Summary: Mr D says the Council delayed progressing his homelessness application, failed to provide interim accommodation and delayed providing temporary accommodation. I have found extensive fault by the Council which meant Mr D’s family had to remain in housing that was unreasonable to occupy for 15 months longer than necessary. The Council has made service improvements, and agreed to pay Mr D redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed progressing his homelessness application in 2024 and 2025. He received minimal contact from his Case Officer, was not provided with interim accommodation and the provision of temporary accommodation was delayed.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. My investigation looks at what happened from January 2024, when Mr D made his homelessness application to the Council, through to 15 July 2025, when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. Events after that date would need to form a new complaint to the Council before they can be considered by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. In 2024 Mr D was living in a one bedroom property with his partner and three children. One of his children had a disability. He had been on the Council’s housing register since January 2020 with Band 3 (overcrowding) priority.
8. On 30 January 2024 Mr D contacted the Council for homelessness assistance. He said it was not reasonable to occupy his current home as it did not meet the medical needs of the household. He said, ‘please treat this as my homeless application’. He asked for emergency housing. The Council replied the same day asking for documents. On 1 February Mr D responded, it appears he supplied documentation and reiterated it was not reasonable to remain in his current home. The Council did not reply to the email. Mr D made further contact with the Council in February asking about his case. On 21 March Mr D’s Representative from a Law Centre contacted the Council about what was happening with the case. He said Mr D was homeless as it was no longer reasonable to occupy his property. The Council says it booked a homelessness assessment that day for 5 April.
9. On 5 April the Case Officer allocated to the application spoke to Mr D and carried out a homelessness assessment. They noted medical conditions for the family and asked Mr D to provide documents including proof of identification. The Council says Mr D’s housing register account was updated to show he had Band 3 (homeseeker) priority because the homelessness application had been logged onto the Council’s system. Mr D supplied documentation to the Council on 16 April. On 3 June Mr D complained to the Council, he had applied as homeless in January, and his current housing was impacting on the wellbeing of two disabled members of the household. He had chased up the Council several times but had not received an update. The Council replied on 28 June, it said documents had been requested on 5 April and had not been supplied. It did not address his concerns about the handling of his case.
10. On 29 June Mr D chased up the Council about his application. He had sent the requested documents and had made a complaint about lack of action. On 8 July Mr D sent the Council another chaser email. On the same day the Operations Manager asked the Case Officer if there was an update on the case or should it be closed. There is no evidence of any action on the case until 11 September when the Case Officer made a referral to the Council’s independent Medical Adviser asking for comments on medical vulnerability and future housing needs. The Medical Adviser replied the same day, they could not comment on vulnerability as anyone living with a minor would automatically be considered as vulnerable. Also on 11 September the Case Officer contacted Mr D’s landlord and confirmed his housing situation regarding the tenancy and affordability. The Case Officer then contacted Mr D and requested a range of documents including identification for his children and pay slips. The Case Officer also spoke to Mr D and apologised for the delay contacting him. They would contact Occupational Health for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment and advised Mr D to also request an OT assessment. It was not noted why an OT assessment was required. The Case Officer emailed Occupational Health. In addition, they asked the Medical Adviser to assess the future housing needs of the family. Also that day the Council accepted a prevention duty towards Mr D and issued a decision letter, it accepted he was threatened with homelessness. A personalised housing plan (PHP) was provided.
11. On 12 September the Medical Adviser told the Case Officer the family needed a property on the first floor without a lift or any floor with a lift. It subsequently added the child with a medical condition needed their own bedroom. On 16 September Mr D told the Case Officer he could not get Occupational Health to carry out an OT assessment and could the Council do other checks to progress the case. On 17 September the Case Officer told Mr D to contact Social Services and ask for an OT assessment. The Case Officer also noted the prevention duty should be extended because they were waiting for an OT assessment. On 18 September Mr D’s MP wrote to the Council. Mr D was in accommodation that was unreasonable to occupy. He asked what additional medical evidence was needed. The Council replied that Mr D had Band 3 priority on the housing register.
12. On 26 September an Occupational Therapist told the Case Officer she had considered the medical information and Medical Adviser’s recommendations. An OT assessment would not add anything further. Mr D, at the recommendation of the Case Officer, pursued a referral to Social Services for an OT assessment and was told it did not require Social Work involvement as it was about a housing issue. It advised the Social Care Team could do an OT assessment. On 15 October the Council sent Mr D a referral form to complete for a Social Care OT assessment which he returned the next day.
13. On 4 November Mr D asked the Case Officer to clarify what would happen next in the case. He had contacted the Council for an OT assessment and provided all the documentation requested. He sent a further email on 21 November and a third email on 3 December asking for the Case Officer to reply and assist him: no reply was issued. On 5 December the Social Care Team declined the request for an OT assessment. On 10 December Mr D wrote to the Case Officer, he had not heard from her in over three months. On 17 December the Council noted the Case Officer should issue a relief duty letter and request advice from the Medical Adviser (it did not note what the medical advice was for).
14. On 2 January 2025 Mr D’s MP asked the Council about the lack of updates to Mr D. An OT assessment had been declined, and he asked how the Council would assess the impact of living conditions on the wellbeing of the family. On 3 January the Case Officer made a referral to the Medical Adviser for a family member’s medical housing needs including whether their condition created a medical vulnerability and what type of accommodation would be suitable. The same day the Case Officer asked Mr D to provide a copy of the OT response declining an assessment. Also on 3 January the Council accepted a relief duty towards Mr D and notified him. The letter advised the Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation.
15. On 4 January the Medical Adviser said there were no specific housing needs for the family member. Mr D provided the OT information on 5 January. On 8 January the Council told the MP it had accepted a relief duty, and it also had a duty to provide interim accommodation ‘if required’. On 25 March the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr D. On 10 April Mr D complained to the Council. He was still living in unsafe and unsanitary overcrowded accommodation. He had not been provided with interim accommodation and his Band status on the housing register was incorrect. On 9 May the Council replied. It apologised for the lack of contact and delay providing updates. It would review Mr D’s application urgently. On 21 May Mr D requested the Council escalate his complaint. There had been no improvements since April, and his housing register account still showed the incorrect Band and date.
16. At the start of July Mr D told the Council he would go to Judicial Review as his case had not been progressed. On 3 July the Council offered Mr D temporary accommodation. On 15 July the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It accepted there had been delay requesting interim accommodation. It said his housing register status could only change once Mr D was in temporary accommodation, it would then move from ‘homeseeker’ status to ‘homeless homeseeker’. The Council had backdated the Band 3 priority start date to 5 April 2024. The Council offered Mr D £200 for delay and uncertainty caused by delaying provision of temporary accommodation.

Events outside the investigation timeframe

17. At the end of July the Council offered Mr D alternative temporary accommodation. In August Mr D requested a suitability review of the accommodation. In 2026 Mr D successfully bid for a new home.

What should have happened

Homeless Applications

18. If someone contacts the 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

19. The Council must complete an assessment if it is satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the Council may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. The Council must notify the applicant of the assessment and should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for both parties 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 PHP. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Priority need

20. 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.

The prevention duty

21. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

22. 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

23. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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)

Council processes for homelessness applicants

24. Prior to June 2025 a person would apply to the Council for homelessness assistance using an email inbox. The case would then be subject to an initial triage assessment by an Officer. An applicant would need to supply documentation to evidence their application and once those were received and considered a full homelessness assessment would be carried out. The Council says this process was ‘not always as efficient as it could be’.
25. From June 2025 the Council introduced a self-referral portal for homelessness applications. A Triage Officer would assess initial contact and request documents where an applicant appeared at risk of homelessness. The case would then be subject to a full homelessness assessment.
26. Where an applicant stated there was medical need the Council should request supporting evidence. As part of the homelessness assessment process the Case Officer can ask the Medical Adviser for advice on what type of accommodation the applicant might require. The Case Officer can also request a copy of an OT report related to the applicant to assist with consideration of property requirements.
27. When the Council accept a relief duty towards an applicant it should refer the case to the Placement and Settled Homes Teams for provision of interim accommodation. This also applies once a main duty is accepted and temporary accommodation is required.
28. Prior to January 2026 the Council monitored the progress of applications by monthly meetings between the Case Officer and their Manager. The Council recognises not all case were progressed ‘as they should be’ and so introduced a new process in January 2026. Now there are weekly case progression team meetings.

Interim and temporary accommodation

29. 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)
30. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation. 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.

Housing register/ allocations policy

31. Applicants on the housing register are placed into a housing Band to reflect their housing need. There are three categories for Band 3 applicants, each category has the same priority: Band 3 (overcrowded) for applicants accepted as being overcrowded, Band 3 (homeseeker) for applicants who have submitted a homelessness application but not received a main duty decision and Band 3 (homeless homeseeker) for applicants where the Council has accepted a main duty decision and placed the applicant in temporary accommodation.
32. Applicants on the housing register can bid for advertised social housing under the Council’s Choice Based Lettings scheme. Generally the successful bidder for a property will be the applicant with the highest Band priority and earliest date. The Council has the right to restrict who can bid for some properties, that includes only allowing applicants with Band 3 (homeless homeseeker) status to bid on some advertised homes.

Was there fault by the Council

33. The evidence shows me there were severe and repeated delays in this case. Mr D applied to the Council as homeless on 30 January 2024, but no significant action was taken to progress his case until a Representative chased up the Council in March and a homelessness assessment was carried out on 5 April. Despite Mr D supplying documents to the Council in April there is no evidence of any action being taken on his case until 11 September. This is despite Mr D formally complaining to the Council and making repeated requests for an update including visiting the Council and emailing the Case Officer. The Council accepted a prevention duty on 11 September after contact with Mr D’s landlord. This could have been done seven months earlier.
34. The delays then continued due to ineffective case handling by the Council. An OT report was sought when it was not required. The Case Officer was notified by a Senior OT that a report was not necessary in September, but she failed to clarify this with Mr D who wasted months seeking an OT report. The Case Officer failed to take any useful actions on the case from 17 September through to 3 January 2025: a further delay of three months. The Council accepted a relief duty at the start of January, but this could and should have been accepted in early 2024. There was no action on the case from early January 2025 until 25 March when the Council accepted a main duty towards Mr D. There is no evidence to show why a main duty was not accepted much sooner. The actual investigation work needed by the Council to determine a main duty involved the homelessness assessment discussion with Mr D, a one-off contact with his landlord and some medical information which could have been captured in a single request to the Medical Adviser. In total there are delays of 15 months in the progression of this case. A main duty decision could have been issued during April 2024 if the case had been correctly progressed. To compound the errors, the Council had multiple opportunities to notice the failings and address them. Mr D made formal complaints, had his MP contact the Council at least twice and made repeated efforts to have the Case Officer engage with him to no avail.
35. The Council failed to provide Mr D with interim accommodation, this should have happened when it accepted a relief duty. I have no evidence of the Council making the necessary referral for interim accommodation despite Mr D regularly asking for this. The Council also failed to offer Mr D temporary accommodation until he said he would seek a Judicial Review. This meant Mr D and his family, including a disabled child, were left in accommodation that was unreasonable to occupy for around 15 months longer than necessary.
36. The Council accepts there were delays and errors in the handling of this case including the Case Officer providing incorrect advice about the OT assessment, delay issuing the relief duty and main duty and delay providing temporary accommodation. It says it has introduced new systems to better manage cases and prevent similar failings happening again.
37. Mr D also complains the Council failed to set his housing register priority correctly. The Council says Mr D’s housing register application date was changed from January 2020 (when he joined the housing register) to 5 April 2024 because of an automatic system update when his homelessness application was put onto the Council’s records system. It says when Mr D applied as homeless ‘the system created a second entry’ on the housing register. I can see that throughout Mr D retained Band 3 status. However, if the faults by the Council had not occurred, he should have been awarded Band 3 (homeless homeseeker) status during April 2024. That would have allowed him to bid for restricted properties only available to applicants in that group. In addition the Council took until 4 July 2025 to correct the housing register application date to show it as 2020.

Did the fault cause an injustice

38. The faults by the Council meant Mr D and his family remained in accommodation that was not reasonable to occupy for around 15 months longer than necessary. Mr D was caused avoidable distress at an already difficult period for his family. He had the right to expect support and assistance from the Council which he did not receive.
39. I have also considered whether the faults by the Council meant Mr D lost an opportunity to successfully bid for a social housing property. I have checked with the Council, and it has confirmed that, had the faults not occurred, Mr D still would not have been a successful bidder on suitable properties advertised between April 2024 and July 2025 including those restricted to Band 3 homeless homeseeker applicants.

Back to top

Action

40. The Council says it recognises the errors in this case caused avoidable distress especially given the medical need of the household. It has offered £750 redress for distress and time and trouble. I welcome the offer but consider it fails to fully remedy the fault and injustice.
41. Mr D and his family, including a disabled child, were deprived of suitable accommodation (interim and temporary) for around 15 months due to the Council’s delays. Taking account of the fault and the impact on the family the Council should consider paying Mr D a total of £2,800. This is calculated at a rate of £200 per month x 15 months, minus the £200 already paid to Mr D for the delay in providing accommodation.
42. The Council has made service improvements including a redesigned triage and assessment process, faster document capture and case allocation after first contact from an applicant, weekly case progression meetings and strengthened guidance for officers on medical assessments and OT referrals.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above remedy within four weeks of the case closing.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman