Summary: Miss D complained about the way the Council dealt with her homeless application after she fled domestic abuse. We found fault which caused Miss D to be in unsuitable accommodation for 21 months. The Council has agreed to apologise, backdate her priority date for her housing register application and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss D complained about the way the Council dealt with her homeless application. In particular, that the Council:
1. Wrongly closed her homelessness case in November 2023 and July 2024 and failed to give her a right to ask for a review of its decisions.
2. Did not contact her between April 2024 and July 2024 and failed to prevent her homelessness.
3. Failed to consider her disclosure of domestic abuse (made in her June 2023 homelessness application) in April 2024 and instead made her re-apply as homeless in January 2025.
4. Delayed assessing her homelessness application between January and April 2025 due to cancelling and missing assessment appointments.
5. Issued a personalised housing plan in May 2025 which required her to take unreasonable steps to prevent her homelessness.
6. Failed to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with her.
7. Did not deal with her complaints properly.
2. Miss D says this has caused significant distress affecting her mental health and a delay to her finding suitable housing. She wants the Council to backdate her housing register application to June 2023.

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 the future 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. 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)
6. 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

7. I am investigating the period June 2023 to 30 May 2025. Miss D complained to the Ombudsman on 30 May 2025. This means complaints about events prior to May 2024 are late. In line with paragraph 5 above, I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate the late complaint. This is to enable me to make sense of the complaint. In addition, Miss D believed that action was being taken by the Council and did not become aware of any problems until March 2024 and there were periods she was unable to pursue the matter due to mental ill health.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Miss D about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
9. Miss D and the Council 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness relevant law and guidance

10. 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.
11. If someone contacts a council seeking 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
12. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
13. Councils need to assess whether the applicant is a victim of domestic abuse or if they are at risk of domestic abuse. The council should try to get an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive or whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation. The authority should support the victim to outline their experience and make an assessment based on the details of the case. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
14. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Relief duty and interim accommodation

15. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
16. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found.
17. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) Applicants in priority need include a person who is homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse.

Main housing duty and temporary accommodation

18. When the relief period ends after 56 days, the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. The Code of Guidance states that people owed the main housing duty should be notified the day after the relief duty ends.
20. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Review Rights

21. Homeless applicants have a right to request a review within 21 days of being notified of various housing decisions including the following:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the suitability of temporary accommodation offered to the applicant after the main housing duty has been accepted (under section 193).

Closure of homelessness applications

22. The Code of Guidance says councils may close applications after 56 days if there has been no contact (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 18.14). If an applicant makes contact again after 56 days the Council needs to determine if there has been a change of circumstances that affect the application.
23. The Council’s procedure if an applicant does not respond is to evidence attempts to make contact, then complete the corresponding notification or decision letter. If the relief duty is to be given, complete PHP and relief duty accept letter and issue this, noting that an assessment could not be carried out as the applicant was not contactable. If the applicant makes contact, continue with the application as normal.

Reasonable adjustments

24. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any organisation which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people. A mental health condition may be a disability if it has a substantial and long‑term adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day‑to‑day activities.
25. Councils are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

What happened

26. I have set out the key events; this is not meant to detail everything that happened.
27. Miss D approached the Council as homeless on 26 June 2023. She said she had been sleeping on the sofa in her parents’ home but due to overcrowding she had been asked to leave. Her application said “I have been involved in domestic violence”, referred to support she had received from domestic abuse charities and referred to her mental health problems.
28. There is no evidence the Council made homelessness inquiries or contacted Miss D. It closed the case on 8 November 2023 following an audit as there had been no contact from Miss D.
29. Miss D made a complaint in March 2024 that she had not heard from the Council since June 2023. In response, a housing officer contacted Miss D and carried out a homelessness assessment. The assessment notes Miss D’s mental health issues. It says the reason for homelessness is eviction due to overcrowding. There is no reference to domestic abuse. The Council accepted the prevention duty and issued a personalised housing plan on 8 April 2024.
30. In July 2024, a domestic abuse support advocate contacted the Council. The advocate said that Miss D was fleeing domestic abuse but had been unable to disclose this to the Council due to trauma. She said Miss D had fled her property in 2023 and had been sofa surfing since. The Council allocated Miss D’s case to a domestic abuse housing officer.
31. The Council decided there were new circumstances and opened a new housing application. It asked Miss D for information to establish her eligibility for homelessness support. It then closed the case on 30 July as there had been no reply. It did not issue a letter ending the prevention duty. The Council told Miss D to make a new homelessness application.
32. An advocate contacted the Council in November 2024. She said Miss D had been unable to engage due to poor mental health and asked for her homelessness application to be re-opened. The Council said a new homelessness application would need to be made.
33. Miss D made a new homelessness application in January 2025 with the help of the advocate. Miss D asked for meetings to be held via Teams, so that her advocates could be involved and also as she had problems with her mobile phone. She asked for advance notice of appointments.
34. There were then problems arranging a homelessness assessment with some confusion over whether appointments had been arranged or cancelled and no housing officer being allocated.
35. Miss D complained on 4 March. The Council’s response on 19 March said it accepted that Miss D’s homelessness case should not have been closed in November 2023 and that there had been delays in progressing the application from then until July 2024. The Council had no record of a request for reasonable adjustments. Miss D remained dissatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
36. A homelessness assessment was carried out on 8 April. This determined that Miss D was in priority need due to domestic abuse.
37. The Council’s final complaint response of 1 May said there had been poor communication in relation to the assessment appointments. It apologised that the Council had not responded promptly to Miss D’s request for housing assistance.
38. The Council accepted the relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan on 7 May. It offered Miss D interim accommodation, which she moved into on 10 June.
39. Miss D asked for the suitability of the accommodation to be reviewed but she did not have this review right until the Council accepted the main housing duty. It did so on 10 October. The Council said Miss D’s effective date for her housing register application was 23 January 2025, the date she made the second homelessness application.

My findings

40. After Miss D applied as homeless on 26 June 2023, there is no evidence the Council made homelessness inquiries or a decision that there was no reason to believe Miss D was threatened with homelessness. Councils have a duty to make homelessness inquiries if they have a reason to believe someone is threatened with homelessness. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. I find there was reason to believe Miss D was threatened with homelessness in June 2023. The Council’s failure to carry out inquiries is therefore fault.
41. We expect councils to conduct assessments and make homeless decisions in a reasonable timeframe. Our view is that up to four weeks is reasonable for making homeless inquiries. Given that the Council later accepted it owed Miss D a prevention duty, I find that on the balance of probabilities, if inquiries had been made, the prevention duty would have been owed to Miss D from 24 July 2023.
42. Miss D’s application clearly states she has been involved in domestic violence. Although she did not discuss this with the officer in the homelessness assessment of March 2024, my view on balance is that if inquiries had been done in June 2023, the Council would have assessed whether Miss D was a victim or at risk of domestic abuse. I consider it would have decided that she was homeless in 2023 due to fleeing domestic abuse as this was the reason she had left her property and moved to her parents’ home.
43. I therefore find that, if there had been no fault, the Council would have decided that Miss D was threatened with homelessness, eligible for assistance and in priority need due to domestic abuse. It therefore should have placed Miss D in interim accommodation when she became homeless.
44. I have not seen an eviction notice. I therefore consider that the relief duty was owed 56 days after the prevention duty should have been accepted. i.e. the relief duty was owed from 18 September 2023. I therefore find that the Council’s failure to place Miss D in interim accommodation in September 2023 is fault.
45. I have not seen any evidence that Miss D requested reasonable adjustments be made, other than having Teams calls with her advocates, which the Council agreed to. I therefore do not find fault.
46. However, there was further fault by the Council:
• It wrongly closed Miss D’s applications in November 2023 and in July 2024 (as it did not wait 56 days before closing the case).
• It did not issue a decision ending its prevention duty in July 2024.
• It asked Miss D to make a new homelessness application. This was not necessary as the Council was already aware that Miss D was fleeing domestic abuse from her June 2023 application so there were no new circumstances.
• It failed to attend homelessness assessment appointments in February and March 2025.
• It delayed issuing a decision to accept the main housing duty. After the relief duty was accepted on 7 May 2025, the Council should have made a decision to accept the main housing duty 56 days later. It made it 157 days later.
47. However, my view is that these faults flow from the initial fault in June 2023 not to do homelessness inquiries. That fault caused the following injustice to Miss D:
• She has been given the wrong effective date for her housing register application; it should be 26 June 2023 when she first applied as homeless.
• She has some uncertainty about whether she could have found new accommodation from July to September 2023, if the Council had accepted the prevention duty and issued a personalised housing plan.
• She lost out on interim and temporary accommodation from 18 September 2023. As a result she was sofa surfing for almost 21 months until she moved into interim accommodation on 10 June 2025. Sofa surfing is unsuitable accommodation.
• Her right to seek a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation was delayed until October 2025.
• The distress and frustration from the faults listed in paragraph 46.
48. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says to remedy distress and uncertainty caused by fault, a moderate, symbolic payment up to £500 may be appropriate.
49. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for symbolic financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. We assess each case on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the complainant. My view is that a suitable amount is £150 per month. In reaching this view I have taken into account that, although sofa surfing, Miss D was housed in accommodation that was in a good condition with adequate facilities.

Back to top

Action

50. Within six weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise
2. Pay Miss D £3,150 to remedy being caused to live in unsuitable accommodation for 21 months.
3. Pay Miss D £500 to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused.
4. Make the effective date for her housing register application 26 June 2023.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman