Summary: Mr X complained how the Council handled his homeless applications. He also complained the Council repeatedly closed his applications to join the housing register. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application. This caused Mr X frustration and upset. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and backdate his effective date on the housing register.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained how the Council handled his homeless applications. He says the Council failed to progress his applications, it failed to provide proper support, and it failed to provide accommodation under homelessness legislation. Mr X also complained the Council repeatedly closed his applications to join the housing register.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have had a severe impact on his mental and emotional wellbeing.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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

6. Mr X complains about matters from 2023 onwards. However, he did not refer his complaint to us until July 2025. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters from April 2024 to July 2025. However, I am satisfied Mr X could have bought his concerns to us about matters to us in 2023 sooner. Therefore, I have not exercised discretion to investigate them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

9. 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.
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Allocations

12. 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))
13. The Council’s allocations scheme gives reasonable preference to people who are homeless, people who need to need on medical or welfare grounds and people living in insanitary housing. The Council also considers whether an applicant has a local connection to the borough.

What happened

14. Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2024. He put on his application form he did not have a local connection to the area, and he was a rough sleeper. He did not provide an address.
15. Mr X contacted the Council on the telephone in May. There are no notes of what was discussed in the call. However, after the call, the officer asked the duty manager to triage Mr X’s case.
16. The Council received a referral from another authority (Council X) in early July. Council X said Mr X had approached it for homelessness assistance. However, he had now returned to Bromley to sofa surf with his mother. The Council responded and said it could not accept the referral as Mr X did not meet the local connection criteria. It also said Council X had not provided evidence that showed Mr X had a relative that lived within the borough for five years.
17. Mr X visited the Council at its contact centre in September. He said his mother had asked him to leave her house.
18. The Council sent Mr X a letter. It said he still had an open case with Council X as he had not received a letter confirming his case was closed. It told him Council X had a duty to make statutory enquiries.
19. Mr X responded and provided the Council with evidence he had withdrawn his homeless application to Council X, and it had closed his case. A Council officer asked the duty manager to triage Mr X’s case.
20. The Council wrote to Mr X in November about his application to join the housing register from April. It said he did not meet the five years continuous residency criteria and therefore he did not qualify to join the housing register. It said he had a right to request a review of the decision within 21 days if he disagreed.
21. Mr X made a further application to join the housing register in late January 2025. He put on his application form he had a local connection to the area. He also said he was at risk of homelessness.
22. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision from November 2024 to reject his housing application in March. He said he had lived in Bromley for five years and therefore he met the residency requirement. He also said he had a temporary work contract, and he was struggling to afford his rent.
23. The Council responded and said Mr X put on his application from April 2024 he did not have a fixed address and therefore it assessed him as not meeting the local connection criteria. It asked Mr X for details of his current accommodation so it could assess whether there was a housing need that would meet inclusion on the housing register. It also provided Mr X with details on how to make a homeless application.
24. Mr X emailed the Council and said he had lived in Bromley for five years. He also said he had family members living in the borough. The Council responded and said having a local connection did not guarantee inclusion on the housing register. It said he needed to have a housing need that fell within the thresholds of its allocations scheme. It repeated its advice for Mr X to make a homeless application.
25. Mr X complained to the Council in early May. He said it had blocked him from making a homeless application for two years. He also said it had wrongly refused him access to the housing register.
26. Mr X made a homeless application the following week. He said he was staying in his mother’s house, but his siblings lived there and he did not have his own space.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the housing register. It said he had made four applications to join the housing register, but none recently. It said it tells applicants to request a review of its decision within 21 days. It was too late for Mr X to request a review of its previous decisions. However, the officer had provided him with the appropriate advice to make a homeless application.
28. The Council responded to rest of Mr X’s complaint in mid-May. It said it correctly closed his case in July 2024 when it received the referral from Council X. However, it should have completed a homelessness assessment when Mr X provided it with evidence he had withdrawn his homeless application to Council X in September 2024. It apologised for this. It said it had discussed the issue with the relevant officer.
29. Mr X attended an appointment at the Council’s contact centre in late May to discuss his homelessness. Mr X explained he was staying in his mother’s property, but it was unsuitable because his siblings lived there and the house was too small. He also said he was spending three to four nights sofa surfing.
30. The Council emailed Mr X in late May after the appointment. It asked him to complete some forms so it could assess his homeless application.
31. Mr X referred his complaint to stage two in June. He said the Council had not offered a remedy and he was waiting for an update after his appointment in May. The Council responded and said it had completed its complaints process.
32. The Council chased Mr X for a response to the form its had sent him. Mr X provided this information on 22 and 23 June. He also provided details of his mental health conditions.
33. The Council awarded Mr X the relief duty on the same day. It said it did not reason to believe he was in priority need, and therefore it did not have a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. The Council also provided Mr X with a personal housing plan (PHP).
34. The Council sent another letter to Mr X on the same day and said he was adequately housed and did not meet any of the criteria from its allocations scheme to join the housing register. This was in response to his application from January 2025.
35. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision to refuse his application to join the housing register. He said he was not adequately housed.
36. The Council wrote to Mr X on 27 June and said he qualified to join the housing register under Band 4H. It said he could request a review if he disagreed with its decision.
37. Mr X referred his complaint to us in early July.

Back to top

Analysis

38. The Council’s notes from May 2024 state a duty manager would need to triage Mr X’s case. There is no evidence the Council did so. This is fault.
39. The Council was also at fault for failing to progress Mr X’s homeless application in September 2024. It had evidence Mr X had withdrawn his homeless application to Council X. It agreed to triage Mr X’s case, but it failed to do so.
40. The Council explained in its letter from 27 June 2025 it did not have a reason believe Mr X was in priority need. Therefore, it did not have a duty to provide him with interim accommodation. That was a decision it was entitled to take. I do not find fault.
41. The Council explained to Mr X in November 2024 why it had rejected his application to join the housing register. This was in line with its allocations scheme. I do not find fault.
42. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision to refuse his application. The Council said while Mr X had now explained he had a local connection; this alone was not sufficient to allow him to join the housing register. There was no fault in the Council’s decision making. However, this changed when the Council accepted the relief duty for Mr X in June 2025.
43. I find it more likely than not that the Council would not have progressed Mr X’s homeless application if it had triaged his case in May 2024. This is because Mr X still had an active homeless application with Council X. Therefore, the Council’s fault in May 2024 did not cause Mr X a significant injustice.
44. However, the Council had enough information in September 2024 to progress Mr X’s case. I consider, on the balance of probabilities, if the Council had not been at fault, it would have assessed Mr X’s circumstances in September 2024 and awarded him the relief duty. This is because Mr X’s circumstances in September 2024 were not materially different to his circumstances in May 2025. He was living at his mother’s house, but this was unsuitable because he did not have a bedroom. Therefore, the Council’s fault has caused Mr X a significant injustice as he was deprived housing assistance and advice from the Council. This caused him frustration and upset.
45. Mr X has an effective date for his housing register application of May 2025 (when he made another homeless application). However, as explained above, but for the Council’s fault, it is likely the Council would have accepted Mr X’s homeless application in September 2024. Therefore, the Council should backdate Mr X’s effective date to September 2024. I do not consider the Council’s fault has caused Mr X a delay in securing a property because of the long waiting times for social housing.
46. The Council apologised to Mr X when it responded to his complaint. While I welcome this, I do not consider it is sufficient to reflect Mr X’s injustice. I make further recommendations.
47. I understand Mr X has concerns about the Council’s ongoing handling of his homeless application and his banding on its housing register after he referred his complaint to us in early July 2025. However, these issues are outside the scope of this investigation. Mr X is free to raise a further complaint to the Council if he remains unhappy.

Back to top

Action

48. By 14 April 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mr X £150 for his frustration and upset.
• Backdate Mr X’s effective date for his housing register application to September 2024.

49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman