Summary: The Council was at fault for the way it handled Ms X’s homelessness application. This caused her unnecessary distress and anxiety. To remedy the injustice caused the Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council responded to her request for homelessness assistance, namely:
• Her housing officer told her she was not a priority until she was 6 months pregnant.
• The Council did not arrange emergency accommodation after she provided it with an eviction letter.
• Her housing officer failed to properly communicate with her and keep her updated.
2. Ms X said the Council’s failings caused her significant anxiety and uncertainty at a time when she was pregnant.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X 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

Law and guidance

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. 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)
10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. This is called the Prevention Duty. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. Once a council is satisfied someone is homeless and not just threatened with homelessness it must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation. This is called the Relief Duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need and is not homeless intentionally, the council has a duty to make accommodation available. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

What happened

15. In mid-November 2024, Ms X approached the Council for homelessness assistance. Ms X was living in a one bedroom flat with her ex-partner and their father. Ms X had recently found out she was pregnant.
16. In mid-December 2024, a housing officer contacted Ms X. It is not clear whether the housing officer carried out a homelessness assessment as there were no notes on Ms X’s housing file about this. Ms X said the housing officer told her to look for private rented accommodation.
17. Ms X contacted her housing officer in early January 2025 and they told her to keep looking for accommodation in the private sector. The housing officer recorded on Ms X’s file that she was not homeless, however there is no record of a decision letter or that this was communicated to Ms X.
18. In early February 2025, Ms X sent her housing officer a copy of a letter from her ex-partner’s father telling her she had to leave the property by 1 March 2025.
19. On 24 February 2025, Ms X spoke with her housing officer on the telephone. There are no records of this call on Ms X’s housing file, however Ms X has provided an email from the housing officer to confirm it took place. Ms X said the housing officer told her over the telephone she needed to be 6 months pregnant to be considered a priority for accommodation. Ms X also said her housing officer agreed to call her ex-partner’s father to see if she could stay at the accommodation longer.
20. Ms X chased up a response from her housing officer in late February 2025 but did not hear anything back from her housing officer. On 1 March 2025, Ms X moved out of the property and stayed for three nights in her car. Ms X’s housing officer spoke with her ex-partner’s father and offered a financial incentive for Ms X to remain in the property until she was 6 months pregnant. Ms X moved back in on 4 March 2025.
21. Ms X received a further notice from her ex-partner’s father telling her to leave the property by 1 April 2025.
22. The Council placed Ms X into interim accommodation on 1 April 2025. In late June 2025, the Council decided it owed Ms X the main housing duty.

Ms X’s complaint

23. Ms X complied to the Council in late March 2025 about how it had treated her and handled her homelessness application.
24. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in mid-April 2025. The Council said:
• Its housing officer denied they told her she had to wait until she was 6 months pregnant to be classed as priority for accommodation.
• There were delays contacting Ms X after she approached the Council for homelessness assistance on 14 November 2024. The Council said this was due to staff shortages.
• The case notes showed her housing officer decided in December 2024 that Ms X was not homeless. The Council said this decision was not confirmed in any decision letter and there were no notes to show the Council told Ms X this decision.
• On 4 March 2024 it should have accepted a Prevention Duty for Ms X and issued a PHP. The Council said it was unclear whether it sent a Prevention Duty letter to Ms X.
• It initially tried to negotiate for Ms X to stay longer in her property. When the Council received confirmation she could not stay it offered her emergency accommodation on 1 April 2025.
• It partially upheld Ms X’s complaint as there was a lack of communication regarding her homeless application. The Council said it had allocated Ms X a new housing officer going forward.
25. In May 2025, Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at the next stage of its process. Ms X said from 1 to 4 March 2025, she had to sleep in her car due to the actions of her housing officer. Ms X said she sent the Council a copy of her eviction letter and did not receive any help from her housing officer during this time.
26. The Council provided Ms X with its final response to her complaint in June 2025. The Council said it should have contacted Ms X urgently following her communication in February 2025 saying she was going to be homeless by March 2025. The Council offered Ms X £250.
27. Ms X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Findings

28. Ms X initially approached the Council on 14 November 2024, however it took the Council a month to contact her. This delay was fault. The Council has recognised this in its complaint response, however this delay will have added to Ms X’s anxiety and distress at the prospect of being homeless while pregnant.
29. In early January 2025, notes on Ms X’s file said her housing officer considered she was not homeless. There is no record of this decision being sent to Ms X in a letter or communicated to her. This was fault. Given Ms X’s circumstances it was clear she did not believe she was not homeless and by not communicating the decision meant she was not able to challenge the decision at the time.
30. Ms X alleges her housing officer told her she would not be considered a priority for accommodation until she was 6 months pregnant. The Council denied this happened. The Council’s case notes make no reference to this conversation, however the notes are missing most of the contact between Ms X and her housing officer. Ms X has provided copies of text messages and emails between her and her housing officer, none of which are recorded in her case notes. These confirm a telephone conversation took place on the date Ms X alleged. Following this call Ms X emailed her housing officer to confirm if she would be considered priority for accommodation when her pregnancy reached 6 months.
31. 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. Given the lack of recording on Ms X’s homelessness case notes and the further evidence Ms X provided, I am satisfied on balance that Ms X was provided with incorrect information about needing to be 6 months pregnant to be considered a priority for housing. This was fault.
32. By giving Ms X incorrect advice the Council has put her at a disadvantage. Instead this was an opportunity for the Council to consider whether it should have provided Ms X with interim accommodation.
33. The Council was also at fault for not properly acting on Ms X’s concerns that she was being asked to leave by her resident landlord on 1 March 2025. As the Council did not respond to her concerns about this Ms X thought she had to leave and spend several nights sleeping in her car. Had the Council properly communicated with her at this point or contacted her landlord in advance of the eviction date, it may have been able to avoid Ms X spending time sleeping in her car.
34. The Council has recognised this through its complaint response and offered Ms X £250. While this is welcomed I do not consider £250 is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X.
35. The Council has acknowledged it should have issued Ms X with a decision saying it owed her the Prevention Duty in March 2025. Failure to do so was fault. There is also no record that Ms X received a PHP. Emails she sent to the Council in late March 2025 confirmed she was asking the Council whether she had a PHP. This meant Ms X did not know what duty the Council owed her and would not have been able to know what steps she was meant to take to help her housing situation as listed in her PHP. While this was fault, the Council placed Ms X into interim accommodation around three weeks later, therefore I do not consider the injustice was significant.

Back to top

Agreed Action

36. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice she suffered from the above faults. 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.
• Pay Ms X £500 to recognise the distress she suffered as a result of having to sleep in her car for several nights.
• Look at why the case notes for Ms X’s homeless file missed out lots of contact and why no decision letters were recorded. The Council should see if this is a systemic issue within the housing team or just the result of one housing officer. The Council should report back to the Ombudsman with the steps it will take to ensure case notes properly record what has happened on someone’s homeless file.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice casued.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman