Summary: Mrs D complains about the handling of her homelessness application. I have found some fault by the Council including a failure to include medical needs information in the personalised housing plan. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs D and pay redress for avoidable time and trouble caused by delays and errors.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mrs D) says the Council failed to properly assess her homelessness application from June 2024 onwards. In particular, the Council did not assist finding alternative accommodation, did not provide sufficient assistance to prevent homelessness and did not respond to Mrs D’s complaints.

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. I have considered events from June 2024 through to the start of August 2025 when the case was referred to our Assessment Team. Some events in 2025 have not been considered under both stages of the Council’s complaints process but given Mrs D had reported issues with having her complaints properly administered I have exercised discretion to investigate events up to the start of August.
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We cannot always respond to complaints in the level of detail people might want. We have limited resources and must investigate complaints in a proportionate manner, focusing on general themes and issues, rather than providing a response to every individual issue raised in a complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2024

8. On 30 June 2024 Mrs D made a homelessness application to the Council due to receiving an eviction notice from her landlord. She told the Council that her family had complex medical and welfare issues and asked how to submit information about that. On 16 July Mrs D chased up the Council about her case. Mrs D’s Councillor subsequently contacted the Council, and it stated a Housing Officer would be assigned to the homelessness application by 2 August.
9. On 1 August Mrs D emailed the Council requesting a meeting to discuss her application and to detail the needs of her family. On 5 August Mrs D met the Housing Officer who completed a housing assessment form. They noted two members of the family had been victims of crime in the last few years. Mrs D reported medical conditions for her household members and the Officer noted she would send medical evidence to the Council. Mrs D asked if the Council would speak to the landlord to seek an extension to the lease and help find the family a new home. On 10 August Mrs D asked the Officer for a medical assessment, the Council told her to complete a vulnerability assessment form (which is used for the medical assessment process).
10. On 16 August the Officer spoke to the landlord who confirmed they wanted to continue with the eviction. The Officer updated Mrs D on 19 August that the landlord did not want to extend the lease. He would call Mrs D to discuss the personalised housing plan (PHP). On 27 August the Officer told Mrs D that he could not do anything more until the landlord applied to the court to progress the eviction. Once Mrs D heard from the court, she should notify the Council. On the same day Mrs D asked if the Council had carried out a vulnerability assessment and what decision had been reached. She also referred to the Council’s homeless strategy and said the Officer should not wait until the eviction took place to assist her. On 28 August Mrs D met the Housing Officer who explained the eviction notice had expired. On 29 August Mrs D asked the Council for a copy of its complaints about staff process, she referred to issues with Officers and said she would come back to the Council once she had the complaints process. She said she had received incorrect advice from the Housing Officer.
11. On 1 October the Councillor contacted the Council asking why Mrs D had not received a PHP. On 3 October Mrs D emailed the Council asking why she had not received a response to her 29 August request (she referred to this as a complaint). On 6 October the Councillor told the Council Mrs D had not received her PHP or a complaints response. On 15 October Mrs D asked the Housing Officer for an update and said the Council had incorrectly told the Councillor the PHP had been issued. The next day the Housing Officer asked to speak to Mrs D about the PHP and spoke to Mrs D on 17 October.
12. Also on 17 October the Medical Advisor gave their recommendations to the Council about vulnerability on medical grounds for the homelessness application. They assessed Mrs D and two children and produced separate reports for each member of the household. They had considered Mrs D’s information. They went through each of Mrs D’s medical conditions and found no current or relevant medical issues in respect of vulnerability. For one child they found no relevant medical issues but noted their age conferred automatic vulnerability. For the second child they did not find any relevant medical issues.
13. On 24 October Mrs D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She had told the Council her children were victims of crime, and it had failed to consider which areas the family could move to. She had not received a response to her initial complaint and had received the PHP which was incomplete. She said the Council was not providing early and consistent support as required by its homelessness strategy.
14. In November the Councillor asked the Council about the case. On 19 November the Council contacted the landlord. On 21 November the Housing Officer noted the eviction notice expired in a few days and the Council would wait to see if it progressed to court. The Temporary Accommodation Team had been asked to look for accommodation for Mrs D. In December the Housing Officer noted they had spoken to the landlord requesting they extend the lease on the property until after the academic year ended in 2025. On 16 December the Housing Officer met Mrs D and updated the PHP.

2025

15. On 25 February 2025 the Council wrote to Mrs D. The eviction notice had expired in December 2024, and the Council did not owe a duty because there was no threat of homelessness in the next 56 days. The Council explained the eviction process and told Mrs D to contact it if she received a new eviction notice. It also advised her of her right to a statutory review if she disagreed with the decision.
16. In March Mrs D applied to the Council again for homelessness assistance, she had received a new eviction notice. On 1 April the Review Team emailed Mrs D it had received her statutory review request to reconsider its decision that it did not owe a duty to her. On 11 April the Council booked a homelessness assessment meeting with Mrs D for 23 May. On 28 April Mrs D emailed the Council asking for an update on her review request. I cannot see the Council replied.
17. In May the Ombudsman contacted the Council to see if Mrs D had completed the complaints process. The Council emailed Mrs D on 8 May, it asked if she wanted to pursue a formal complaint. Mrs D replied that she had previously submitted a complaint and asked for a copy of the complaint’s procedure, but she did not receive a response. She had also requested the complaint be escalated but this had not been actioned. Furthermore, she had requested a review of the duty decision and not had a reply. The next day the Council emailed Mrs D and said the emails she had provided in support of previously asking for a complaint related to a Members enquiry which was a different process and any requests logged as a Members enquiry would not show as a complaint request. On 15 May Mrs D replied, her previous contact was clearly a complaint, so she was unclear why it had not been picked up or why the Council had not advised her about the correct process. The Council subsequently confirmed it would log a new complaint and Mrs D asked to add some information to her previous contact.
18. 23 May a Housing Officer interviewed Mrs D for the new homelessness application assessment. They noted they had advised Mrs D she could remain in the property until the landlord obtained a court order. The Council might be able to assist with advance rent and a deposit payment for a private rental property. Mrs D was asked to complete an income form.
19. On 14 July the Council wrote to Mrs D that it accepted a prevention duty towards her after her 24 March application. A PHP had been completed. The Housing Officer had tried to negotiate with the landlord but without success. The same day a PHP and prevention duty letter was sent to Mrs D. Both documents were dated 23 May 2025. The PHP included a section where support needs and medical issues should be recorded, that section was blank. On 24 July Mrs D spoke to an Officer about her concerns with the PHP which failed to refer to her children’s medical issues and had an incorrect date. The Council noted this would ‘be investigated’. I understand the Council subsequently reissued the PHP, the contents remained the same (the support needs and medical section remained blank) but it was dated 14 July.
20. On 4 August the Council issued an initial stage complaint response. Mrs D had raised issues about an incorrect date on the PHP. The Council apologised for the “unacceptable delay” issuing the PHP and for documents being incorrectly dated. It said this was a “significant administrative error” which caused Mrs D confusion. It also accepted Mrs D had not been told her Caseworker had left the Council. It apologised for the errors in the PHP including the incorrect household composition and not including the family’s health evidence. The Council said it was reinforcing internal procedures to ensure documents were correctly dated and that medical evidence was correctly recorded in the PHP. The Council was now working to produce a correct PHP.

Events outside my investigation timeframe

21. In September the Council sent evidence provided by Mrs D to the Medical Advisor for their view on the housing needs of the family. The Medical Advisor recommended any floor for a property with a lift or first floor property without a lift. At the end of September the possession claim expired. I understand the landlord subsequently pursued fresh eviction action. In November the Council accepted a relief duty towards Mrs D and issued a revised PHP which detailed the medical and support needs of the family. The Council sourced a private sector property for Mrs D and she corresponded with the Council querying the suitability of the accommodation.

What should have happened

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

22. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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 personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

23. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

24. 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

25. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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)

Medical and welfare need

26. The Council should assess what medical and welfare vulnerabilities an applicant has in relation to their homelessness and housing need. The applicant will complete a vulnerability assessment form; the Council’s independent Medical advisor will assess the evidence provided by the applicant and provide advice to the Council about medical and welfare vulnerability.

Review

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

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

28. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

Was there fault by the Council

29. Mrs D says the Council issued letters and PHPs that were wrongly dated or failed to include essential information. The Council has already accepted fault, in its formal complaint response, that it delayed issuing the 2025 PHP which was incorrectly dated and did not contain the correct information about the composition of the household. My investigation has shown the Council issued a PHP in July 2025 which failed to include details of the household’s medical issues and support needs despite Mrs D having previously supplied evidence about those matters. The Council subsequently reissued the PHP with the correct date but still failed to include medical and support information. From the evidence I have received it appears the PHP was not revised to include the medical and support information until November despite Mrs D having been interviewed in May. I consider this is fault by the Council.
30. Mrs D says the Council did not consider her complaint in October 2024. The contact made in October was requesting a copy of the complaints about staff and Members procedures, Mrs D was not lodging a complaint at that point. As such there was no requirement on the Council to lodge that request as a complaint. However the Council has not shown me any record that it responded to Mrs D and supplied the information she requested. In addition, when Mrs D chased the Council up and added points of complaint on 24 October the Council should have either lodged this as a complaint or contacted Mrs D if it was unclear what she was seeking. Instead no action was taken and that is fault by the Council.
31. Mrs D pursued the lack of a complaint response in May 2025, at that point she added some further points of complaint. It is unclear to me why she did not receive a substantive response to the complaint until the start of August which was significantly longer than the usual response time for an initial stage complaint. I consider there was delay by the Council.
32. The Council lodged a statutory review request from Mrs D in April 2025. It remains unclear to me what happened with this request, I have asked the Council, but it has not provided me with a clear response on this point. Mrs D says she did not receive a written decision from the Council. I can see that events superseded the review because Mrs D was challenging the Council’s decision that it did not owe her a duty but then she received a new eviction notice which meant she was eligible to progress a new application. However, the Council should have confirmed to Mrs D in writing about whether it was closing the review or issuing a decision.
33. Mrs D says the Council should have assessed if she required interim accommodation. The Council correctly advised Mrs D that she could remain at the property until she received the court notice in 2024. This advice was repeated in 2025 regarding the second application made by Mrs D. Whilst I appreciate Mrs D wanted the Council to take more action to assist her there is no evidence of fault in this matter.
34. I have not found fault in the Council’s assessment of the household’s medical and welfare needs. That is because the evidence shows me the Council did assess the information provided by Mrs D in 2024. I understand Mrs D may not have agreed with the outcome of the assessments, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong: that applies to this part of the complaint.

Did the fault cause an injustice

35. The delays responding to Mrs D’s complaint and the failure to include medical and support information in the 2025 PHP caused Mrs D avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council. Mrs D also remains uncertain about the outcome of her review.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the injustice to Mrs D the Council has agreed to my recommendations and will:

• Apologise to Mrs D
• Pay Mrs D £250 for avoidable time and trouble
• Confirm to Mrs D the outcome of the review request in 2025

37. The Council should also consider whether additional training or guidance is needed for officers on the importance of including medical and support information in PHPs.
38. 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

39. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman