Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed assessing his homeless application and in providing him with accommodation and failed to respond to his communications. The Council delayed dealing with the homeless application, delayed providing interim accommodation and failed to respond to communications from Mr X and his representatives. That caused Mr X distress and meant he had to stay in unsafe accommodation longer than he should have. An apology, payment to Mr X, action to address delays and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council:
• delayed assessing his homeless application;
• delay providing him with accommodation; and
• failed to respond to his communications.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions led to him having a breakdown and being admitted to hospital.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homeless applications and accommodation

8. 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.
9. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
10. 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 interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
11. The threshold for triggering the interim duty (section 188(1) is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.
12. Applicants have a priority need for accommodation if they are homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation a Council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

What happened

14. Mr X approached the Council as homeless on 9 August 2024. Mr X reported he was staying with a friend in his housing association property but could no longer stay there. Mr X said he had complex PTSD and had experienced a stroke.
15. Mr X’s representative chased the Council for progress with the homeless application in September and November 2024. That prompted the Council to allocate the case to a case officer who carried out an assessment on 25 November. The Council asked Mr X for supporting medical evidence.
16. When Mr X provided the supporting medical information in December 2024 he reported he had experienced domestic abuse from the person who provided him with accommodation.
17. Mr X’s representative contacted the Council to raise concerns about the fact he remained living in a property with the friend that had threatened him.
18. Mr X’s representative chased the Council for an update in January 2025 where further concerns were raised about the safety of Mr X remaining in his current accommodation. When Mr X’s representative contacted the Council on 30 January they reported Mr X’s friend had asked him to leave the property by 12 February.
19. Mr X’s representative tried to contact the Council without success on 3 February. Mr X also telephoned the Council on 6 February but did not receive a call back.
20. Mr X’s representative put in a further complaint on 11 February and chased the Council on 13 February.
21. On 16 February the Council wrote to Mr X to tell him it had accepted the relief duty.
22. On around 17 February Mr X was admitted to hospital. Following that he was discharged into a crisis recovery house.
23. The Council provided Mr X with temporary accommodation on 3 March 2025.
24. Mr X has since accepted private rented accommodation with a two-year tenancy.

Analysis

25. Mr X says the Council delayed assessing his homeless application, delayed providing him with accommodation and failed to respond to communications from him and his representatives.
26. It is clear from the documentary records the Council took no action on Mr X’s August 2024 homeless application until 25 November 2024. That delay is fault, which the Council accepts. The Council also accepts when Mr X provided medical information in December 2024 it should have identified the need to provide interim accommodation and failed to do so. That is also fault. The Council accepts it failed to respond to various contacts from Mr X and his representatives, which is also fault.
27. The Council has offered a financial remedy to reflect the delay processing the homeless application, delay providing interim accommodation and the failure to respond to communications. I consider the £250 the Council offered for the delay processing Mr X’s homeless application and for the issues with communication a satisfactory remedy for that part of the complaint.
28. For the delay providing Mr X with interim accommodation the Council has offered £250 per month for the period December 2024 to March 2025. That is a remedy of £750. I am satisfied the Council has calculated that remedy on the basis Mr X provided the Council with medical evidence in December 2024 which should have identified the need for it to provide interim accommodation.
29. However, I am satisfied Mr X provided that medical information because the housing officer that interviewed him on 25 November 2024 asked him for it. I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had dealt with the homeless application as it should have done in August 2024 it would have asked Mr X for that medical information then. I am also satisfied, on the balance of probability, Mr X would have provided the Council with that information in August 2024. I therefore consider Mr X has missed out on interim accommodation from the Council from 9 August 2024. That is a period of 6 months, taking into account the fact Mr X was in hospital and then alternative accommodation from around 17 February 2025.
30. During that period I am satisfied Mr X either sofa surfed or remained living in accommodation provided by his friend from whom he had experienced domestic abuse. it is clear that impacted on Mr X’s mental health and I note he was admitted to hospital. I also recognise though there were other things going on in Mr X’s life at the time which contributed to his mental health issues. The Ombudsman normally recommends an amount between £150 and £350 per month. In this case I consider £250 per month an appropriate remedy. That makes a financial remedy of £1,500. With the £250 to reflect the impact from the delay processing the homeless application and in failing to respond to communications that makes a total financial remedy of £1,750.
31. Alongside that I recommended the Council draw up an action plan to address the delays allocating caseworkers to homeless applicants. I also recommended the Council provide guidance to officers working in the homeless team about the Council’s duty to provide interim accommodation to those with a priority need, which includes those who have experienced domestic abuse. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X for the distress he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr X £1,750; and
• provide guidance to officers working in the homeless team about the Council’s duty to provide interim accommodation to those with a priority need, which includes those who have experienced domestic abuse.
33. Within three months of my decision the Council should draw up an action plan to address the delays allocating officers to assess homeless applications.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman