Summary: Mr D complains about the handling of his homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council which includes delay progressing the case and an inadequate personalised housing plan. The Council has agreed to amend Mr D’s joining date to the housing register and has already offered a reasonable level of redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed progressing his homelessness application and issuing a main duty decision in 2024 and 2025. He also refers to the Council failing to consider medical evidence he submitted for his housing register application and failing to explain whether third party data was incorrectly considered as part of his homelessness case.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. My investigation covers September 2024 through to July 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. If Mr D is dissatisfied with actions by the Council after July 2025 he would need to make a new complaint, once he completes the Council’s complaints process, he can bring those matters to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2024

7. In Mr D’s complaint papers he referred to contacting the Council about homelessness on 16 September 2024. The Council says it does not have any record of contact being made on that date. On 2 October 2024 Mr D’s representative filled out a medical form; housing needs assessment document and submitted it to the Council. They stated Mr D was homeless. On 16 October Mr D contacted the Council. The Initial Assessment Team responded the same day, and the Council offered Mr D interim accommodation. On 22 October the Council was alerted by a support agency that Mr D had not collected the keys for the interim accommodation because he had previously been subject to an assault in the area. They ask Mr D be provided with accommodation in a different location. The Council says it tried to contact Mr D from 22 October until November with no success.
8. On 11 November the Council received further contact from the support agency that Mr D now had a contactable phone. On 15 November it seems the Council spoke to Mr D about his application and a Council Officer filled out a homeless application form. Mr D told the Officer he had already provided a medical assessment form with additional information about his circumstances. On 15 November Mr D was provided with alternative interim accommodation.

2025

9. On 7 March Mr D sent medical evidence to the Council. It is unclear whether Mr D was informed how that information would be used. On 20 April the Council passed Mr D’s application to the Prevention and Relief Team. On 25 April Mr D’s solicitor contacted the Council, Mr D had not been contacted or received a decision on his application. The Council booked an appointment with Mr D for 29 April and a homelessness assessment was conducted.
10. On 5 May the Council issued a personalised housing plan (PHP) to Mr D. The document included some information about Mr D’s medical conditions. It said the Council would provide advice on how to find a private sector rental property and it included information about how to join the Council’s housing register. The PHP also said referrals would be made to the Casework Team for an ‘interim assessment’ and to SHP Floating Support Service (Support Service) to provide support with the housing register application. I have no evidence a referral was made to the Support Service. On 6 June Mr D says he emailed the Council requesting a review of the PHP. On 18 June the Council asked for up to date medical evidence to assess the review.
11. On 20 June the Council issued its complaint response. It said the Case Officer had been on extended leave and the case was not reallocated, it apologised. It said the application was now being treat as high priority. The Council had requested medical information on 18 June and once received it would make a decision ‘without further delay’. Mr D’s PHP had been delayed due to service failure. The Council could not find a record of Mr D requesting the PHP be reviewed but it would now carry out a review. It offered Mr D a total of £475 for delay, poor communications and distress. On 21 June Mr D submitted a change of circumstances rehousing application to the Council. On 30 June the Council accepted a relief duty towards Mr D. It said he had applied to the Council on 16 September 2024 for assistance. It incorrectly referred to Mr D having been evicted from his previous accommodation (this related to a different applicant not Mr D). It said the Council had a duty to take reasonable steps to help Mr D secure accommodation over the next 56 days. It attached a PHP. On 1 July Mr D asked the Council to escalate his complaint which included a request to review the PHP.
12. On 18 July the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr D. Also on that day the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It said medical evidence provided in March was not current and could not be used to progress the case, the Council then requested evidence again, but Mr D said nothing had changed with his health, so no further evidence was supplied. The Council said it would issue a revised relief duty decision letter after Mr D pointed out the 30 June document incorrectly stated he had been evicted from former accommodation. In respect of medical need the Council had considered his conditions as part of the assessment process and set this out in the PHP. It accepted there had been delay issuing a main duty decision letter and the original redress did not cover from 11 November 2024 when the Council said Mr D had applied as homeless. It offered a revised total of £650 redress.
13. On 21 July the Council issued its review decision about the PHP. It had decided to withdraw the PHP and relief duty letter; the Council would make further enquiries into the case. It did not explain why that decision had been made. The Council has told me the PHP did not address Mr D’s housing, medical and welfare requirements. On 24 July a revised relief duty letter was issued (the reference to being evicted had been removed) along with a revised PHP. The PHP now included information about Mr D’s former accommodation and more information about the impact of homelessness on his health.

What should have happened

Homelessness application

14. 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) The Ombudsman usually expects a council to take a homelessness application at the earliest opportunity.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

15. 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 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 PHP. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Process at the Council

19. The Council says in 2024 and 2025 it logged homelessness applications ‘at the time of approach’. The Initial Assessment Team dealt with enquiries at the first point of contact, gathered initial documentation and completed a triage assessment before referring onto the next stage Team. A case was then sent to the Prevention and Relief Team (at the time of the complaint this was called the Housing Solutions Team). The Prevention and Relief Team carried out homelessness assessments with applicants and assessed whether a duty was owed in regard to prevention and relief duties. They issued personalised housing plans (PHPs) for both stages. The Inquiries and Decision Team (known at the time as the Casework Team) dealt with applications in respect of a main duty decision. The team made enquiries into applications and issued decisions on whether a main duty was accepted.

Review rights

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

• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage.

21. The Council should complete a review within 56 days.

Medical assessment

22. The Council uses a ‘medical form: housing needs assessment’ which a homelessness applicant can complete for the Council to assess if they are in priority need and what type of accommodation they require. The form can also be used in a separate process to assess if a housing register applicant should be awarded any medical points.

SHP Floating Support Service

23. The Support Service works with applicants to support them finding suitable accommodation, helping to maintain a tenancy and provides advice on a range of issues including finances, health and employment.

Was there fault by the Council

24. There was significant delay in the handling of Mr D’s application. There was no action taken to progress the case from mid-November 2024 until end of April 2025. The case was picked up in 2025 only after contact from Mr D. Had the delays not occurred a main duty decision should have been issued to Mr D by 15 January 2025, instead he had to wait a further six months. The Council has already acknowledged the delay in its complaint responses to Mr D. It says there was a combination of staff shortages and an ‘exceptionally high number’ of homelessness applications at the time. Whilst I appreciate the Council was under pressure at that time it still had a duty to progress Mr D’s application, keep him updated and reach a main duty decision in a timely manner. The handling of this was poor and Mr D did not receive an acceptable level of service.
25. The Council failed to refer Mr D to the Support Service in May 2025. The remit of the Support Service may have been of extra benefit to Mr D, and he was not provided with the additional support he needed including help applying to the housing register.
26. The PHP issued to Mr D initially failed to adequately address his medical, housing and welfare needs. This was accepted in July 2025, and a new relief duty PHP was issued.
27. The Council’s review decision letter in July failed to explain how the decision had been made. The Ombudsman expects decision letters to provide a clear explanation about how a decision has been reached.
28. Mr D says the Council mixed up his case with another applicant. The Council accepts another applicant’s details were included in the relief duty decision letter. Mr D was concerned the third party data was used to inform any decisions on his case, I have checked and am satisfied that did not happen. The Council only took account of his details when reaching key decisions. The relief duty letter also incorrectly stated Mr D’s application was made on 16 September 2024 which contradicts the evidence held by the Council showing the application was made in October.
29. Mr D told me he thought the form he completed in October 2024 would inform his housing register application. The evidence shows me the information provided by Mr D about his medical needs was correctly used as part of the homelessness application. I have not seen evidence showing the Council told Mr D the information would be used for his housing register account application at that time.

Did the fault cause an injustice

30. The delays reaching a main duty decision meant Mr D’s housing register joining date was wrongly set at 18 July 2025 (when the main duty decision was issued). The correct date would be 15 January 2025 when a main duty should have been accepted. I then checked with the Council to see if Mr D lost an opportunity to successfully bid on a social housing property from January 2025 to July with a joining date of 15 January. The Council has confirmed that no one-bed properties were let to applicants with a similar start date and with Mr D’s housing register points level during that time. I am satisfied Mr D did not miss out on securing a new home in that period of delay. The other errors I have identified resulted in avoidable distress to Mr D.

Back to top

Action

31. The Council has already offered Mr D £650 redress for the delay and errors in dealing with his application. I consider that amount of redress to be reasonable.
32. The Council has agreed to my recommendation to backdate Mr D’s joining date on the housing register to when he should have received the main duty decision, so to 15 January 2025. It will confirm to Mr D when it has amended the date.
33. The Council will also remind officers that review decision letters should include how the decision was reached.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman