Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly respond to her application for homelessness assistance because it failed to decide she was in priority need, took over 10 months to decide it owed her the main housing duty, and had poor communication. We find the Council at fault for delays in making decisions which deprived Miss X of suitable accommodation and caused significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her application for homelessness assistance made in July 2024. In particular she complains the Council failed to:
1. Decide she was in priority need and secure suitable accommodation, despite being told about her serious chronic illness that meant she was vulnerable.
2. Follow the Code of Guidance when it took over 10 months to decide it owed her the main housing duty.
3. Properly respond to multiple requests for support.
2. Miss X says the Council’s failings caused distress and a deterioration in her health because her homelessness meant she could not take medication or receive a surgical procedure.
3. She would like the Council to apologise, make a payment to reflect distress, and to improve their services to ensure the same failings do not affect others.

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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated from July 2024 when Miss X applied for homelessness assistance until July 2025 when the Council provided her temporary accommodation.
9. I have not investigated the Council’s decision to end its relief duty to Miss X in December 2024, or matters after July 2025 when it secured temporary accommodation. This is because Miss X had a right to ask for a review of those matters. I have decided it is reasonable to expect Miss X to have used that right. I have decided those matters do not have a bearing on the rest of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss 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

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

Duty to make inquiries

13. If someone contacts a council seeking 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Assessments and personalised housing plans

14. 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 Code of Guidance 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty, priority need and interim accommodation

15. If a council is satisfied the applicant is both homeless and eligible for assistance it must help to secure suitable accommodation. This is the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section189B)
16. If a council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible and have a priority need then it must secure suitable accommodation. The accommodation a council provides during the relief stage is called interim accommodation. A council may bring this interim accommodation duty to an end during the relief stage if it subsequently finds the applicant does not have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188 and Code of Guidance 8.3).
17. Examples of applicants in priority need include people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems. Councils should consider whether the applicant would suffer or be at risk of suffering harm or detriment which would make a noticeable difference to their ability to deal with the consequences of homelessness, which the ordinary person would not suffer. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 8.14 and 8.16)
18. 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. In cases where significant further investigations are required as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty, councils should not delay completing their inquiries and should aim to notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed. (Housing Act 1996, section189B and Code of Guidance 14.17)

The main housing duty

19. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. 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)

Notifications and review rights

20. 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)
21. Applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of decisions including:

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• not in priority need;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

What happened

22. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
23. Miss X has a chronic illness. People with the illness are usually under the care of a specialist doctor. The illness is often treated with medication that reduces a person’s immune system. It is sometimes treated with different types of surgery.
24. Miss X became homeless. She applied to the Council for assistance in July 2024.
25. The Council’s case notes record it tried to contact Miss X in July and August. The Council recorded it needed documents and other information.
26. In September the Council successfully contacted Miss X. It completed an assessment on 27 September. Miss X said she was homeless and ‘sofa surfing’. She told the Council she suffered from the chronic illness and reduced immune system. She told it she received a benefit called personal independence payment (PIP). PIP is only awarded to people who have a long-term physical or mental health condition or disability, have difficulty doing certain everyday tasks or getting around, and expect the difficulties to last for at least 12 months from when they started.
27. The Council notified Miss X it owed her the relief duty and sent a PHP the same day. It said it would support Miss X in searching for accommodation in the private sector.
28. The Council also emailed Miss X’s GP and requested her medical information.
29. On 16 October the Council reviewed and updated the PHP. Miss X told the Council a medical professional wanted her to have a surgical procedure that would affect her for at least three months.
30. Later in October the Council completed another assessment with Miss X. She gave more information about the impact of her homelessness on her illness. The Council recorded it had not yet received the medical information from her GP and Miss X said she would help.
31. On 18 December, 82 days after it accepted the relief duty, the Council wrote to Miss X and told her it had decided to end its relief duty to her because 56 days had passed. It did not mention priority need, the duty to secure interim accommodation or the main housing duty in the letter.
32. Miss X contacted the Council later in December and throughout January 2025. She said the Council did not provide adequate responses.
33. On 8 January the Council sent a chasing email to Miss X’s GP. It requested her medical information as a matter of urgency.
34. On 13 January Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council.
35. On 5 March the Council wrote to Miss X about her stage one complaint. It apologised for the delay and said it aimed to provide a response by 19 March.
36. The Council spoke to Miss X about her complaint on 20 March. She emailed it the following day and explained she was still homeless which meant she had to stop treatments for her chronic illness. She described the negative impacts on her health. She reminded the Council it knew she received PIP.
37. On 15 April the Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding. It acknowledged delays in obtaining medical records from Miss X’s GP. It said it had not yet issued a homelessness decision on Miss X’s case and aimed to do so within 28 days, by 13 May. It upheld Miss X’s complaint and offered a financial remedy.
38. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two on 6 May. The Council acknowledged her complaint and said it would provide a response by 5 June.
39. On 11 June the Council notified Miss X it had decided it owed her the main housing duty because she was homeless and in priority need. It said it had a duty to secure suitable temporary accommodation.
40. The Council sent Miss X its stage two response on 1 July. It apologised for the delay, upheld Miss X’s complaint and offered an additional financial remedy.
41. On 11 July the Council provided Miss X temporary accommodation.

Analysis

42. I address each part of Miss X’s complaint in order below

a) and b) The Council failed to follow the Code of Guidance when it took over 10 months to decide priority need, secure suitable accommodation, and decide the main housing duty.

43. I have combined parts a) and b) of the complaint because I have decided the matters are linked.
44. I find no fault with the Council’s initial actions in assessing Miss X’s application from July 2024 to when it decided it owed the relief duty on 27 September. This is because the evidence shows it took steps to contact Miss X, completed an initial assessment, and provided the relief duty notification and PHP promptly.
45. However, from that date the Council did not decide what, if any, other duties it owed Miss X until June 2025.
46. The Council should have made a decision about the main housing duty when it decided to end the relief duty on 18 December 2024. This is because the Code of Guidance says councils should not delay completing their inquiries as to what further duties will be owed after the relief duty, and should aim to do so within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days had passed. That maximum period had passed on 13 December.
47. The Council should also have made a decision about priority need. It should have made a decision during the relief stage if it had reason to believe Miss X may be in priority need. A positive decision at that stage would have led to a duty to secure interim accommodation. At the latest, it should have made a decision in line with a main housing duty decision at the end of the relief stage. A positive decision at that stage would have led to a duty to secure temporary accommodation. It failed to make a decision at either of those stages.
48. The Council went significantly beyond the recommended timeframes in the Code of Guidance for deciding Miss X’s priority need and what other duties it might owe. This was fault. The fault denied Miss X decisions she should have received earlier and review rights of those decisions. This caused her injustice in the form of frustration and uncertainty.
49. The faults may also have caused Miss X the injustice of being deprived of suitable accommodation. To consider this injustice I have decided it is appropriate to make a balance of probabilities finding about when the Council should have made a priority need decision, and what that decision would have been.
50. The evidence shows the Council delayed making a priority need decision because it was waiting for medical information from Miss X’s GP, subsequent medical information from a specialist doctor, and reports from its own medical assessors.
51. The evidence also shows Miss X provided the Council information and evidence about her chronic illness and the impact of her homelessness on symptoms and treatment. She provided some of this information in the initial assessment on 27 September 2024. She continued to provide more information throughout the period I investigated.
52. I have considered the cumulative information Miss X gave the Council about her illness, health and vulnerability. I have considered this against the Code of Guidance that explains how councils should make decisions about priority need in relation to an applicant’s vulnerability, and about interim accommodation.
53. I find, on the balance of probabilities, the Council should have decided it had reason to believe Miss X may be in priority need because she was vulnerable on 16 October 2024. This was when she told it she needed a surgical procedure. I have based this on the information relevant to Miss X’s vulnerability the Council had received by that date.
54. I therefore also find, on the balance of probabilities, the Council would in turn have had a duty to secure her interim accommodation in line with paragraph 16 above. For these reasons I find it at fault for failing to make the priority need and interim accommodation duty decisions on that date.
55. The Council’s fault caused Miss X the significant injustice of being deprived of suitable accommodation for a nine month delay between 16 October 2024 and 11 July 2025 when the Council secured her temporary accommodation.

c) The Council had poor communication when it ignored multiple requests for support.

56. In its stage one response the Council summarised instances of contact with Miss X. It acknowledged a lack of continuity and clarity following the departure of a caseworker. I have considered its case notes. I can see several instances of contact noted in its response were not recorded in its case notes. This shows the Council did not keep a complete record of the contact from Miss X.
57. On the basis of this evidence I find Miss X’s account of a lack of responses to her requests for support was, on balance, accurate. I find the Council at fault for not providing an adequate standard of communication. This caused injustice in the form of uncertainty and frustration.
58. I have also considered the Council’s handling of Miss X’s formal complaints in which she also requested support.
59. The Council’s complaint policy says it aims to acknowledge and provide a final response to stage one and stage two complaints within 15 and 25 working days respectively. In this case the Council took 66 and 39 working days to provide final responses. This was significantly beyond its target timescales.
60. I have considered the content of both the stage one and two responses. I find they are written in clear plain language. They lay out the Council’s understanding of the complaints; its decisions and reasons; outstanding actions; and how to escalate the matter to us. This is in line with our expectations of an appropriate response. However I note its stage one response said it aimed to issue a homeless decision within 28 days, by 13 May. It took 57 days to issue a decision, which it did on 11 June.
61. Taken as a whole I find the Council’s complaint handling fell below an acceptable standard because it missed its target timescales for providing responses and completing an action. This was fault which caused Miss X injustice in the form of uncertainty, time and trouble.

Remedies for the injustice

62. I have considered the financial remedy already offered by the Council and our guidance on remedies. Our guidance says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for symbolic payments is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month.
63. I find the injustice was aggravated due to Miss X’s accounts of the distress caused by significant worsening health as a direct consequence of her homelessness. I have also factored in the distress caused by the Council’s faults in communication and complaint handling.
64. For these reasons I have decided the injustice is at the upper end of the range at £300 per month. I therefore recommend the Council apologise and pay Miss X a single symbolic financial remedy of £2,700 for the nine month period between 16 October 2024 and 11 July 2025.
65. This is more than the financial remedy offered by the Council. My recommended financial remedy is instead of, not in addition to, that offered by the Council.
66. I have decided not to make service improvement recommendations in this case. This is because the Council has already undertaken to do so.

Back to top

Action

67. Within four weeks of the final decision the Council will:
1. Make a symbolic payment of £2,700 to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused by its delays, communication and complaint handling.
2. Apologise for the injustice. 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.
68. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

69. I find the Council at fault for delayed homelessness decisions and poor communication and complaint handling causing injustice including deprivation of suitable accommodation for nine months for the reasons in the analysis section. I uphold Miss X’s complaint. 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