Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions when he presented to it as homeless. We found fault because the Council should have processed homelessness applications for him but did not. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and made a payment to him to recognise the injustice caused. We are satisfied this was a sufficient personal remedy. The Council has now also agreed to a service improvement recommendation of formally reviewing the errors in Mr X’s case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness approaches to it. He says the Council failed to properly assess evidence in his case which resulted in avoidable periods of rough sleeping.
2. Mr X says this caused him significant and avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. He says this affected his mental health and wellbeing.

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. My investigation begins when Mr X made the Council aware he was still homeless at the end of June 2024.
6. My investigation will end when the Council issued its final complaint response at the end of June 2025.
7. I will not investigate any matters related to Mr X’s homeless approach to the Council in 2023. These matters are out of time for us to investigate and I see no good reason to exercise discretion to include them as part of my investigation now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
9. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

Legislation and statutory guidance

10. 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.
11. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

The prevention duty

12. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

13. 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

14. 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).

Interim accommodation

15. 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)
16. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.

Priority need

17. People who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age may be classed as being in priority need.

Local housing allowance for accommodation

18. The local housing allowance (LHA) rate is used to calculate the maximum housing benefit support for tenants renting from private landlords. The rate is set by the Department for Work and Pensions.

What happened

19. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
20. Mr X has some physical and mental health concerns. He had been on the Council’s housing register for some time. This meant he had the ability to bid for properties advertised as available. Mr X was in band three on the Council’s housing allocation scheme.
21. Mr X had made approaches to the Council about his homelessness before the period of my investigation. The Council had previously ended its relief duty to him in 2023. It said he did not meet the conditions for being classed as in priority need, it had no duty to provide him with accommodation and he had been verified as a rough sleeper.

2024

22. At the end of June 2024, Mr X completed a housing options form online on the Council’s website.
23. As a result of this, Officer J from the Council contacted Mr X. She commented she was sorry to hear he was still homeless and that he was quite low on the list when bidding for permanent social housing properties. Officer J said local suitable private accommodation was potentially affordable for him under the local LHA rate. If he wanted help with a loan for a deposit and rent in advance for this, she would be happy to engage the relief duty for him.
24. Officer J and Mr X spoke again early in July. Mr X said he did not wish to live in a house in multiple occupation and that he felt unsupported with his mental health. Officer J sent Mr X forms for him and his GP to complete to see if he could be moved to a higher band on its housing register due to medical needs.
25. Mr X continued to unsuccessfully bid for properties throughout the next months.
26. At the end of October, Mr X emailed Officer J to ask if she had received any documents from his GP. She replied to say she had not. Officer J said he did not have an active homeless application as the relief duty had previously ended and his circumstances had not changed for a new homeless assessment to be completed.
27. In mid-November, Officer J emailed Mr X to advise she had received his documentation and would now seek advice from the Council’s medical assessment provider to determine if he was in priority need. Later that day, Officer J emailed Mr X to say she had taken advice from its medical assessment provider. She said she needed to determine if he was significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary homeless person. She said the information on his health and welfare form had not changed the decision that he was not in priority need and there was therefore no duty to offer temporary accommodation.
28. Later in November, the Council offered Mr X three nights of overnight accommodation under its severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) scheme. Mr X accepted this. He declined a further night under SWEP at the end of the month.
29. Early in December, the Council contacted Mr X. It advised he had been awarded additional housing register priority and he was now moving up to band two.
30. On 16 December, Mr X approached the Council to ask for interim accommodation as he was unable to sleep rough where he had been doing so recently due to concerns for his safety. Officer J advised him he was not in priority need and was therefore not eligible for accommodation.
31. On 19 December, an advocacy service for the homeless emailed the Council on Mr X’s behalf. The advocacy officer, Mr Y, listed some of the health concerns and issues Mr X suffered with. Mr Y said that considering Mr X’s case and individual circumstances, he thought there was enough reason to believe Mr X was in priority need. Mr Y asked the Council to offer Mr X interim accommodation whilst it made further enquiries about matters.
32. Officer J and Mr Y continued to discuss Mr X’s case in emails that day. Mr Y questioned the Council’s rationale for deciding Mr X was not in priority need and that interim accommodation should have been offered to him as he was rough sleeping.
33. On 20 December, Officer J offered to take a new homeless application from Mr X and did so that afternoon. By the end of the afternoon, Officer J emailed Mr X and Mr Y to say she had assessed him as being homeless and eligible for assistance but not in priority need. The letter explained the Council had a duty to help him to secure accommodation over the next 56 days but that this did not mean the Council had to secure the accommodation itself. The Council issued Mr X with a personalised housing plan as part of this.
34. On 24 December, Mr X bid for a property advertised on the Council’s housing register, Property A, which was through a housing association. Mr X’s bid was successful and the Council offered him the property. Mr X accepted. The Council advised Mr X it could still help him with a loan for rent and deposit in advance.
35. The Council offered Mr X SWEP accommodation from 30 December onwards which he accepted and stayed in until 8 January 2025.

2025

36. On 2 January and on behalf of Mr X, Mr Y submitted a request to the Council. He asked it to review Officer J’s December 2024 decision that Mr X was not in priority need. Mr Y was unhappy the decision had been issued within minutes of taking the application and listed various reasons he wished to challenge it. He asked the Council to provide Mr X with accommodation under its homelessness duties.
37. The Council offered Mr X different SWEP accommodation on 8 January. This was at a hotel, Hotel A. The Council then offered Mr X to continue to stay at Hotel A under its duty to offer him interim accommodation. The Council confirmed this in a letter on 14 January. The Council said it would not be offering him any other alternative interim accommodation at that time.
38. Mr Y and the Council continued to disagree about whether Mr X should be classed as in priority need. The Council and Mr Y also continued to discuss where Mr X’s interim accommodation should be and if it should be shared style accommodation. The Council reviewed its decision to move him from Hotel A and he remained there until he moved into Property A.
39. On 17 February 2025, Mr X’s tenancy at Property A began. The Council made a ‘not homeless’ decision that day, in relation to Mr Y’s review request.
40. The Council sent him a letter to formally end its relief duty as he had secured Property A. The Council loaned Mr X money for his rent and deposit.

Complaints to the Council

41. Mr Y’s advocacy service made a complaint on Mr X’s behalf late in April 2025. This said:
• The Council missed opportunities to take a homelessness application from Mr X;
• it did not properly consider his medical conditions and mental health difficulties;
• the December 2024 homeless application was rushed and inaccurate; and
• it raised questions about the Council’s comments about why Mr X declined shared SWEP accommodation.
42. The Council sent its stage one complaint response early in May 2025. The letter said:
• it did not uphold the complaint that it had failed to take action;
• case notes suggested Officer J may have placed undue weight on the opinion of the medical assessment provider when deciding if there was reason to believe Mr X was in priority need and in deciding to open a new relief duty case;
• it accepted that when Mr X contacted the Council in June and November 2024, Officer J was incorrect in deciding his case had not sufficiently changed to require a new homelessness duty to be accepted.
43. The Council apologised and offered to write off the £255 loan it had made to Mr X when he moved into Property A to remedy the complaint points it had upheld.
44. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. He was unhappy with the response and did not feel writing off his loan reflected the difficulties and distress he had suffered.
45. The Council sent its final response on 30 June 2025. The Council did not change its position on any of the points previously raised or consider it should uphold the stage two escalation. However, it did offer Mr X a further £250 in recognition of the upheld issues and his time and trouble in making his complaints to the Council.
46. The response signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman and he then brought his complaint to us.

Analysis

June 2024

47. The Council’s stage one response to Mr X clarified that Officer J should have formally accepted a new homelessness application in June 2024. I agree. The Council should have accepted an application based on the fact he was homeless. At this time, the Council should have made relevant enquiries and issued him with a decision as to whether he was in priority need. Not doing so was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. It also meant he was deprived of relevant review rights that would come attached to any decision made. I refer to the remedy for this below.

November 2024

48. In its stage one response to Mr X and its enquiry response to me, the Council clarified that the medical information provided to Officer J in November 2024 should have triggered a new homelessness duty. I agree. Again, the Council should have then made any further necessary enquiries at that time and issued him with an appealable decision as to whether he was in priority need. Not doing so was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty and again deprived him of review rights on the decision it should have made. I refer to the remedy for this below.
49. The Council’s stage one response also accepted Officer J may have placed undue weight on the decision from its medical assessment provider when considering his case. Considering the Council’s stance, I am satisfied it did not give adequate consideration to other factors in Mr X’s case. This was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. I refer to the remedy for this below.

December 2024’s priority need decision

50. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and it is not able to determine whether someone should have been considered in priority need. Rather, we consider the processes used to make the decision.
51. When considering December 2024’s priority need decision, the Council considered the relevant evidence and made the decision he was not in priority need, it listed many of the factors it had considered in its decision letter. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault. Mr X was advised of the relevant appeal rights which he then used in January 2025. This was a decision for the Council to take and I am satisfied it issued the relevant documentation when doing so. I am satisfied there is no fault on the Council’s part here.

Review request

52. The Council completed and closed the review in February 2025 as Mr X was no longer homeless. I am satisfied this was an action the Council was entitled to take and therefore find no fault.

Suitability of Hotel A

53. In my enquiries, I asked the Council what consideration it had given to the suitability of Hotel A’s accommodation due to its out-of-town location. Mr X complained he had limited food storage and preparation facilities as well as it being located in an area he had to travel some distance to access other services and food banks.
54. In response, the Council said it had offered Mr X interim accommodation at a hostel which had cooking facilities but he had declined. Evidence shows this was due to the shared nature of the accommodation. I am satisfied the Council gave relevant consideration to Mr X’s reasoning for not wanting to move but continued to accommodate him at Hotel A which it therefore considered was appropriate for his needs. I am satisfied there is no fault on the Council’s part here.

The Council’s apology and symbolic payments

55. I welcome the Council’s apologies and total symbolic payment of £555. The payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and I am satisfied it is sufficient to remedy the identified injustice. Combined with the apologies made in its stage one and two responses, I am therefore satisfied the Council does not need to take any further action to remedy Mr X’s personal injustice.
56. I have made a service improvement recommendation below.

Agreed action

57. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to complete a review of its handling of this case and the identified fault and injustice to consider how any lack of processes, record keeping, oversight or quality monitoring contributed. The Council should consider how improvements can be made to address these. The review should set out how it will share learning with relevant staff.
58. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

59. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman