Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council in: failing to deal with her application in a timely way; follow correct processes and lack of communication about her application; and its complaint handling failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by apologising, making a payment to recognise the upset caused and a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She says it failed to process her application properly and in a timely manner, and failed to:
1. complete a proper assessment of her circumstances;
2. take appropriate action to prevent her homelessness and help her secure other accommodation;
3. properly consider the duty to offer her interim accommodation when she was homeless;
4. complete the review of its decision she was not in priority need in a timely way; and
5. communicate properly with her about her application.
2. Ms Y says because of the delays and lack of support, she has been homeless and without support from the Council since July 2024, when she first approached it for assistance. She has had to sofa surf with family and friends. She suffers with severe anxiety and depression triggered by a lack of stability and has been caused significant distress and financial hardship.
3. Ms Y wants the Council to provide her with proper support to secure accommodation and make financial redress for the impact of its failures.

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.
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
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 what happened from July 2024, when Ms Y first asked the Council for homelessness assistance, until the end of July 2025, when she brought her complaint to us following the Council’s final response.
9. I have not investigated events from August 2025 because these are not part of the complaint referred to us in July 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y, her representative Ms Z, and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms Y, Ms Z 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

What should have happened

Homelessness – the law

12. Councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness are set out in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities.
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

15. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
16. 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.
17. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

19. 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

20. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to make accommodation available.

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

21. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
22. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.

Review rights and timescales

23. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions, including:

• their eligibility for assistance; and
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness.

24. Councils must complete reviews of certain decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request, including:

• eligibility for assistance; and
• not in priority need.

25. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Accommodation pending review

26. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

The Council’s complaints process

27. The Council has a 2-stage procedure.

• at stage 1, the service team responsible will provide a full response to the complaint within 20 working days from receipt of the complaint; and
• if, following the stage 1 response, it is asked to review the complaint at stage 2 of the procedure, the complaint will be investigated independently by the corporate resolution team and a response provided within 20 working days.

What happened

28. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

July 2024: Ms Y asks the Council for homelessness assistance

29. On 3 July Ms Y was served with four weeks’ notice of eviction from her rented accommodation.
30. She immediately approached the Council for homelessness assistance. She had an initial appointment with the homelessness service on 25 July.
31. Miss Y was evicted from her accommodation 31 July. She went to the Council’s homelessness service office for assistance as it had advised her to do. She was not provided with any support. When she then called the out-of-hours team it told her to seek help from friends or family and go back to its office the next morning.

August/September 2024: further contact with the Council

32. Ms Y was given a further appointment with the homelessness service for 28 August. This was cancelled by the service and re-arranged for 9 September. This appointment was also cancelled.
33. The service did not re-book the appointment, despite telling Ms Y it would. When she called to check the position, it gave her an appointment for 11 November.

September 2024: Ms Y’s complaint to the Council

34. Ms Y approached a support organisation for help with her situation. Her case worker, Ms Z, as Ms Y’s representative, complained to the Council about its failure to respond to Ms Y’s request for homelessness assistance, its lack of support and delay with her homelessness application. She said:

• Ms Y approached the Council on 4 July, as soon as she received the eviction notice; and
• she had been homeless since the eviction, but the Council had still not started a homelessness application, carried out an assessment of her circumstances or provided her with any assistance.

35. The Council said, in its stage 1 complaint response:

• it had received a significant influx of applications and been unable to meet the demand due to staffing challenges. The current waiting time for an appointment was 6 weeks; and
• Ms Y could attend the walk-in service if she was homeless and wait to be seen. It also had an out-of-hours service for people facing street homelessness.

36. It said it had not upheld the complaint because a walk-in service was available.
37. Ms Z told the Council this response was unsatisfactory. It did not properly explain why it had not started processing Ms Y’s homelessness application or completed an assessment. Ms Y was homeless and needed an urgent assessment. She asked the Council to carry out a stage 2 complaint review.

November 2024: Ms Y’s homelessness assessment

38. On 18 November, the Council completed a telephone assessment of Ms Y’s circumstances. Ms Y told it about her difficulty finding affordable private rented accommodation. The Council says it completed a vulnerability assessment for her but has not provided any record of this.
39. The Council sent Ms Y a PHP. This said Ms Y:

• was sofa surfing with friends, unemployed and only able to afford a rental charge equivalent to local housing allowance entitlement under Universal Credit;
• would like a studio or one bedroom flat because of traumatic experiences she’d had in the past when in shared supported housing; and
• suffered with anxiety and depression.

40. The PHP also said Ms Y should consider accommodation in the private sector. It set out information about the assistance the Council could provide to help her secure private rented accommodation.

Ms Y’s request for interim accommodation

41. On 28 November Ms Z asked the Council to provide Ms Y with interim accommodation. She said Ms Y could not stay with her friend past the end of the month and required interim accommodation as a matter of urgency. She also asked for an update on the homelessness application.
42. The Council replied on 29 November. It said it was waiting for medical information from Ms Y’s GP. This information would then be referred to its medical adviser before the request for interim accommodation would be considered.

December 2024: Council’s stage 2 complaint response

43. The Council says it sent a stage 2 complaint response by email to Ms Y’s representative on 16 December which said:

• Ms Y’s application on 15 July 2024 was for the housing register not homelessness assistance;
• it had no record of a homelessness application or interview on 25 July, but this might be because of the system issues it had at the time; and
• it would contact Ms Y, offer her an appointment as soon as possible, and clarify the steps regarding her homelessness and housing applications.

44. Ms Y’s representative says she did not receive or see this response.

Council’s decision Ms Y was not in priority need

45. On 23 December 2024 the Council told Ms Y it accepted it owed her the relief duty but had decided she was not in priority need.
46. On 9 January 2025 Ms Y asked the Council to review its decision she was not in priority need and provide her with accommodation pending the outcome of the review.

January 2025: Ms Y’s further contact and complaint

47. On 8 January Ms Y told the Council she was upset about the way it had handled her homelessness case. She complained about its delays, cancellation of appointments and communication failures.
48. Ms Y and/or her representative contacted the Council again on:

• 14 January and
• 17 January: about her difficulties finding private rented accommodation and asking for an update on her applications;
• 23 January: providing a GP letter about Ms Y’s mental health issues and the impact of homelessness on her;
• 27 January and
• 30 January: requesting an update

February/March 2025: Ms Y’s further complaints

49. On 5 February Ms Z complained again about the Council’s handling of Ms Y’s application. She said the Council had still not completed its stage 2 review of the initial complaint (September 2024) and there had been continuing delays and failures in its response to Ms Y’s requests for assistance and processing of her application.
50. Ms Z contacted the Council again on 14 March about its failure to respond to the complaint of 5 February and complete a stage 2 review of the initial complaint.

April 2025: Council’s decision about accommodation pending the review

51. The Council obtained advice from its medical adviser about Ms Y’s vulnerability.
52. On 2 April it issued its decision on her request for accommodation pending the outcome of its review of the decision she was not in priority need. It said it had:

• considered the relevant matters (which it set out, together with its views about these);
• submitted the new medical evidence, including her GP’s records, to its independent medical adviser. Their opinion remained that Ms Y was not in priority need due to her medical condition; and
• considered whether it should exercise its discretion to house her pending the outcome of the review. It had concluded it was not appropriate to do so.

May 2025: Council’s response to Ms Y’s complaint

53. The Council issued a stage 1 complaint response and said:

• it accepted there had been delays and communication failures regarding her homelessness application and complaint responses;
• it had had issues processing and progressing homelessness applications because of reductions and changes in staffing and an increase in applications. It was now working to reduce the backlog; and
• it noted she had requested a review of the non-priority decision. This was being considered by the reviews team.

July 2025: Complaint to us

54. Ms Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and brought it to us.
55. The Council provided us with a copy of its stage 2 response of December 2024. It told us its complaints process had been completed.

Council’s review decision

56. On 31 July 2025 the Council completed its review, requested by Ms Y in January 2025, of the decision she was not in priority need.
57. It decided the December 2024 “not in priority need” decision should be withdrawn and her case should be re-assessed.

Events after July 2025

58. In January 2026 the Council allocated Ms Y’s case for urgent re-assessment. It noted no action had been taken since it was returned by the review team in August 2025.
59. It then contacted Ms Y to request further information for the re-assessment.
60. In May 2026 it issued a new decision that Ms Y was not in priority need. I understand Ms Y’s solicitors have asked the Council to review this decision.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

The Council’s handling of Ms Y’s homelessness application

61. I consider there were significant failures by the Council in its handling of Ms Y’s homelessness application from July 2024 to July 2025. These include:

• it was clear, when Ms Y approached it for help on 4 July, she was threatened with homelessness. But there is no record it took any action at that stage to complete an assessment or take any steps to help her keep her home or find somewhere else to live;
• it was clear, when Ms Y went to its offices for help on 31 July, she was now homeless, having been evicted from her rented accommodation. But there is no record it took any steps at that stage to help her secure suitable accommodation;
• it did not complete an assessment of her circumstances until 18 November – more than four months after she first approached it for homelessness assistance, and more than three months after she became homeless;
• there is no record of any vulnerability assessment for Ms Y completed by the Council when it assessed her circumstances in November;
• it took an unreasonable length of time to consider Ms Y’s request in January 2025 for accommodation pending the outcome of her request for a review of its decision she was not in priority need. It knew she was currently homeless but took nearly three months to make a decision about this;
• it failed to complete its review of the decision she was not in priority need within eight weeks of her request in January 2025. It did not issue its review decision until 31 July, a delay of nearly four months; and
• it failed to respond to Ms Y and her representative’s requests for updates about her application or keep her informed of its progress.

62. All these failures were fault. And in my view, indicate the Council’s procedure for responding to requests for homelessness assistance and applications was in complete disarray during this period with no proper process for accurate record-keeping or case management.
63. Because of this, Ms Y, as an applicant threatened with homelessness and then homeless, was left without proper support, assistance or communication about what was happening with her application, at a very difficult and worrying time.
64. I don’t consider I can say the outcome of Ms Y’s application would have been different, had the Council handled it properly and in a timely way. But its failures have caused Ms Y additional worry, upset and uncertainty about what was happening with her applications and review requests.

Complaint Handling

65. In my view the Council failed to properly engage with and address the serious issues raised by Ms Y’s initial complaint of September 2024. By this point she had been homeless for over a month.
66. The Council’s stage 1 response said applicants were currently having to wait six weeks for an assessment and it did not uphold her complaint because it had a walk-in service available (which Ms Y had approached for help the day she was evicted, without being offered any support). It did not properly address its failure to comply with its homelessness duties or offer Ms Y any remedy for this.
67. And the stage 2 response does not indicate there was any meaningful review of Ms Y’s complaint. It includes inaccurate information and its offer to contact her as soon as possible to clarify the position with her applications does not appear to have been followed up.
68. There was then a significant delay by the Council in responding to Ms Y’s further complaint in February 2025. It took over three months to issue a response and failed to confirm to her representative it had sent a stage 2 reply in December 2024 to the initial complaint.
69. These complaint handling failures and delays were fault, causing Ms Y further worry, upset and uncertainty about whether the Council would take any positive action to progress her application in response to her complaints.

Service improvements

70. We have issued a number of decisions over the last year identifying fault in the Council’s handling of homelessness applications in which it agreed to make service improvements going forward.
71. These improvements include:

• in June 2025, that it would
1. consider what action it needed to take to ensure it identified and responded to communications from homeless applicants or their representatives without delay;
2. consider what it should do to ensure it issued completed, accurate Personalised Housing Plans to applicants in a timely way and acted to relieve an applicant's homelessness during the relief duty timescale;
3. consider our report on this investigation at the relevant scrutiny and oversight committee to decide what further actions the Council should take to prevent similar faults occurring in future;
• in October 2025, that it would remind its housing staff of the importance to regularly communicate with its service users and respond to any queries;
• in February 2026, that it would:
4. create an action plan to address how it will reduce its delays in carrying out housing assessments;
5. review its procedures to ensure it is communicating effectively with homeless applicants and sending key decision letters when it accepts or rejects a housing duty; and
6. review its procedures to ensure it is considering whether an applicant requires interim accommodation when it is making homeless inquiries and making a record of this decision.

72. The faults found in this decision took place before the Council agreed to make these service improvements. If properly implemented, they should address most of the faults identified in this case.
73. But I have recommended a service improvement to address the delay completing the review of the non-priority decision.
74. And although this does not form part of this complaint, I note with concern that no action was taken to re-assess whether Ms Y was in priority need from the end of July 2025, following the completion of the review, until January 2026

Back to top

Action

75. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms Y for the failures in its handling of her homelessness application from July 2024 to July 2025, its complaint handling failures, and the upset these caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology
2. pay Ms Y £500 to recognise the worry, upset and uncertainty caused by these failures. This is a symbolic payment based on our guidance on remedies
76. And within two months from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. establish the reasons for the delay completing the review of its decision Ms Y was not in priority need;
2. establish the current timescales for completing reviews of homelessness decisions; and
3. report to us on these current timescales and any action it is taking to ensure reviews are completed within the required timescales.
77. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

78. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman