Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to properly assess her homeless application for over a year. We found fault in the Council’s actions which caused prolonged uncertainty to Mrs B. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment of £200.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to properly assess her homeless application for over a year. She says this has caused her and her son and brother to live in unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period.

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 Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs B 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

Homeless applications

6. 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)

Decision letters

7. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

What happened

8. Mrs B lives with her son in one bedroom privately rented accommodation. She approached the Council in September 2024 saying the household was homeless because her elderly brother had moved in and there were now three adults, with medical needs, sharing one bedroom. The Council booked a telephone appointment to carry out an assessment the following day. The Council was unable to get through and sent a follow-up email.
9. It rebooked the appointment for 21 October 2024. During this call Mrs B explained that her brother (Mr C) had moved in following an operation and he had a tenancy in another borough. The Council advised that Mr C could approach the Council where he had the tenancy to ask for assistance as he was not counted as a resident in Mrs B’s property. It sent an advice letter explaining that it did not have reason to believe that Mrs B was homeless. There was no right of review against the decision.
10. Mrs B complained on 28 October and requested the Council re-open her application.
11. The Council responded to the complaint on 6 November saying that the duty to take a homeless application was not triggered because Mr C had a tenancy elsewhere. It partly upheld the complaint due to poor communication and a lack of sensitivity to their vulnerability.
12. On 13 December Mrs B complained again asking for the application to be reopened.
13. On 13 January 2025 the Council sent a decision that Mrs B was not homeless, with a right to request a review. Mrs B requested a review on 14 January. The Council contacted the council where Mr C had previously lived and requested a copy of his tenancy. The Council also sent a stage two complaint response saying that it had now issued a decision that Mrs B was not homeless.
14. The following day the Council withdrew the ‘not homeless’ decision due to inadequate evidence on the file to substantiate it. It asked Mrs B to provide further information.
15. In February 2025 the Council referred all three members of the household to the medical adviser and asked Mrs B to provide information about Mr C. Having received no further information it made another ‘not homeless’ decision on 6 March because Mrs B and her son had a tenancy available to them and Mr C had not provided evidence that his tenancy was not reasonable for him to occupy.
16. On 9 March Mrs B requested a review of the decision saying that the Council had not considered whether it was reasonable for three people to share one bedroom. The Council requested an extension to consider the review due to a backlog of cases.
17. On 27 May it withdrew the decision, again for lack of substantiating evidence on the file. The reviewing officer said the original caseworker should have carried out basic checks on Mr C’s tenancy status. Mrs B complained to us on 28 May.
18. In August 2025 the Council obtained evidence that Mr C had a tenancy elsewhere and that Mrs B’s address was not his main residence. It sent a fresh ‘not homeless’ decision with a right of review, which Mrs B requested. The matter is ongoing.

Findings

19. It is not my role to decide whether Mrs B and her household are homeless. That is a decision for the Council to make. Mrs B has a right of review to the Council and then a right of appeal to the county court if she remains dissatisfied.
20. But I have identified fault in the way the Council made its decisions. It decided on three occasions, (one without making any inquiries) that Mrs B was not homeless without obtaining any evidence to substantiate its decisions. The Council’s own internal review noted that the original decision-maker had not followed the Council’s policy on obtaining evidence to support decisions. This was fault which caused uncertainty to Mrs B as to her housing status and delayed the opportunity for her to appeal to the county court.
21. The injustice is limited as the Council has for a fourth time (after obtaining further evidence about Mr C’s situation) made a decision that Mrs B is not homeless and is carrying out a review of that decision. I have not concluded the delay affected the outcome, but it did prolong the uncertainty for Mrs B.

Back to top

Action

22. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mrs B, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision apologises to Mrs B and pays her £200.
23. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman