Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to comply with its duties when he applied for homelessness assistance, wrongly decided he was not in priority need, offered accommodation that was not suitable, ignored his request to join its housing register and had poor complaint handling. We find the Council at fault regarding some of its homelessness duties which caused Mr X distress due to a night of sleeping rough and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his application for homelessness assistance that he made in August 2024. In particular he complains the Council:
1. Failed to comply with its statutory homelessness duties.
2. Wrongly decided he was not in priority need.
3. Offered accommodation that was unsuitable because it was too far away.
4. Subsequently offered accommodation that was unsuitable because it directly conflicted with his vulnerabilities.
5. Ignored his request to join its housing register.
6. Intentionally delayed a complaint response.
2. Mr X said the Council’s faults caused him to sleep rough for one night when it cancelled his accommodation, and caused him significant distress that has negatively impacted his mental health.
3. He would like the Council to provide him long-term suitable accommodation, allow him access to its housing register, pay compensation, and provide staff training to prevent the same things happening in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.
   (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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.
7. 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

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

Homelessness 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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with 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 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)

The relief duty

12. 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.
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 the council decides the person is in priority need and not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends automatically after 56 days, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. Where inquiries are not completed before the end of the relief duty, the Code advises the decision should be made within 15 working days from when the relief duty ends. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Interim accommodation

15. 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)
16. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.

Notifications to applicants

17. A council is required to provide written notifications to applicants of certain decisions. Notifications should be clearly written and include information about the right to request a review and the timescales that apply. In cases where the applicant may have difficulty understanding the implications of the decision, a council should consider arranging for a member of staff to provide and explain the notification in person. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Review rights

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of decisions including:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• not in priority need;
• 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.

Accommodation pending review

19. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

What happened

20. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
21. Mr X applied to the Council for homelessness assistance on 22 August 2024. He had become homeless two days earlier.
22. Mr X said the Council initially dismissed his request for help so he had to contact its out-of-hours team. The Council provided him interim accommodation the same day. Mr X said it was eight miles away and he had to walk there. The Council provided Mr X closer interim accommodation the following day.
23. The Council completed an initial housing needs assessment with Mr X on 23 August.
24. On 28 August, Mr X missed an appointment with the Council so it cancelled his interim accommodation. Mr X said he did not have a mobile phone at that point. A professional representative helped him try to resolve the situation. However, it was not resolved and Mr X said he had to sleep rough during the night of 28 August.
25. On 29 August Mr X attended a meeting with the Council. They completed a personalised housing plan (PHP). The Council decided it had the relief duty toward Mr X. It drafted a letter to notify him. It later discovered it did not send the letter or PHP to him due to an error.
26. Also on 29 August the Council provided Mr X interim accommodation while it undertook relief duties. The accommodation was a self-contained flat.
27. The Council made further inquiries because it had not decided if Mr X was in priority need. Mr X said the Council emailed him in December to tell him it was intending to decide he was not in priority need. The Council also offered Mr X shared accommodation instead of the flat.
28. On 6 January 2025 a professional representative made a stage one complaint to the Council on behalf of Mr X. The complaint was about its intention to decide he was not in priority need, the shared accommodation, and that the Council had not sent any notification documents to Mr X.
29. The Council contacted the professional representative and Mr X on 10 January. It agreed it had not sent the notification letters and PHP to Mr X. It apologised and sent the documents. It said it had not made a decision regarding priority need. It said Mr X was not required to leave his flat to move to the shared accommodation. It said Mr X would have review rights once the decisions were made.
30. Throughout January Mr X’s professional representative raised concerns with the Council about its handling of Mr X’s application. The Council responded to the concerns.
31. On 26 February the Council notified Mr X it had decided he was not in priority need. It said its relief duty was ongoing. However, it said he would be required to leave his interim accommodation soon because of the decision.
32. On 27 February the Council responded to Mr X’s stage 1 complaint.
33. On 13 March the Council notified Mr X it had decided to end its relief duty to him.
34. The professional representative asked the Council to review its decisions Mr X was not in priority need, and to end its relief duty. They also made a stage two complaint.
35. The Council agreed to continue to provide Mr X interim accommodation while it conducted the reviews.
36. On 30 April the Council responded to the complaint. It apologised for delays in its decision making and its stage one complaint response.
37. On 27 May the Council concluded its review of its decision to end the relief duty. It upheld its decision.
38. Mr X complained to us in June 2025.

Analysis

39. I address each part of Mr X’s complaint in order below.

a) The Council did not comply with its statutory homelessness duties

40. The evidence shows the Council accepted a duty to provide Mr X interim accommodation on the same day he asked it for assistance on 22 August 2024.
41. Mr X complained he had to approach the out-of-hours team after the Council initially dismissed him earlier that day. I have seen no evidence of an extensive delay. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault for the speed of its initial response.
42. The Council completed a housing needs assessment with Mr X on 23 August. The record of the assessment shows it asked Mr X to provide documents before 27 August to retain the interim accommodation.
43. I have seen no evidence the Council provided Mr X a record of the assessment. I note the Council subsequently discovered it did not provide Mr X other records during the same period. Based on this evidence I find, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did not provide Mr X a record of the assessment and list of documents he was required to provide.
44. Mr X did not provide the documents or attend the appointment with the Council on 28 August.
45. Mr X said the Council decided to cancel the interim accommodation which caused him to sleep rough for one night. I have seen no evidence the Council made a record of its actions that day. I have considered Mr X’s and the professional representative’s accounts of the day. On the basis of that evidence I find, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did cancel the accommodation for one night.
46. The Code of Guidance explains the circumstances under which a Council may end an interim duty to accommodate. It also explains notifications and notice periods a Council must provide. In this case, the Council did not provide Mr X notification or a notice period that it had decided to end his interim accommodation. This was fault. It caused Mr X significant injustice of distress when he slept rough for one night.
47. On the following day Mr X contacted the Council with the support of a professional representative. This led to the Council deciding it owed the relief duty to Mr X and reinstating interim accommodation from 29 August. It also created a PHP. This was in line with its duties.
48. The Council accepted it failed to send Mr X the relief duty notification and his PHP. I note the Council acknowledged its error promptly following Mr X’s stage one complaint. It apologised and sent copies of the documents.
49. The Council was at fault for failing to provide notifications of its decisions and a PHP. The fault denied Mr X information he should have received and caused him injustice in the form of uncertainty. However, I note it did not affect the provision of interim accommodation.
50. I have considered the time the Council took to decide if Mr X was in priority need.
51. The Code of Guidance explains the circumstances under which a Council may make decisions about priority need and ending the relief duty.
52. One of the circumstances is where the Council has accepted the relief duty and taken more than 56 days to decide whether the applicant is in priority need. It recommends that councils aim to complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.
53. In this case, the Council accepted the relief duty on 29 August. 56 days had passed on 24 October.
54. The Council completed its inquiries and notified Mr X it had decided he was not in priority need on 26 February 2025. This was 84 working days after the initial 56 days had passed. It then notified him it had decided to end the relief duty, with no further duties being owed, on 13 March 2025. This was 96 working days after the initial 56 days had passed.
55. This meant the Council went significantly beyond the recommended timeframe in the Code of Guidance for deciding Mr X’s priority need and what other duties it might owe him after ending the relief duty. This was fault. The fault denied Mr X decisions he should have received earlier and caused him injustice in the form of uncertainty. However, I note it did not affect the provision of interim accommodation.
56. Mr X, with the support of a professional representative, asked the Council to review its decisions he was not in priority need and to end the relief duty. The Council exercised its discretion to maintain his interim accommodation while it considered the reviews.
57. I have decided not to investigate beyond the Council’s decisions about priority need and ending the relief duty. This is because normally we do not investigate complaints about decisions where these review rights apply. I have seen no evidence the Council was at fault with how it responded to the reviews and therefore see no good reason to investigate them in this case. This decision is in line with paragraph 5.

b) The Council should have decided he was in priority need

58. I have decided not to investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because he exercised his right to ask the Council to review its decision. This decision is in line with paragraph 5.

c) The accommodation on the first night was unsuitable because it was too far away

59. I have seen no evidence Mr X was unable to travel to the accommodation the Council provided on the first night. I also find it relevant the Council secured closer accommodation the following day. For these reasons I do not find the Council at fault for securing short term interim accommodation at that distance.

d) Subsequent accommodation was unsuitable

60. This part of Mr X’s complaint was about the shared accommodation the Council offered.
61. The Council told Mr X he did not need to move into the shared accommodation when he raised concerns about its suitability. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault.

e) The Council ignored Mr X’s request to join its housing register

62. I have seen no evidence Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register during the period I have investigated. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault.

f) The Council intentionally delayed a complaint response

63. In its final complaint response the Council accepted it had not responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint by an agreed deadline of 3 February. It did not provide its formal response until 27 February. The Council accepted fault for the delay and apologised.
64. I acknowledge the delay caused Mr X uncertainty when he was worried about his accommodation. However, The Council contacted Mr X and his professional representative to discuss the issues raised several times in January. It identified its failure to provide earlier documents and promptly sent them. I find it took steps to resolve some of the issues complained about. I have seen no evidence the Council intentionally delayed providing a complaint response.
65. For these reasons I find the Council’s delayed formal complaint response did not cause Mr X injustice.

Remedies for the injustice

66. I have considered our Guidance on Remedies regarding the significant injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s decision to end his interim accommodation on 28 August 2024. I have decided to recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment of £150 to acknowledge the distress.
67. I have decided to recommend the Council apologise to remedy the injustice of uncertainty caused by its failures to provide documents and delays in decision making.
68. I have considered whether to recommend service improvements. I have decided not to because we have recently made recommendations about similar matters.

Back to top

Action

69. Within four weeks of the date of this decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mr X £150 for the distress from sleeping rough for one night when it stopped providing interim accommodation.
2. Apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty caused. 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.
70. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

71. For the reasons explained in the analysis section I find the Council at fault under part a) of the complaint for deciding to stop providing interim accommodation, and for delays and failures to notify Mr X of statutory decisions, which caused significant injustice of distress and uncertainty. I have stopped investigating part b) because he asked the Council to review its decision, find no fault for parts c), d) and e) and find no significant injustice for part f). The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman