Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application, his housing priority, and its review delays. The Council was at fault. It incorrectly handled Mr X’s homelessness, there were review delays by the Council, and its communication was poor. As a result, Mr X suffered distress and frustration, and he missed the opportunity to be relieved of his homelessness sooner. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments, reimburse a court fee, and send us evidence of the actions it says it has taken to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has repeatedly mishandled his housing. He says the Council:
• Incorrectly decided he was not homeless.
• Did not provide him with interim accommodation.
• Did not accept the main housing duty after the relief duty had ended.
• Wrongly removed his overcrowded priority.
• Delayed making a review decision.
• Did not provide him with a copy of his housing file, and communicated with him poorly.
2. As a result, Mr X says he has suffered distress, missed out on the opportunity to be rehoused sooner and he has incurred a court fee. Mr X would like the Council to offer a financial remedy and backdate his housing award date.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. As outlined in paragraph 4, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Mr X brought his complaint to us in April 2025. As such, any matters before April 2024 are late, and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate events before this time.
7. I have therefore investigated matters in this case from late April 2024, which is 12 months before Mr X brought his complaint to us, to mid-December 2025, when the Council sent Mr X its final complaint response. I reference matters outside of these dates for context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

Legislation and statutory 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.

Threatened with homelessness

12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

The prevention duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

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)

The main housing duty

15. 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). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Interim and temporary accommodation

16. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
17. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.

Homelessness decision review rights

20. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions. This includes decisions about their eligibility for assistance, and what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.
21. Councils must complete reviews of these following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

Housing decision review rights

22. Housing applicants can also ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their housing applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
23. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

Back to top

What happened

24. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
25. In early 2024, Mr X received a section 21 notice from his landlord. Mr X informed the Council and asked it for help finding alternative accommodation. The Council accepted the prevention duty as Mr X was threatened with homelessness. A couple of months later, Mr X also applied to join the Council’s housing register.
26. In late September 2024, the Council ended its prevention duty and accepted the relief duty due to Mr X being in overcrowded accommodation, and in receipt of a valid section 21 notice from his landlord. The Council did not offer interim accommodation to Mr X at this time.
27. A week later, the Council wrote to Mr X and told him it had assessed his housing register application, and it had added him to the housing register with a severely overcrowded priority award. It told him he could bid on suitable properties.
28. In mid-December 2024 following receipt of another section 21 notice from his landlord, a member of parliament (MP) wrote to the Council on behalf of Mr X. They said 56 days had passed since the Council accepted the relief duty, and it had not sent Mr X a decision letter about whether it owed the main duty. The Council wrote to Mr X a week later with its decision to end the relief duty. It did not accept the main duty. The Council told Mr X it decided he was not homeless.
29. In early January 2025, the Council informed Mr X of its decision to remove his severely overcrowded priority award. It said it had made this decision as he no longer had a homelessness application following its previous decision that he was not homeless. A week later, Mr X asked the Council for a review of its decision that he was not homeless. He told the Council he had received a new section 21 notice from his landlord. A couple of weeks later, Mr X also asked the Council for a review of its decision to remove his severely overcrowded priority award.
30. In mid-March 2025, Mr X chased the Council for the outcome of his request for the Council to review its not homeless decision. He told the Council his landlord had applied for a possession order of his accommodation, due to the expiry of the section 21 notice.
31. In early April 2025, the Council sent Mr X the review outcome of its decision to remove his severely overcrowded priority award. It upheld its original decision. A week later, the Council sent Mr X the review outcome of its decision he was not homeless. It told him it had reopened his homelessness application, and it accepted the prevention duty. Mr X asked the Council for a review of this decision a few days later.
32. At the end of July 2025, Mr X sent the Council a copy of the possession order issued to him, which ordered him to give his accommodation back to his landlord by mid-August 2025. A week later, the Council ended its prevention duty and accepted the relief duty. It did not offer interim accommodation to Mr X at this time. Around the same time, the Council also reinstated Mr X’s severely overcrowded priority award. In mid-to-late August 2025, the Council sent Mr X the review outcome of its decision to accept the prevention duty. It told him it upheld its original decision.
33. At the start of October 2025, the Council ended its relief duty as 56 days had elapsed, but it did not accept the main duty as it says it was waiting for supporting information from Mr X. Mr X sent the Council the outstanding information in mid-November 2025, shortly after. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation at the end of that month, which Mr X accepted.

Back to top

Analysis

34. The Council has accepted it was at fault for:
• Failing to offer interim accommodation to Mr X.
• Failing to treat Mr X as homeless after receiving section 21 notices.
• Its incorrect decision to close Mr X’s homelessness application.
• Its errors in its review decision letter including incorrect dates and incorrect ethnic origin.
• Its review delays.
• Failing to provide Mr X with a copy of his housing file in a timely manner.
• Its poor communication with Mr X.
35. I also have other concerns about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness. The Council accepted the relief duty in late September 2024, but it did not decide whether it owed the main housing duty after 56 days had elapsed. The Council says it did not accept the main duty because it had issued its decision that Mr X was not homeless in mid-December 2024, bringing its relief duty to an end. But, there was a delay by the Council in it ending its relief duty, which was fault, and the Council has accepted that it was at fault for its decision to close Mr X’s homelessness application and decide he was not homeless.
36. Further, when the Council later accepted the relief duty in early August 2025, it again delayed ending the relief duty and deciding whether to accept the main duty. The Council says it did not accept the main duty due to outstanding documents it needed from Mr X. But, the Council did not ask Mr X for this information before mid-November 2025. The Council should have asked Mr X for the information it needed sooner, so this delay was fault.
37. The Council upheld its decision to remove Mr X’s severely overcrowded priority award. It says the decision to remove the priority was because Mr X did not have a reasonable preference on homelessness grounds at the time. But, this was because the Council had incorrectly ended its duty and closed Mr X’s homelessness application. This was fault. The Council has accepted the priority was also not reflected on Mr X’s housing application, after it said it had been reinstated and backdated. However, the Council has since updated this to correctly reflect Mr X’s priority and award date. The Council says this did not result in him missing the opportunity of being offered a property he bid on. This is because the applicants who bid on the same properties as Mr X during that period had a higher ranking.
38. The identified faults caused an injustice to Mr X. Mr X suffered distress and uncertainty about the future of his housing arrangements. The incorrect closure of his homelessness application and lack of interim accommodation offer from the Council meant he remained in his accommodation and subsequently incurred a court fee when his landlord was awarded possession. Mr X also missed out on the opportunity to be relieved of his homelessness sooner, but for the Council’s identified delays in its handling of his homelessness and in it offering interim accommodation. The Council’s poor communication and correspondence caused Mr X further frustration and meant he continued to chase the Council for updates.
39. The Council has accepted it has repeatedly delayed and made errors in the handling of Mr X’s homelessness application. It has apologised to Mr X and has offered £500 to acknowledge this. However, in the circumstances of this case, this is not sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by the fault. I have made recommendations below to reflect this.
40. I have not recommended the Council apologise to Mr X. This is because it has apologised in its complaint response for its poor service, which is appropriate. The Council says it has introduced additional internal checks and reminded relevant staff of their obligations and duties under the Housing Act and Code of Guidance. We have also made service improvement recommendations on another case we have investigated where we identified similar faults. As such, I have not made any service improvement recommendations. However, I welcome evidence from the Council of the actions it says it has already taken to improve its service. We monitor emerging themes and issues in the complaints that are brought to us, and we will make service improvement recommendations where appropriate.
41. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
42. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

43. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X by the identified fault, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Mr X £500 for the distress, uncertainty and lost opportunity caused by the identified faults in the Council’s handling of his homelessness, review delays, and housing priority.
• Pay Mr X £500 for the frustration caused by the identified faults in the Council’s communication and correspondence.
• Pay Mr X for the court fee incurred. If this fee has not yet been paid by Mr X, the Council can pay this to the relevant body directly. If Mr X has already paid the fee, the Council will reimburse him.
44. Within three months, the Council will also send us evidence of:
• the additional internal checks it says it has implemented to ensure decisions are fully explained and in line with the Housing Act and Code of Guidance; and
• the reminder it says it has sent to relevant staff of their obligations and duties under the Housing Act and Code of Guidance.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I uphold Mr X’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman