Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council delayed carrying out a review of a housing decision, delayed taking a new homeless application and delayed providing Temporary Accommodation after a new decision. The complainant has now received an offer of permanent housing. An apology, symbolic payment and a service improvement remedies the injustice of the uncertainty caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has delayed making a decision on a homelessness application made in February 2025.
2. Mr X also says the Council has not taken into account his medical evidence when deciding how many points are given on a housing register application in May 2025. Mr X says the Council’s delay has affected his mental and physical health.

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. I have investigated events from July 2024 until May 2026 when Mr X received a offer of permanent housing.
6. 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). Mr X complained to us in July 2025 and so I have not exercised discretion to investigate events before July 2024. This is because Mr X could have complained about events before July 2024 at the time and it was reasonable for him to do so.
7. I have exercised discretion to investigate past July 2025 as there was continuing injustice from the matters complained about.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
11. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

12. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• not in priority need;
• suitability of accommodation;

13. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing. 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)

Key facts

14. On 18 July 2024 the Council sent Mr X a decision letter on his homeless application. This said that Mr X was homeless but was not in priority need for housing assistance. Mr X asked the Council for a review of the decision in July 2024. Mr X explained that his mobility difficulties meant the stairs to his first floor flat were difficult for him.
15. On 13 December 2024 the review overturned the previous decision on Mr X’s homeless application. This review should have been carried out within 56 days but took 136, a delay of 3 months.
16. The Council said there was delay of two months between the review decision and a new case officer being allocated. A new homeless application from Mr X was taken on 10 February 2025.
17. The Council wrote to Mr X on 20 May 2025. It took 10 months to issue a new decision on the main housing duty. This said that he had been awarded 152 points on his housing application. This was made up of 100 points for residence, 40 for medical, 10 for homeless and 2 for waiting time.
18. On 19 December 2025, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Mr X as he was homeless and in priority need. The Council said that it would offer Mr X temporary accommodation. The letter said Mr X’s application had 170 housing points and so could bid on the Council’s website. The Council has said the 40 medical points were removed as the points were based on the medical unsuitability of Mr X’s previous accommodation and were not applicable to his Temporary Accommodation address.
19. The Council said there was a delay of 4 months in providing Temporary Accommodation (TA) to Mr X due to an error by the housing officer. Mr X accepted an offer of Ground Floor Temporary Accommodation on 4 March 2026. Mr X said he moved into the TA and asked the Council for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. The Council’s review found the accommodation offer was suitable.
20. The Council offered Mr X a permanent offer of housing, a one bedroom flat in May 2026, which he has accepted.

My analysis

21. From the information I have there has been significant delay in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application. The Council accepts a delay of 19 months which was fault. The information I have shows that if the delay had not occurred, Mr X would certainly have been placed in TA earlier. But, it is not certain that Mr X would have received an offer of permanent housing sooner. No properties were let to applicants with lower than 170 housing points.
22. The Council has said that when Mr X moved into TA, the medical points were removed from this housing application. If these points had not been removed then he could possibly have had 212 points. However, as Mr X’s TA was on the ground floor, it is likely the medical points would have been reduced to reflect that the impact of the flight of steps on his health was no longer present. But as Mr X had other health issues, I cannot say for certain what his medical points should have been. The Council has said that three properties were let to applicants with lower than 212 points during the relevant time period.
23. It is impossible to say what might have happened if the delay had not occurred. Mr X remained in his existing housing for most of the period, with 3 months in TA. Happily, he now has an offer of permanent housing but the Council’s delay of 19 months has caused him an injustice. It is likely that he has spent significantly longer than he should have in unsuitable accommodation.
24. The Council proposed a remedy for this complaint, as it has offered Mr X permanent accommodation and suggested a symbolic payment of £1900.
25. Our guidance on remedies says ‘where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for symbolic financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month’. Given that Mr X remained in self contained accommodation, with no shared facilities I consider the lower end of the range, of £150 a month is appropriate. This would be a total of £2850.

Back to top

Action

26. Within one month of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X. 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.
• Pay Mr X £2850.
27. Within 3 months of the date of the decision on this complaint the Council should:
• draw up an action plan, with targets, to ensure there are no delays dealing with review requests. (If the Council is no longer experiencing delays dealing with review requests, it should send evidence to confirm this.)
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation and I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman