Summary: Mr Q complains the Council did not properly handle his homeless application. It did not make a proper decision and then said he did not have a local connection. We uphold the complaint. The Council made a decision to not accept a new application from Mr Q based on a flawed analysis of whether he had had a change of circumstances. This will have caused him some distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to our recommendation of a symbolic payment as a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr Q) complains the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (the Council):

• ended its homeless relief duty to him without properly informing him;
• admitted in its complaint response it could see where he had sent messages and had not responded. It apologised for this. But it refused to reinstate its duty to him;
• told him to make another application. But it then said he did not have a local connection, despite previously accepting he did have one.

2. Mr Q wants the Council to reinstate its duty and help him find somewhere to live.

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. 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

5. Mr Q had complained earlier to the Ombudsman. We made our decision in June 2024. Mr Q did not then contact the Council again until April 2025. So I have investigated matters from then, until June 2025, the date of Mr Q’s complaint to the Ombudsman.
6. I do not consider it reasonable for Mr Q to seek judicial review about the Council’s 2025 decisions, given the time, cost and resources involved. It is more proportionate for the complaint to be investigated using the resources and powers of the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr Q and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr Q 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

Legal and administrative background

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (‘the Guidance’) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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)

Assessments and a council’s relief duty

10. The relief duty is set out in section 189B of the Housing Act 1996. Where a local housing authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it is subject to a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing.

The main housing duty

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under local connection rules set out at Section 198 of the Housing Act 1996).

Local connection

12. The Guidance says housing authorities do not usually have to make enquiries as to whether an applicant has a local connection with an area. But if a council does decide to consider local connection and then believes an applicant has no local connection and may have a connection elsewhere, they can make a referral to another council.

Decision letters

13. After completing inquiries, a 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)

Review rights

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

• their eligibility for assistance;
• 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 at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
• to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met;
• whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority;
• the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

15. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
16. Other decisions do not have a right of review. Relevant to this complaint is where a council decides a new application has the same facts as an earlier application.

What happened

Background

17. Mr Q says he grew up in the Borough the Council’s area covers and has family members there. But in 2023 Mr Q was living in a different Borough (I shall refer to the Council in that area as Council 2).
18. In early 2024 Mr Q approached the Council asking to make a homeless application. In February the Council wrote to Mr Q advising it owed him a ‘relief duty’. In April it ended its relief duty.
19. Mr Q complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s April 2024 decision to end the relief duty. In June 2024 we advised Mr Q we would not investigate his complaint, as he had an alternative remedy by way of a review/appeal of the decision.

What I have investigated

20. In April 2025 Mr Q telephoned the Council’s duty line to advise he wanted to follow up on his homelessness application. In May, after a telephone conversation, the Council’s officer emailed Mr Q asking for some documents.
21. Mr Q telephoned the Council shortly after and discussed his application. Later the Council’s officer emailed Mr Q about information he had given the Council. The officer advised:
• Mr Q was not eligible to make an application, as the bank statements he had submitted showed an address outside London, so he did not have a local connection;
• family members Mr Q told the Council about were not close enough to count for local connection purposes;
• Mr Q had told the Council there had not been any change in his circumstances since the Council’s 2024 decision ending its relief duty. And the Council was not obliged to take a new application when there had not been a change in circumstances;
• if Mr Q re-approached the Council it was likely it would refer his application to the Council in the area where his bank account’s address was (I shall refer to that Council as Council 3).
22. Later in May Mr Q complained to the Council. It upheld his complaint due to some missed contacts, but did not uphold the complaint about whether it should have taken a homelessness application from him. In June Mr Q complained to the Ombudsman.
23. In response to our initial enquiries, the Council advised its response to Mr Q’s May contact was lacking. It accepted it should have issued a formal notification letter, rather than advising him by email that he could not make a new application.
24. The Council re-opened Mr Q’s case. In November it wrote to him to advise its view was it was not obliged to accept a further application under the Housing Act 1996 because:
1. in 2024 it had ended its relief duty as Mr Q had not contacted its officer who had made referrals for viewings. Mr Q had not asked for a review of that decision;
2. with his 2025 contact, its view was Mr Q had a local connection with Council 3, but not with the Council;
3. in his telephone conversation with the Council’s officer, Mr Q advised there had been no changes in his circumstances since his 2024 application. As there had not been any change in circumstances, the Council did not need to take a new application.
25. Mr Q complained to the Ombudsman. I made enquiries to the Council. Its response advised:
• when Mr Q made his 2024 application, he was living in an address in Council 2’s area. Before that, he had been living in a different address in Council 2’s area;
• so in 2024 his local connection was with Council 2, not with the Council, despite it accepting a relief duty. If, then, it had accepted a main duty towards Mr Q, it would have referred this to Council 2, where he had a local connection.
26. M Q advises me he is now in private rented sector accommodation, found for him by a homelessness charity. He says it is in a part of London a long way from his family and in accommodation which he does not like. He would like to move back to the Council’s area.

Analysis

27. The Council accepts that, when Mr Q approached it in 2025, asking to make a new homeless application, it should have advised him formally (by letter) of its decision, instead of the email it issued. That was fault.
28. The Council’s decision was it did not need to consider a fresh application, because Mr Q had told it nothing had changed in his circumstances from its earlier decision. The Council says that limits his injustice, as that decision does not carry a right of review (except by way of judicial review).
29. I have considered the Council’s position and do not agree with its analysis. Its 2025 decision was Mr Q had not had any material change of circumstances. But:
• in 2024 the Council says its decision would have been that Mr Q had a local connection to Council 2;
• in 2025 its officer advised Mr Q that his local connection was with Council 3.
30. That was a change in Mr Q’s circumstances (whatever he might have told the Council). The injustice to Mr Q is he did not get a decision he could challenge by review and appeal.
31. In terms of remedy, Mr Q is no longer homeless, so I cannot recommend the Council now make a decision on Mr Q’s application. But the Council’s fault will likely have caused Mr Q some distress and uncertainty that demands a payment as a symbolic remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council take the following action:
• apologise. 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 I have recommended in my findings;
• make Mr Q a symbolic payment of £100 in recognition of the distress caused by the fault I have identified.
33. The Council has agreed to my recommendaitons. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman