application.

The relief duty

14. 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)

Local connection and referral to another housing authority

15. A council (notifying authority) can refer applicants who do not have a local connection to their district to another housing authority (the notified authority) in England where they do have such a connection. Before making a referral, the notifying authority must be satisfied that the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance and therefore owed the relief duty and that the conditions for referral are met. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 section 198 (A1) and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.37)
16. The notifying authority is not subject to the relief duty at the point that they have notified an applicant they intend to refer or have referred their case to another housing authority. It follows that a council will owe the relief duty until such time as the applicant has been issued with this notification. If the notifying authority believes that the applicant has no local connection and may have a connection elsewhere, they should take reasonable steps to try and relieve the applicant’s homelessness until they issue the first notification. When the notifying authority intends to refer or have referred a case to another housing authority, there are two points at which applicants must be notified:
• (a) when the notifying authority has decided that the conditions for referral are met and intend to notify, or have notified, another local authority of that opinion.
• (b) when, following referral, it has been decided that the conditions for referral are or are not met. The notification must provide notice of the decision and the reasons for it.
17. From the date the first notice is issued the authority will not be subject to the relief duty to provide interim accommodation unless they have reason to believe the applicant may be in priority need in which case they will have a duty to provide interim accommodation to the applicant whilst a decision is made on whether the conditions for referral are met. (Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 section 199A(b) and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 10.38, 10.39, 10.40)
18. Notification, as set out in the Local Authority Agreement guidance, requires the notifying authority to contact the notified authority by telephone, email or fax and then in writing. Where a decision is reached and the referral conditions are met the notifying authority must inform the applicant in writing of its decision, the reasons for it and to set out their right to a review. The notified authority should also reply in writing to say whether they accept the referral.

Was there fault by the Council

19. The handling of the homelessness application was extremely poor. The case officer failed entirely to follow the usual process or to provide Mr A with the support and information he had a right to receive.
20. There were significant delays in progressing the case. Mr A applied as homeless to the Council on 12 October 2024, three days later he told the case officer he had fled domestic abuse and was sleeping in a car. This should have resulted in the case officer asking Mr A for information about the domestic abuse and, if necessary, making additional checks with the relevant agencies to verify what had taken place. That did not happen. I cannot see any record of the domestic abuse being formally considered. If the case officer had acted correctly, he should have obtained evidence promptly, if he found there was reason to believe Mr A was homeless because of domestic abuse he had a duty to provide interim accommodation immediately. Even if there were issues around Mr A’s local connection (which I deal with further below) the Council would still have had a duty to provide interim accommodation until a referral to another Council was complete. The case officer also failed to consider if there were safeguarding issues for Mr A and whether he required additional support. The records show the case officer took no action after the conversation with Mr A and was only prompted to call Mr A's parent in January 2025 after Mr A complained. No useful action was taken by the case officer in January and, again, there was no further activity in the case until April when Mr A complained a second time. The lack of action (totalling five months out of seven) is unacceptable, Mr A was left without support despite stating he had fled domestic abuse and was sleeping in his car during cold weather.
21. The case officer noted in May 2025 “no application taken, general advice provided”. This was incorrect and demonstrates a concerning lack of knowledge about homelessness processes. When Mr A contacted the Council on 12 October 2024 he had made a homelessness application. From that point onwards the Council had a duty to assess Mr A’s application and issue a formal decision letter. As set above the usual processes were not followed by the case officer in this instance and that includes a failure to provide Mr A with a decision letter in May 2025. This is a significant failure because the decision letter carries a right of review.
22. The Council failed to follow the correct process for checking local connection and making a referral to another housing authority. The process that should have been adhered to is set out above; the evidence shows this process was not followed. No formal confirmation was received from Council Y and no written decision, with a right of review, was issued to Mr A.
23. The complaint handling and subsequent monitoring was flawed. The Council delayed responding to Mr A’s January 2025 complaint. It promised to monitor the case, but I can see no evidence of this happening resulting in complete inactivity by the case officer from the end of January to April. I would have expected the complaint scrutiny of the case to have noted the severe failings I have set out above, many of which had occurred by that point.
24. The Council accepts the case officer did not progress the application. It says the officer is no longer working for the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

25. The multiple and serious faults by the Council meant Mr A did not have his homelessness application considered in any meaningful way. This meant he was left uncertain about the handling of his case and lost the opportunity to be assessed for interim accommodation and additional support. The failure by the Council to follow the correct procedures meant Mr A was also not provided with a decision on his application (including the referral to another Council) which would have given him the right to a review.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr A the Council has accepted my recommendations and will:
• Send a letter of apology to Mr A
• pay Mr A £1,000 for the avoidable distress it caused him because of uncertainty and lost opportunity. This is higher than our usual payment range to reflect how widespread and severe the failings in this case were
• issue Mr A with a decision on his homelessness application, this may be after a review of the case by the Council, but it must comply with its duty to issue a formal decision at some point. The Council should offer to meet/ call Mr A to discuss what will happen next with his case.
27. In respect of service improvements the Council will offer training for staff to ensure they are aware of the relevant homelessness legislation and procedures in general and particularly relating to domestic abuse and local connection referrals.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the apology and redress payment within the next eight weeks.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman