Summary: We have found fault with the Council for failing to carry out the necessary enquiries when Mr X presented as homeless, and for failing to issue a reviewable decision. This fault and further delays caused the family to remain in unsuitable, overcrowded accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a symbolic payment and back date his priority date.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council did not consider his homelessness application correctly. He says that he and his family are living in overcrowded accommodation and his wife’s ill health is made worse by the living conditions.

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 the 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Law and guidance

6. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to be expected to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

The relief duty

7. 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)

Review rights

8. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of their eligibility for assistance.

Decision letters

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)

What happened

Homelessness application

10. In November 2024, Mr X approached the Council as homeless. He said that his current accommodation that he shared with his family was unsuitable, overcrowded and was making his wife’s serious medical condition worse.
11. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment of Mr X in January 2025. Following internal discussions, the Council decided that the family had accommodation for at least 56 days as the landlord had not issued a Section 21 notice. It also said that the property was not statutorily overcrowded. It concluded that Mr X was not entitled to make a homelessness application. It asked environmental health to inspect the property.

Mr X’s complaint

12. Mr X complained about how the Council had considered his application. In February, the Council issued a response. It accepted the Council had not handled Mr X’s application appropriately. It said the officer did not conduct the necessary enquiries and did not issue Mr X with a written decision, denying him his right to review.
13. The Council said it would reopen Mr X’s case, carry out the necessary enquiries and issue a written decision. In addition, it said it would reinforce internal guidance and training to ensure officers comply with legal duties.

Reopened case

14. Between February and May 2025, the Council carried out enquiries. During this period, environmental health visited Mr X’s property, and the Council completed a medical assessment for Mr X’s wife.
15. My mid-May when the Council had still not issued a decision, Mr X made a stage 2 complaint. He said the Council had delayed accepting his homelessness application, failed to offer the family interim accommodation and requested the relief duty be backdated to November 2024.
16. At the end of May, the Council concluded the property met the criteria for statutory overcrowded and issued a hazard awareness notice. The medical report confirmed that due to Mr X’s wife’s illness, the family needed a property with a lift (if not ground floor) and an accessible shower with room for a seat.
17. The Council accepted the relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan. The Council identified Mr X’s case as a high priority and issued a referral for Band A.
18. In July, the Council responded to Mr X’s stage 2 complaint. It confirmed that Mr X’s case was a high priority and apologised for the delay and poor communication with him.
19. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025.

Update

20. At the time of my decision, Mr X and his family remain in the same property. Mr X said that the Council offered him an alternative property in December 2025 which he accepted. He said the landlord then withdrew the property.
21. In February 2026, Mr X’s landlord issued a Section 21 notice. This expired in April 2026.

My findings

22. The Council should have carried out enquiries when Mr X first presented as homeless in November 2024. This was fault. The Council did not issue a written decision which denied Mr X his review rights.
23. When the Council carried out necessary enquiries in May 2025, it determined that Mr X’s property was overcrowded under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
24. Had the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness application correctly in November 2024, it would have reached the same conclusion as Mr X’s circumstances have not changed. This meant that Mr X and his family suffered the injustice of living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary.
25. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X and his family missed out on any suitable properties during the 6 months of delay. However, they experienced uncertainty and frustration.
26. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £600 in recognition of the time the family spent in unsuitable accommodation between November 2024 and May 2025.
27. The Council took steps in May 2025 to prioritise Mr X’s case. It referred his application to Band A.
28. However, Mr X and his family remain in the same overcrowded accommodation, a year later. This delay is fault causing the family the injustice of remaining in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to make a further symbolic payment of £1200 (£1800 in total) in recognition of this.
29. The Council has also agreed to backdate Mr X’s priority date to November 2024 to put Mr X in the position he would have been had it not been for the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for not making necessary enquiries after he presented as homeless, and for not issuing a decision that Mr X could request a review of.
2. Pay Mr X £1800 in recognition of the 18 months that he and his family have spent in unsuitable accommodation.
3. Backdate Mr X’s priority date to November 2024.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman