Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to process her homelessness application; it did not properly consider its duties; nor communicate with Miss X clearly and in good time. The Council’s shortcomings caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty. It should apologise to her, make a symbolic payment, and remind staff of the expectations of government guidance.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to deal with her homelessness application properly.
2. Miss X says the Council’s failings caused her distress and uncertainty. She had to stay in the property she was renting and was taken to court by her landlord.

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 Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss 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

The law and guidance

7. 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)

8. 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. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. This is known as the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. 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. This is known as the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. 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)

The Council’s complaints procedure

11. The Council’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and to stage two complaints within 20 working days. It says that in some cases it will need to extend this timeframe and will contact the complainant to let them know.

What happened

12. I have investigated the Council’s actions from November 2024 to November 2025. This is a summary of relevant events. It is not a detailed account of everything that has happened.
13. Miss X lived with her young children in a rented house. The landlord served a section 21 notice asking her to leave because they wanted the house back. In November 2024, Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council. It asked her for various documents. Miss X submitted these but the Council overlooked her email.
14. In January 2025, Miss X contacted the Council because she had not heard any more about her housing. The Council told her she had not submitted the documents so it closed her case.
15. Miss X complained to the Council. It upheld her complaint. It said it should have processed her application when it received the documents from her, and it should have told her if it had not received these and was closing her case. The Council apologised for poor record keeping and communications.
16. Miss X resubmitted her documents and the Council accepted it owed her a prevention duty. By this time, Miss X’s landlord had been to court and obtained a possession order against her. Miss X tells me the court did not order she pay the landlord’s costs.
17. On 23 March, Miss X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process.
18. The Council’s case notes say that it in April 2025, it made several attempts to call Miss X, because it had found two suitable properties. The Council messaged Miss X and asked her to confirm her telephone number.
19. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint on 16 May. It said that it agreed with the stage one response. It also told Miss X that she needed to contact the Council because it had been unable to reach her about possible properties. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
20. The Council’s case records note in November 2025, that Miss X had been turning down properties because they were not in her preferred areas. There are no records of conversations or emails about these properties, nor Miss X specifying particular areas.
21. The Council spoke to the landlord’s agent, who confirmed Miss X was a good tenant with no rent arrears, but the landlord wanted the house back.
22. On 27 November 2025, following our enquiries, the Council accepted it owed Miss X a relief duty.
23. Miss X says the Council sent details of properties but these were not suitable. Some were far away from school and work, and some were not habitable. Miss X was able to stay in her rented property until she moved into social housing in a nearby district. However, Miss X has told me she found the process extremely stressful, as she had to stay in the property despite court proceedings. Miss X says that the Council did not contact her for long periods, and nobody ever checked on how she or the children were doing.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss X and her family?

24. The Council has acknowledged that it failed to assess Miss X’s homelessness application when she submitted her documents in November 2024. It apologised and reopened her case. The Council should have notified Miss X that her case had been closed, it may then have detected its error sooner.
25. The Council accepted the prevention duty in February 2025, but as Miss X had been served the section 21 notice in early November, this had expired and the landlord had a possession order. The Council failed to consider whether this meant that it should accept the relief duty instead.
26. A tenant has the right to stay in a property until a court issues a warrant to enforce possession and bailiffs visit. However, councils should consider whether it is reasonable to expect an applicant to stay in the home as possession proceedings progress. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (Chapter 6.29- 6.38) says that it is unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to stay in a property where the court has ordered them to leave; and councils should keep in contact with the applicant while possession proceedings are ongoing. Councils should consider all the factors and record the reasons for its decisions.
27. There is no evidence that the Council considered whether it was reasonable to expect Miss X to stay in the property despite the advanced possession proceedings, nor that it contacted her to discuss this or to make sure that bailiffs had not been instructed between May and November 2025.
28. In addition, the prevention duty should run for 8 weeks. A council can extend this in agreement with the applicant. The Council allowed the prevention duty for Miss X to run for 41 weeks. There is no evidence the Council decided to extend the prevention duty and why it might do this, nor that it spoke to Miss X about extending the prevention duty.
29. The Council said that Miss X was turning down properties, but there was no evidence of this, nor how she had expressed her preferences for certain areas. Miss X says she never turned down a property offered to her. I can see that the Council had some difficulty reaching Miss X by phone, but its record keeping is not always good enough to show what properties it had found nor how it had contacted Miss X about these. There is no evidence of any action by the Council to prevent or relieve Miss X’s homelessness between May when it responded to her complaint and November, when it accepted the relief duty.
30. The Council failed to consider whether it should offer Miss X interim accommodation.
31. The Council took too long to deal with Miss X’s complaint. It agreed an extension to allow it more time to respond to her stage one complaint. However, the Council took nearly double the time set out in its policy to respond to Miss X’s stage two complaint, and it has not shown that it wrote to her to let her know of this delay.
32. Miss X was able to stay in her rented property until she found somewhere to move to. However, she has described that the Council’s delay and lack of communication caused her distress, frustration and uncertainty that they would be helped to move. Miss X was distressed that she had to undergo court action with no support from the Council, particularly for the welfare of her children.

Back to top

Action

33. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the further injustice it caused her. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £300 in recognition of the distress, frustration and uncertainty it caused her when it mishandled her application, failed to communicate with her properly, and took too long to respond to her complaint.
• Remind relevant staff, by way of a briefing note or training session, of Chapter 6 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance and:
1. to properly consider whether it is reasonable to expect an applicant to stay in a property when a section 21 notice has expired and possession proceedings are in progress, and its relief duty and to keep a note of how it reached its decision;
2. to keep in contact with applicants while possession proceedings are ongoing so it can review its decision on whether it is reasonable for them to remain in the property; and
3. to keep records of contacts with applicants and its decision making.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman