Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to tell Mr X that he had the right to ask the Council to review its decision that he was not homeless or threatened with homelessness. This meant that Mr X lost his legal right to ask for a review. The Council will apologise to Mr X and reinstate his review rights. The Council will also remind staff that where the Council has reason to believe a person is threatened with homelessness, it has a duty to make enquiries, and it needs to issue a full decision letter including details of the applicant’s review rights.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to deal with his housing situation properly when he asked it for help.
2. Mr X says that as a result he has been left in unsuitable shared housing.

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. 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

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

The law and guidance

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)
10. A homeless applicant has the right to ask for a review if the council decides they are not eligible for assistance.

What happened

11. Mr X lives in supported living accommodation. He does not live in the Council’s area, but he lives close by.
12. In December 2024, Mr X asked the Council for help with his housing. He told the Council he was being evicted from his supported living accommodation and he wanted to move to the area. The Council asked Mr X to sign a consent form so it could make enquiries with other organisations.
13. The Council contacted the local council for the area Mr X lives in. It told the local council that Mr X had made a homelessness application to it. Medical professionals had decided that Mr X did not have the mental capacity to make decisions about his housing. This meant that the local council had decided that he did not have the mental capacity to make the homelessness application. It had assessed his capacity and a decision was made in his best interests to move him to supported living accommodation. The local council said that Mr X had stayed at the supported living accommodation but he was refusing to live there.
14. The Council sent Mr X a letter. It said:
• that he has accommodation that was reasonable for him to occupy and he has not been served with a notice that he has to leave.
• when he made his application to the Council he signed the consent form which gave it permission to make enquiries about his situation or obtain information. It made enquiries of the local council and found out that he has accommodation.
• The Council has decided that it had no reason to believe he was homeless or threatened with homelessness, or that he needs advice about his housing situation.
• He does not have the right to request a review of this decision.
15. Mr X complained to the Council and to the Ombudsman.

Was there fault by the Council?

16. I can see that as Mr X has support needs, the Council needed to deal with his application to it carefully and pragmatically. I can see that the Council may have been trying to simplify the process for Mr X.
17. However, when Mr X approached the Council it believed that he might be homeless or threatened with homelessness (because he told it he was being evicted). The Council got his consent and made enquiries, in line with its legal duty (Housing Act 1996, section 184).
18. This means that when the Council decided that Mr X was not homeless or threatened with homelessness, he had a right to ask it to review this decision. The Council should have included this in its decision letter to him.
19. In response to a draft of this decision statement, the Council said that Mr X had approached it several times in preceding months and years, and that it had never found him to be homeless. He had also made housing register applications but was found to be adequately housed.
20. The Council could rely on earlier decisions, if the applications had been very recent (for example in the last few days or weeks), and in the same circumstances, and if it gave Mr X his legal review rights in relation to these earlier decisions. However, these applications were some time before the decisions I have investigated, and sometimes in different circumstances, and so the Council is less able to rely on these.
21. We cannot say whether had Mr X been able to ask the Council for a review, it would have changed its decision. But the Council’s shortcomings have deprived him of his right to ask for a review.

Back to top

Action

22. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X for causing him to miss out on his review rights. 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.
• Write to Mr X, reinstating his right to ask for a review. Mr X can then decide if he wants to go ahead with a review request.
• Remind relevant staff that where a person has approached the Council, it has reason to believe he may be threatened with homelessness, it has a duty to make enquiries to establish this, and it needs to issue a full decision letter including details of the applicant’s review rights.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman