Summary: Miss D complains about the handling of her homelessness application and being awarded an incorrect qualifying date for the housing register. I have found some fault by the Council including delay, an insufficient personalised housing plan and an incorrect qualifying date. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D, correct the qualifying date and pay redress for avoidable distress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council delayed progressing her homelessness application in 2024 and delayed accepting a prevention duty towards her. Miss D also refers to issues regarding the allocations policy and whether she has been given the correct qualifying date for the housing register. She also refers to the Council not making reasonable adjustments for her dyslexia.

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. I have considered events from April 2024 (when Miss D applied to the Council as homeless) through to April 2025 (when the Council issued its final complaint response). If Miss D has any more recent issues with the Council, she would need to formally complain about them before she can bring the matters to the Ombudsman.
5. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 19 April 2024 Miss D emailed the Council’s housing service stating she faced becoming homeless and asked for an urgent appointment to discuss her situation. On 23 April the Council asked for some additional information which Miss D supplied the next day. Miss D also resent the information on 29 April. On 30 April the Council offered Miss D a homelessness assessment meeting on 17 May. Miss D emailed the Council on 17 May because she had not been contacted. The Council told her she had been “wrongly put into the system” so did not receive a call. It apologised and an appointment was rescheduled. The Council failed to provide me with any evidence for this initial contact, Miss D sent me copies of her emails. The Council says a homelessness form was uploaded by an Officer to its system on 22 May. On 23 May a Council Officer interviewed Miss D. They noted she lived with her child as a lodger in a property and did not have an assured shorthold tenancy (AST). Her landlord had asked her to leave within a month. The Officer also noted Miss D had dyslexia and recorded her medical and support needs in respect of accommodation requirements, local connection and priority need. They advised Miss D the Council could assist with a deposit on a private rental property. On the same day Miss D joined the Council’s housing register. On 31 May the Officer called Miss D’s landlord but did not get a reply.
9. On 4 June the Officer emailed the landlord to see if Miss D could remain at the property, the next day the landlord stated Miss D could not stay for two months but he would extend her stay by one month. That same day the Officer issued Miss D with a personalised housing plan (PHP) and explained the Council accepted a relief duty towards her. On 13 June Miss D told the Council she was not satisfied with the PHP and wanted it reviewed. On 18 June the Officer asked Miss D to supply documentation so a referral could be made to the Lettings Team to help with finding accommodation. The Council says its Reviews Team ‘attempted contact’ with Miss D on 26 June but did not get a response. On 15 July the Reviews Team requested the Council withdraw the relief duty PHP because Miss D could stay at her current home for over 56 days. The Council had recently received notification from the landlord that Miss D could stay at the property for the next two months. It should consider if it owed Miss D a prevention duty. On 17 July the Council wrote to Miss D confirming it had accepted a prevention duty because she could stay at her home for the time being. It also issued a revised PHP. On 25 July the Council referred the case to its Lettings Team. The Officer told Miss D, in response to a query, the allocations policy set out the local connection rule and Banding information.
10. On 8 August Miss D queried why the PHP did not specify she was a lodger at the property; she asked the Council to update it. On 22 August the Council confirmed the PHP had been revised. On 4 September the Council called the landlord who agreed that Miss D could remain at the property for a few months. The Council noted it would see if it was able to offer an incentive payment to the landlord to enable Miss D to remain at her home. Incentive payments were usually only for ASTs so a Manager would have to consider it. The Officer noted they would also ask the Manager if Miss D could be awarded Band B status on the housing register if she remained at the property for six months. On 23 September the landlord told the Council he would offer Miss D an AST. The Council subsequently agreed it would issue an incentive payment in the case. In October the landlord confirmed an AST could start in November. At the start of November the landlord provided documentation to the Council about the AST which started 3 November. The Council issued the incentive payment to the landlord that month and formally ended its prevention duty towards Miss D on 22 November.
11. On 24 January 2025 Miss D complained to the Council. Her qualifying date for Band B was 21 November 2024. She asked how the Band B prioritisation worked and what a qualifying date meant. She also asked if applicants living in temporary accommodation had priority over other Band B applicants and whether this was fair. The Council replied on 3 February. It said the allocations policy had changed in April 2024 so that homelessness applicants, where the Council had accepted a main housing duty, who were in temporary accommodation had moved from Band C1 to Band B. It did not respond to several of the points raised by Miss D. On 26 February Miss D requested the Council escalate her complaint. She reiterated her queries about Band B and what her qualifying date should be on the housing register as her record said it was 21 November 2024. Miss D stated the Council had made errors with her homelessness application and the lack of information in the initial PHP meant she had missed out on potentially staying with other people. She asked why the qualifying date was not backdated to when she applied to the Council. She also said the Council had incorrectly stated an affordability assessment had been carried out before the AST was secured.
12. The Council issued its final stage complaint response on 2 April. It said the priority within each Band, under the allocations policy, was based on an applicant’s qualifying date. The oldest date had the highest priority for bidding for an advertised social housing property. The change in April 2024 with the allocations policy for homeless applicants in temporary accommodation was to more accurately reflect the level of housing need experienced by those applicants. The Council confirmed Miss D’s qualifying date was 3 November 2024 which was when the landlord accepted her as a tenant and the AST started. The Council would amend the qualifying date for Miss D’s housing register application. It did not accept there had been unreasonable delay in the case. Once the landlord said he would offer Miss D an AST on 23 September it agreed to offer him an incentive within a reasonable timeframe. The Council apologised for the initial complaint response not dealing with all of the complaint.

What should have happened

Homelessness application

13. 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

14. 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. A council can combine the assessment notification with the PHP (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.24, 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

Review rights

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the a variety 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.

Housing allocation

19. 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))

Band B: homelessness prevention

20. The Council’s allocations policy states that Band B applies to:

• Households threatened with homelessness who would if they became homeless be likely to be owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but who are working with the Council to prevent themselves from becoming homeless.
• Households who are working with the council to prevent themselves becoming homeless whose homelessness is relieved who would otherwise have been likely to have been owed the full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 but who have voluntarily agreed to this duty being brought to an end by the provision of private rented accommodation.
• Households to whom the Council previously owed a full housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 who, with the advance agreement of the Council, have voluntarily left temporary accommodation to make alternative housing arrangements including staying with friends or relatives. This does not apply to those who have been given notice to leave by the Council, or who leave without giving the council advance notice.

21. The allocations policy also specifies that “working with us to prevent homelessness” means positive actions agreed between the Council and the applicant in return for the award of Band B. Examples include: agreeing to remain staying with family or friends in return for award of Band B priority, accepting an offer of accommodation which an applicant is otherwise under no obligation to accept in return for award of Band B priority. Actions which would not be classed as “working with us to prevent homelessness” are also set out in the allocations policy. It says that anyone who is at risk of homelessness is expected to take reasonable steps to prevent or relieve their homelessness. This does not in itself constitute working with the Council to prevent homelessness in return for Band B priority. For instance, the following will generally not qualify for award of Band B (unless combined with other factors as set out above): Paying rent or otherwise complying with the terms of a tenancy agreement; remaining in occupation of a property an applicant is legally entitled to occupy; agreeing to a renewal of a tenancy agreement of a property an applicant is currently living in.
22. Priority between applicants in the same Band will be based on their registration date to that band. Where applicants in temporary accommodation were moved from Band C1 to Band B in April 2024, the date of registration is taken from the date they made their homeless application.

Reasonable adjustments

23. Where a homelessness applicant tells the Council they have a disability this will be added to the notes made during the initial homelessness assessment interview. Where an applicant asks for reasonable adjustments, the Council should consider the request and respond to it.

Was there fault by the Council

24. Miss D refers to the Council taking too long to progress her case. There was delay at the start of the process. Miss D applied to the Council for homelessness assistance on 19 April but was not offered an appointment to discuss her case until 17 May. That appointment did not take place, and an assessment was not done until 23 May. I asked the Council about the initial handling of the application. It failed to supply with me with evidence that Miss D had applied on 19 April and incorrectly referred to an application being on the system on 22 May. Miss D clearly made an application on 19 April and should not have had to wait until 23 May for an assessment. From 23 May onwards the Council progressed the case at a reasonable pace. The Council contacted the landlord at the start of June and was correct to issue a relief duty decision initially because the information from Miss D and the landlord showed homelessness would occur within a month. Once the landlord revised this to say Miss D could stay for longer the Council correctly issued a prevention duty decision. I understand Miss D would have liked the Council to make decisions more quickly, but the evidence shows me it followed the correct process, and the periods of delay were largely due to waiting for essential contact from the landlord and then confirmation of the AST.
25. Miss D wanted the Council to backdate her qualifying date to when she applied as homeless. The Council has correctly explained to Miss D how its allocations policy operates and what the provisions of the scheme are including the Banding system and how that was applied. There is no requirement on the Council to backdate the qualifying date to when an application for homelessness assistance was made. The evidence shows the Council acted in line with procedures on this point. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
26. Miss D says the Council failed to update her qualifying date to 3 November 2024, as promised in the final stage complaint response. I asked the Council if the date has been amended, it said it has not. It did not explain why this action has not been completed. This is fault by the Council; it should have updated the qualifying date soon after it issued the final complaint response.
27. Miss D says she did not receive written confirmation of the 23 May assessment. The Council summarises the assessment in the covering letter supplied with the PHP rather than sending a copy of the assessment notes, that is an action the Council is entitled to take. I do consider the initial PHP issued was not sufficient. Whilst it contained the minimum requirements about the cause of Miss D’s homelessness and housing needs it failed to detail Miss D’s support needs to help secure/ retain accommodation. It was not until the revised PHP was issued on 17 July the support section was completed. I understand Miss D feels there should have been a discussion about the PHP before it was issued, there is no requirement on the Council to have a meeting with an applicant because the homelessness assessment meeting is used to inform the PHP. The Council should keep a PHP open to review, and I can see Miss D asked the Council to consider amendments subsequently and some revisions were made to the document. Miss D also referred to local connection not being included in the PHP, the Council correctly advised her that information about the local connection rules is set out in the allocations policy. I would not expect the Council to specify a local connection was accepted in the PHP because this is something that is generally accepted in order for the Council to accept a homelessness duty towards an applicant.
28. Miss D says the Council did not carry out an affordability assessment before she signed the AST in November 2024. The Council has now provided evidence that an assessment was carried out although the document is not dated so I cannot say when it was produced.
29. Miss D refers to the Council not making reasonable adjustments for her dyslexia and says she made it clear to Officers about her needs. I have no evidence to verify what Miss D requested with the Council; the case notes do not include any request for reasonable adjustments. In the absence of evidence to corroborate Miss D’s recollection I cannot say the Council received a request for adjustments and so cannot say it is at fault.

Did the fault cause an injustice

30. Miss D says that omissions in the PHP meant she could not secure alternative accommodation. I am unable to verify whether this was the case, but I am satisfied the insufficient PHP issued on 4 June 2024 meant Miss D’s support needs had not been captured and this was not revised for six weeks. Miss D was also subject to some delay at the start of her application. These failings resulted in avoidable distress for Miss D. In addition the Council said it would change her qualifying date to 3 November 2024, and this has not been done despite being promised in April 2025.

Back to top

Action

31. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss D the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss D,
• Amend the qualifying date to 3 November 2024 and notify Miss D when complete,
• Pay Miss D £250 for avoidable distress.
32. In addition the Council should set out what actions have taken/ will be taken to ensure homelessness applicants are offered a timely appointment and assessment.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the case closing.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman