Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed dealing with her homeless application, and it delayed offering her accommodation under homelessness legislation. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mrs X’s homeless application. This caused her frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed dealing with her homeless application, and it delayed offering her accommodation under homelessness legislation.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s faults have significantly affected her mental 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Homelessness

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. 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). This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
12. 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)

What happened

13. The Council had a telephone interview with Mrs X in early July 2024 to discuss her housing situation. Mrs X said she was living in a three-bedroom property alone and it was no longer affordable. She said her monthly rent was £1,500 and she was receiving universal credit of £797 per month. The Council sent a letter to Mrs X and said it did not have a reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It told her she could look for housing in the private sector.
14. Mrs X’s MP contacted the Council in early October. He said he wanted the Council to assess whether Mrs X was homeless and whether it was reasonable for her to occupy her property. He said the property was unaffordable for Mrs X. He also provided the Council with Mrs X’s financial statement.
15. The Council completed an income and expenditure assessment and decided Mrs X’s property was unaffordable. It awarded her prevention duty on 22 October and drew up a personal housing plan (PHP). It also made a referral to its private sector team on 29 October. It asked the team to provide Mrs X with financial assistance with finding a suitable one-bedroom property.
16. An officer from the Council’s private sector team called Mrs X in March 2025 to complete an affordability assessment. The officer said Mrs X could not afford to rent a one-bedroom property, but they would help her to find a room in a shared property.
17. Mrs X’s MP complained to the Council in late March. He said the Council had failed to provide Mrs X with sufficient support, and she was still waiting for the private sector team to contact her.
18. The Council ended the prevention duty and awarded Mrs X the relief duty in late April. It said it did not have a reason to believe she was in priority need, and therefore it did not have duty to provide her with interim accommodation.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in mid-May. It said it was sorry it had not progressed her case as quickly as it would have expected to. It was receiving a high demand for its service. It said it had accepted the relief duty, but it did not have a duty to provide her with interim accommodation as she was not in priority need. It also said it was struggling to find her a property that would accept her pets.
20. Mrs X’s MP emailed the Council in mid-June and asked to escalate the complaint. He said he was unhappy the Council had failed to offer Mrs X accommodation. He also said the Council had delayed making a main housing duty decision on Mrs X’s homeless application.
21. The Council responded to the complaint in July. It said it had been trying to find Mrs X accommodation under the relief duty. Its private sector team had now contacted her to offer her accommodation.
22. The Council sent a letter to Mrs X on 17 July with an offer for an ensuite room in shared accommodation. It said this was a final offer and it would end the relief duty. Mrs X said this was unsuitable and asked for a review of the accommodation on 21 July. She referred her complaint to us on the same day.

Back to top

Analysis

23. Mrs X told the Council in July 2024 she was living in unaffordable accommodation. However, the Council closed the case and said it did not have a reason to believe she was homeless or threatened with homelessness. It then re-opened the case in October 2024 and awarded Mrs X the prevention duty.
24. I asked the Council to explain why it closed Mrs X’s case in July 2024 but then reopened it in October 2024. It said it was because of a change in Mrs X’s circumstances. However, it has not explained what changed in Mrs X’s circumstances. The records suggest Mrs X’s circumstances in July 2024 were not materially different from those in October 2024. Mrs X wanted help on both occasions because her property was unaffordable. Someone is homeless if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. In the absence of any other evidence to suggest how Mrs X’s circumstances had significantly changed in three months, I consider the Council was at fault for closing Mrs X’s case in July 2024.
25. The Council was also at fault for awarding Mrs X the prevention duty in October 2024 rather than the relief duty. Councils award the prevention duty when they are satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness. However, the Council had decided in October that Mrs X was living in an unaffordable property. It was not reasonable for her to continue living in the property and so she was homeless. Therefore, it should have therefore awarded her the relief duty. Mrs X’s circumstances in April 2025 (when the Council eventually awarded the relief duty) were not different to those in October 2024.
26. The Council referred Mrs X’s case to its private sector team in October 2024. However, an officer from that team did not contact her until March 2025. This significant delay is fault.
27. The prevention and the relief duty should last for 56 days. The Council exceeded this during both duties, but during the prevention duty it was significantly delayed. This is fault.
28. Mrs X says the Council delayed offering her accommodation. However, the Council decided she was not in priority need, and therefore it did not have a duty to provide her with interim accommodation. Under the relief duty, councils must take reasonable steps to help an applicant find accommodation, but it does not have a duty to provide accommodation unless the applicant is in priority need. I do not find fault.
29. The Council’s faults outlined in paragraphs 23 to 27 above caused Mrs X frustration and upset. She also has uncertainty about what support and advice the Council would have provided sooner but for the delays. The Council should take action to remedy this injustice.
30. The Council has agreed, in another recent case, to provide training to its team to ensure they are aware of the relevant homelessness legislation and procedures. Therefore, I have not made any service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

31. By 15 May 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mrs X £200.

32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman