Summary: The Council delayed deciding Mr X’s homelessness application and failed to consider medical information he provided as part of his application. This caused Mr X prolonged uncertainty over the outcome of his application. The Council had agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and review his application.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application and his request for medical priority to move home. He says he has had to live in unsuitable accommodation which has severely impacted his mental health. He wants the Council to correctly assess his application and compensate him for the impact of its failings.

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Homelessness

6. 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.
7. 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)
8. 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)

Housing allocations

9. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

What happened

11. Mr X is on the Council’s housing register and made a homelessness application to the Council on 3 June 2024. In the application he told the Council his current home was in an unsuitable condition and uninhabitable. He said his landlord refused to repair the property.
12. In November 2024 Mr X sent the Council an application form for medical priority on its housing register. Mr X said he suffered from a mental health condition and the condition of his current property was making the condition worse. Mr X signed the form but did not sign the section authorising the Council to speak to Mr X’s GP and other practitioners about his health.
13. There is no record of the Council responding to Mr X’s homelessness application or medical information form. Mr X complained on 12 January 2025. He said the Council had not responded to his homelessness application. The Council called Mr X several days later. It apologised for the delay and said a caseworker would be in touch in the next week to carry out a full assessment.
14. The Council issued a complaint response on 17 January 2025. It said a caseworker would prioritise the case and be in touch. It encouraged Mr X to continue bidding on properties. It said its caseworker would discuss the disrepair of the property.
15. There is no record of a caseworker contacting Mr X. In mid-February the Council emailed Mr X to say it had awarded him “priority home seeker status” on its housing register due to his ongoing homelessness application. It said it had not received any medical information for medical housing priority.
16. Mr X re-sent the medical application form to the Council on 15 February 2025, along with a disrepair report of his current property. Mr X had still not signed the form to authorise the Council to speak to medical practitioners about his health.
17. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint process on 8 March 2025. In April 2025 the Council arranged an appointment for Mr X. It met with Mr X on 1 May 2025. The records show it discussed the disrepair of Mr X’s property and referred him to its private rented sector team over the property’s disrepair.
18. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint on 15 May 2025. It said it had raised the disrepair issues with the relevant team but Mr X had not been served with a notice to leave his property. It said Mr X was not currently threatened with homelessness and he had not submitted a medical information form. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
19. The Council wrote to Mr X on 17 June 2025 with its decision that while Mr X was eligible for assistance, he was not threatened with homelessness. It said it was satisfied his current accommodation remained reasonable to occupy. It offered Mr X a right to review its decision.
20. In October 2025 the Council replied to Mr X’s email from February 2025 saying it could not process the medical information form as it was now an outdated form. It sent Mr X a new form which Mr X has yet to return.
21. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted it had delayed processing Mr X’s application and failed to adequately address the suitability of Mr X’s current property. It said it should not have closed his homelessness case until its environmental health team had looked into the issues at his property.
22. Since the events of this complaint the Council has implemented a new system for dealing with homelessness applications and seen a reduction in waiting times. It also ensures case allocations are monitored by duty managers to avoid a repeat of the failures in this case. Because the Council is already taking suitable steps, I have not made any service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

My findings

23. Mr X made a homelessness application on 3 June 2024. The Council had “reason to believe” he may be homeless or threatened with homeless and that he was eligible for housing assistance. It therefore had a duty to make enquiries to decide if it owed him a duty. Whilst there is no specific timeframe for deciding whether a prevention or relief duty is owed, we would usually expect it to make that decision within two weeks, unless the situation was unusually complex, which is not the case here. The Council took over a year to decide Mr X was not threatened with homelessness, which is a substantial delay and was fault.
24. The Council accepts it delayed accepting Mr X’s application, and that when it did decide he was not homeless it did not adequately review the condition of Mr X’s property. I am unable to say whether the Council would have decided Mr X was homeless had it properly considered the application. However, the delay caused Mr X prolonged uncertainty over whether the Council owed him a homelessness duty.
25. In November 2024 Mr X attempted to provide the Council with information on his medical condition. We would expect the Council to consider the information provided and decide whether this meant he should have additional priority on its housing register. While Mr X did not sign the form the Council did not respond until February 2025. Its response suggests it had not reviewed the form, and it failed to alert Mr X to his error so he could take appropriate action. When Mr X immediately resubmitted the form in February 2025, the Council took a further six months to respond. When it did respond, it failed to tell Mr X about the error on the form, instead asking him to complete a new version of the form. This was fault. This caused Mr X further prolonged uncertainty over whether he was due medical priority.
26. Mr X pursued his housing applications and complaint for over a year. During this time the Council failed to respond to Mr X’s emails and properly review information he provided. This was fault and caused Mr X time and trouble in pursuing the issue.

Back to top

Action

27. Within one month of the final decision the Council had agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the prolonged uncertainty and time and trouble caused by its failures in this case. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £500 to recognise the impact of the prolonged uncertainty and time and trouble caused by its failures in this case.
3. Complete a full review of Mr X’s homelessness application to assess whether it owes Mr X a homelessness duty. The Council should ensure it considers the condition of Mr X’s current property, and whether it is reasonable for Mr X to continue to occupy it, as part of this review. It should issue a decision in writing explaining its reasons and setting out relevant review rights.
4. Provide Mr X with an opportunity to present up to date medical information and review his housing register application, deciding whether he is eligible for medical priority. This decision should be issued in writing, explaining the reasons and setting out relevant review rights.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman