Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He says the Council delayed in deciding on whether it owed him and his family housing duty. He says that during this time, he was in unsuitable temporary accommodation and believes that other people have received a decision sooner. He reports that this issue has caused him and his family much distress. We found the Council at fault as it delayed in making a main housing decision. The Council should apologise, make service improvements, and make payments to Mr X to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. He says the Council delayed in deciding on whether it owed him and his family housing duty. He says that during this time, he was in unsuitable temporary accommodation and believes that other people have received a decision sooner.
2. Mr X says that this issue has caused him and his family much distress. He seeks for the Council to expediate its decision about housing duty and to correct any disadvantage he has experienced during this process.

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. 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)
6. Although this complaint began in 2024 and could be considered late, I have decided to exercise our discretion and will continue with the investigation. The Council has confirmed it has only recently decided it owes Mr X main housing duty. As Mr X’s injustice was therefore ongoing when he approached the Ombudsman, it is fair to consider the injustice overall.

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. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making the final decision.
8. I have also considered the relevant statutory guidance, as set out below. In addition, I have considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

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. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• 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)

11. 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)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
13. 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)
14. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
15. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
16. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
17. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

18. 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))

What happened

19. In February 2024 Mr X applied for homelessness assistance with the Council. In March 2024 an assessment was undertaken by the Council and a prevention duty letter issued.
20. In April 2024, the Council issued a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP).
21. In May 2024, Mr X became homeless. The Council confirmed that its prevention duty had ended and accepted that it owed relief duty. It secured interim accommodation for Mr X and his family. Mr X also joined the housing register at this point.
22. In April 2025, Mr X raised a complaint about the delay from the Council in deciding whether it owed him main housing duty. In December 2025, Mr X raised concerns to the Council over the suitability of the property. In that it had mould and the stairs were difficult for his wife to access who was pregnant.
23. The Council says that it decided in March 2026 that it owes Mr X main housing duty. It confirms that it is acting to improve its service about this.

Analysis

24. After accepting it had relief duty, the Council must decide whether it owed Mr X main housing duty within 56 days. It has now been almost two years since this point. I consider the delay to decide on whether it owes Mr X main housing duty to be fault by the Council.
25. I note there have been different reasons provided for the delay. These include but are not limited to; staff absence and turnover, checking if Mr X had qualifying reasons for the Council’s area, high workloads and increased demand.
26. While I accept the increased demand and high workload the Council has, it is concerning that it has taken so long to decide Mr X’s case. I therefore find the Council should within three months of this decision, produce an action plan on how it intends to improve its service about making main housing duty decisions.
27. The Council has also admitted that following producing a PHP in April 2024, it has not updated this. The plan acts as a tailored document setting out the Council’s responsibilities and what action can be taken to either prevent or relieve the housing situation. The failure to update this is fault by the Council. I have therefore recommended that it should update this.
28. The failure to update the PHP plan along with the failure to decide on main housing duty has affected Mr X and caused him injustice. The doubt of not knowing whether the Council owed him main housing duty caused distress through uncertainty. Also, in his belief the Council were not treating him fairly.
29. Our guidance on remedies, states that we can consider an award when the Council fails to make a decision in the homelessness process. As the Council decided it owed Mr X relief duty in May 2024, this meant that it should have decided by July 2024 whether it owed him main housing duty. I have therefore considered the distress as occurring from July 2024 until September 2025 for the reasons explained below.
30. As this issue caused Mr X distress over a prolonged period, I consider an apology and an award of £500 is suitable.
31. Mr X has mentioned that his interim accommodation is unsuitable and that he told the Council about this in December 2025. The failure to decide on whether it owes Mr X main housing duty has also affected Mr X. If the Council accepted main housing duty, the interim accommodation becomes temporary, which offers a right of review for suitability.
32. Nevertheless, the Council still had a duty to ensure the interim accommodation it secures for Mr X is appropriate for his household.
33. The Council has reported that it has received no report that Mr X property is unsuitable but accepts that it was provided evidence of Mr X’s wife’s pregnancy in November 2025. This potentially makes the interim accommodation unsuitable, and I consider it fault the Council has not completed a formal review of this in November 2025.
34. I find therefore as part of the findings it should undertake a formal suitability review under section 206 of the Housing Act 1996 considering the overcrowding and condition of the property.
35. Mr X has also raised concerns the delay in deciding whether it owes him housing duty has meant that other people have had a decision about this sooner. He says he believes he has missed out on potential properties. The Council confirms that if it had decided sooner, Mr X could have been eligible for a property in September 2025. I consider this to be additional fault by the Council as this has potentially prevented him from being able to move properties.
36. I find the Council should recognise this uncertainty and avoidable distress. Our guidance on remedies states that in circumstances where somebody has remained in an unsuitable property due to the failures from the housing process, we can make an award of up to £350 a month in financial redress.
37. I have decided that £350 a month is suitable in this circumstance for the following reasons. Mr X has mentioned that he has a dependent child, his wife is pregnant and there are concerns over the conditions at the property (mould).
38. If the Council had decided on whether it owed main housing duty sooner, this could have allowed Mr X to raise a suitability request into the accommodation sooner, as he would have formal rights to do so.
39. There is evidence to show the Council was aware of Mr X’s wife’s pregnancy in July 2025, however it states it only received official evidence of this in November 2025. Nevertheless, I can see no consideration made into whether the property on a second floor, would be suitable for a pregnant woman who has a young child also. The circumstances combine to make this a vulnerable person which the Council should have acted and taken priority over. I therefore find the award of £350 is appropriate considering the circumstances.
40. I have made the award from September 2025 which is when Mr X potentially could have moved up to March 2026 (the date of this decision). Going forward, I find the Council should confirm in writing that it should offer Mr X the next available suitable property. This is because there is evidence to show that he has missed out on properties because of the failure from the Council to decide.
41. I cannot recommend a certain timeframe for an offer to be made, as this depends on the availability of housing stock, which I or the Council cannot control.

Back to top

Action

42. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Complete an update into Mr X’s Personalised Housing Plan.
2. Undertake a formal suitability review under s.206 Housing Act 1996 considering overcrowding and condition.
3. Provide an apology to Mr X for the distress it has caused him in the homelessness application process.
4. Pay Mr X £500 for the delay in deciding whether it owes him main housing duty for the period of July 2024 to September 2025.
5. Pay Mr X £2,450 for the failure caused by the delay in making a decision and for missing out on potential properties for the period of September 2025 to March 2026.
6. Confirm in writing that it will offer him the next suitable property which becomes available.
43. We also found the Council should complete the following service improvements within the next three months:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5.  
6.  
7. Produce an action plan on how it intends to improve its service in relation to main housing duty decisions.
44. 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.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. The Council should apologise to Mr X and make service improvements. It should also make payments to Mr X for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman