Summary: There is no fault in how the Council decided which band to place X and Y in. However, the Council failed to tell X and Y when it removed them from the housing register, failed to deal with their first homeless application properly, delayed processing their second homeless application, failed to offer them interim or temporary accommodation and failed to respond to a complaint. That caused X and Y distress and uncertainty. An apology, payment to X and Y and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainants, X and Y, complained the Council:
• wrongly removed them from the housing register in 2023 and did not tell them;
• wrongly closed their first homeless application in 2023 and made them submit a new one in 2024;
• delayed processing their 2024 homeless application;
• failed to offer them interim or temporary accommodation which meant they had to sofa surf;
• failed to consider their disability needs when assessing their banding for the housing register and, in doing so, discriminated against them; and
• failed to properly consider their complaint.
2. X and Y say the Council’s actions prolonged them being homeless and had a significant impact on their mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I am exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what has happened since the original homeless application in February 2023. That is because I am satisfied X and Y have had some health difficulties and did not know their housing register and homeless applications had been closed until 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and X and Y’s comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. X and Y and the organisation 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

11. 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.
12. 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)
13. 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 the prevention duty (Housing Act 1996, section 195).
14. 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)
15. The threshold for triggering the section 188(1) duty is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.5)
16. Where a local authority is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible, it must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure that accommodation becomes available for at least six months. This is the relief duty. It can last for up to 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. Where an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need for accommodation, the housing authority has a duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation This is commonly known as ‘the main housing duty’.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

18. Applicants who are eligible and qualify for inclusion in the housing register, are placed into one of three groups:
• Homeseekers (those who do not already have a permanent tenancy with the London Borough of Hounslow and are not applying to the housing register because they are homeless.)
• Homeless homeseekers (those who have asked the Council for help because they are homeless and the Council has accepted a duty to house them under the homelessness legislation.)
• Transfers (those who are existing tenants of the London Borough of Hounslow whose reasons for moving are recognised in this policy.)
19. The Council uses a banding system to prioritise each housing application. Each band takes into account the statutory reasonable preference categories of housing need and the Council’s local priorities. The bands are:
• Band 1: High Priority
• Band 2: Medium Priority
• Band 3: Low Priority
20. Band 1 includes:
• high priority medical or disability cases which is:
1. Where an applicant has a life expectancy of 12 months or less and rehousing is required to provide a basis for the provision of suitable care.
2. The applicant’s health is so severely affected by the home they currently occupy that it is likely to become life threatening.
3. The applicant is housebound in their current home and needs to move to an alternative home suitable to their needs.
• Exceptional Needs where a high priority need to move has been approved by the Exceptional Needs Referral Panel.
21. Band 2 includes:
• Medium medical priority grounds which is:
1. Where an applicant’s housing is unsuitable due to severe medical reasons which significantly aggravate the medical condition of the applicant or a member of their household but is not life-threatening.
2. Where the applicant’s current home is highly unsuitable for them or a member of their household but is not life-threatening.
• Exceptional Needs where a medium priority to move has been approved by the Exceptional Needs Referral Panel.
• Homeless applicants owed the full housing duty by London Borough of Hounslow.
• Households who are at risk of homelessness and who are actively engaging with the Council to prevent their homelessness.
• Applicants assessed by the Council as being at risk of homelessness, who would be owed a homelessness relief duty or the main housing duty by the Council, and where the household is actively engaging with the Council to prevent their homelessness, or making their own temporary arrangements in agreement with the Council, and an offer of social housing would be the only way to prevent or resolve homelessness.
22. All homes owned by the Council and homes owned by housing associations to which the Council has nomination rights are let through a single direct offer for most applicants taking account as far as is possible any preferences the applicant has expressed about their future housing.
23. The Council reserves the right to verify the circumstances and housing conditions of a housing register applicant before offering them a viewing of a suitable home. There are important points to note about the process of verification:
• (a) The process must be completed at least 24 hours before the applicant is offered a viewing of a home. If all is satisfactory to the Council, the applicant will be offered a viewing of the home identified as suitable for them.
• (b) The process involves an interview in person with the applicant at which they must produce prescribed information and proof, along with documents to confirm medical or other needs if not previously provided. This may include a visit to the applicant’s current home.
• (c) If the applicant currently occupies a Council-owned home or temporary accommodation (provided by the Council because the applicant was homeless) and a surveyor’s inspection establishes wilful damage to the home, the Council will not make an offer of a viewing of an alternative home and will bypass the housing register application until the damage has been repaired to the satisfaction of the Council.
• (d) If the applicant does not engage with the verification process, the Council will cancel the housing application. Housing register applicants will be reminded about the consequences of making false statements or withholding information relevant to their application.
24. Housing register applicants must produce the following documents for each member of the household within 24 hours of being asked if they wish to be offered a viewing of a home:
• (a) Proof of identity; and
• (b) proof of address(es) lived at for the past 5 years for the main and joint applicant; and
• (c) proof of eligibility to receive an offer of accommodation; and
• (d) proof of any welfare benefits received (if relevant); and
• (e) other documentary proof as appropriate and requested at the time.

What happened

25. X and Y completed a homeless application in February 2023. When they had not heard anything X and Y chased the Council in March 2023, explaining their living situation was putting X at risk of infection as he was to undergo a medical procedure. The Council carried out a homeless assessment in April and asked for some follow-up information.
26. X and Y contacted the Council again in May 2023 to say they had nowhere to stay and were sofa surfing. The Council explained there was a long waiting time for social housing and suggested a call the following week to discuss other housing options. I have no further evidence of contact between the Council and X and Y until October 2023 when the Council activated their housing register application in band 2.
27. The Council says it contacted X and Y in January, February, March and April 2024. The Council has provided a screen print which records the alleged date of contacts and that X and Y did not reply. The Council therefore closed X and Y housing register application in May 2024.
28. However, on 28 February 2024, an officer from the Council’s homeless service emailed X and Y following a telephone call about their homeless application. The Council’s officer referred to the fact X and Y’s previous caseworker left in October 2023. The officer explained the Council needed proof of X and Y’s income, their last three bank statements and medical information for the previous six months. The officer noted X and Y were still sofa surfing. The officer noted X and Y had asked for a manager to contact them.
29. There is then no further evidence of contact until X and Y approached the Council again in August 2024.
30. X and Y put in a complaint on 16 August. At that point the Council recognised it had not provided X and Y with a personalised housing plan and said an officer would contact them the following week to get some updated information. The Council sent X and Y a response to the complaint on the same day.
31. The Council carried out an assessment for the homeless application on 30 August. The Council then wrote to X and Y on 12 September to say it was satisfied X and Y were eligible, threatened with homelessness and in priority need and the Council had accepted the prevention duty. The Council issued a personalised housing plan. As part of that plan X and Y were required to look for private rented accommodation and the Council said it would offer temporary accommodation as soon as a suitable property became available.
32. The Council asked X and Y for further information about their previous accommodation, which X and Y provided in October. The Council wrote to X and Y on 23 October, accepting the prevention duty. The Council told X and Y it would have some properties for them to view shortly and would telephone them the following day.
33. There is no further evidence of contact until 10 January 2025 when X and Y provided a list of areas they would consider. The Council wrote to X and Y on 16 January to explain the prevention duty had ended and the Council had accepted the relief duty. The Council issued an updated personalised housing plan which contained the same information about X and Y looking for private rented accommodation and the Council agreeing to provide temporary accommodation.
34. The Council offered X and Y a property later in January. X and Y explained why they did not consider the property suitable.
35. The Council referred X and Y’s case to now medical for a view on medical priority. Now medical noted X would be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person if homeless and recommended housing on medical grounds. That was for a property with private bathroom facilities but nothing else specific.
36. The Council contacted X and Y about the property it had offered them and said it would contact their GP for more information as the information the Council held did not suggest the property was unsuitable.
37. The Council wrote to X and Y to provide them with a list of potential private rented properties on 28 March.
38. On 11 June the Council wrote to X and Y to accept the main housing duty. The Council said it would follow up with details of a property it believed was suitable for X and Y.
39. X and Y chased the Council on 2 July as they had not received any further contact. X and Y also raised concerns the personalised housing plan did not reflect X’s medical conditions and the Council had not contacted the GP as it said it would.
40. A manager contacted X and Y on 3 July and apologised for the lack of contact and said they would look into their housing concerns. The Council asked for up-to-date information. The Council said it would then update the personalised housing plan. In response X and Y pointed out they had already provided the information requested recently. The Council said if X and Y did not want to provide updated information the Council would send them a personalised housing plan and offer accommodation based on the information it held.
41. The Council contacted X and Y’s GP for further information, which it provided. X and Y also provided further information. The Council told X and Y the property it had previously referred to was no longer available.
42. In August the Council told X and Y it had completed an affordability test and was confident there were private rented properties affordable for them based on their income. The Council also offered a face-to-face meeting which X and Y said they could not do due to medical issues.
43. The Council offered X and Y a property on 18 August. X and Y requested a review of the suitability of that accommodation on accessibility grounds, noise, safety and affordability.
44. The Council referred X and Y’s case back to now medical for advice. That advice was that X and Y needed self-contained accommodation on the first floor or lifted accommodation if above first floor with no specific requirements for bathing facilities.
45. X and Y put in a further complaint which the Council responded to in September. The Council noted it had asked for updated bank statements and payslips which it had not received. The Council encouraged X and Y to provide the outstanding information requested.
46. In October 2025 the Council overturned its decision on the suitability of the property it had offered in August 2025 and reinstated the main housing duty.
47. On 9 January 2026 the Council wrote to X and Y to tell them it accepted they were eligible for assistance, homeless and had a priority need. The letter told X and Y that meant the Council had a duty to secure accommodation for them.
48. The Council asked X and Y for up-to-date information to verify their housing application in March 2026. When X and Y raised concerns about the lack of contact and conflicting information the Council explained it needed up-to-date verification documents to identify suitable housing. When the Council did not receive any documentation it emailed X and Y in April 2026 to explain it could not verify them for a move as a result.

Analysis

49. X and Y say the Council failed to tell them when it closed their housing register application. X and Y also say the Council was wrong to close their first homeless application because they remained in contact throughout. In contrast, the Council says despite repeated attempts to contact X and Y in early 2024 it did not receive any response, which is why it closed their housing register application.
50. In accordance with its allocations policy, which I refer to in paragraph 23(d), the Council can close a housing register application if an applicant does not provide the verification documents requested. The Council has provided some evidence which suggests it contacted X and Y about potential properties between November 2023 and April 2024 and they are recorded as not responding. However, I only have the Council’s electronic record noting the date and the lack of response. I do not have a copy of any of the alleged communications with X and Y. I therefore could not reach a safe conclusion about whether X and Y failed to engage with communications about their housing register application.
51. It is clear though that despite the fact the Council closed the housing register application it did not write to X and Y to tell them that. That is fault.
52. The Council suggests the reason it closed X and Y’s homeless application was because of lack of contact from X and Y. However, I am satisfied there was also a lack of contact from the Council. I have seen no evidence the Council issued a prevention letter, a relief letter, a personalised housing plan or a duty letter. Without the personalised housing plan in particular X and Y did not know what was expected of them or what they could expect from the Council. Failure to issue those letters and keep in contact with X and Y is fault.
53. I also have evidence of X and Y contacting the Council about their homeless application in February 2024 and a copy of the officer’s email in response to that contact. I am therefore satisfied X and Y remained in contact with the Council about their homeless application. It is also clear though the Council accepted it had not transferred X and Y’s homeless application onto the new IT system at a time when X and Y’s caseworker also left. I therefore consider it likely it is those issues which resulted in lack of contact rather than any failure on the part of X and Y. In those circumstances I consider the Council at fault for closing the homeless application.
54. X and Y say the Council delayed processing their homeless application in 2024. There is some confusion in the Council’s documentation. I have a copy of a letter accepting a prevention duty dated 12 September 2024. However, I also have a copy of a letter accepting the prevention duty on 23 October 2024. It is therefore not clear which date the Council accepted the prevention duty from.
55. I am satisfied there was a delay accepting the main duty though. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council accepted the relief duty on 16 January 2025. The Council should therefore have accepted the main duty on day 57 after that. However, the Council did not accept the main duty until 11 June 2025. That delay is fault. There is also no evidence of contact between the Council and X and Y between October 2024 and January 2025. That is despite the Council telling X and Y it would contact them about available properties in October 2024. That delay is also fault.
56. X and Y also say the Council delayed contacting their GP for information. X and Y say they gave the Council consent but the Council did not seek information from their GP until July 2025.
57. The Council has explained it would not normally contact the GP for information and would instead rely on the information provided by the applicant. I am satisfied that is what the Council did in this case and that is not fault. However, the officer X and Y were dealing with told them on 22 January 2025 they would contact the GP to get more information about X’s needs in terms of the type of property required. In those circumstances X and Y had a reasonable expectation the Council would follow through on that. Failure to do that is fault.
58. X and Y say the Council failed to offer them interim or temporary accommodation. X and Y say that meant they had to continue to sofa surf which has had an impact on their medical conditions.
59. As I set out in paragraphs 14-16, the standard for accepting a duty to provide interim accommodation is low. The Council only needs reason to believe the person is homeless and meets the other criteria.
60. For the 2023 homeless application I have no evidence the Council considered whether X and Y needed interim accommodation. That is despite the fact X and Y were reporting difficulties because of their living arrangements and had made clear they were sofa surfing. In those circumstances I would have expected the Council to provide interim accommodation. Failure to do that is fault.
61. The Council says it had evidence to show X and Y did not need interim accommodation. As evidence of that it points to two letters X and Y provided from two of their friends where they were sofa surfing. Both friends confirmed X and Y were sofa surfing for between two and three nights per week. I presume because neither friend said that arrangement could not continue the Council treated that as X and Y having accommodation they could occupy. However, if that had been the Council’s view I would have expected it to record it at the time and there is no evidence it did so. That is fault.
62. It is also clear from the two letters the Council refers to that X and Y were only staying with the two friends for a maximum of six nights per week with the possibility of only four nights per week. One of those friends also said X and Y could not stay with her sometimes because of other family issues. I am therefore not satisfied those documents provided the Council with any evidence X and Y had suitable accommodation. I therefore consider the Council at fault for failing to provide interim accommodation in 2023. That meant X and Y had to sofa surf longer than they should have.
63. For the homeless application in 2024 I am satisfied the Council followed the right process by issuing prevention, relief and main duty letters as well as personalised housing plans. However, I am again concerned the Council did not offer X and Y interim accommodation despite knowing they were sofa surfing. As I have made clear, the bar for providing interim accommodation is low. Failure to provide interim accommodation in 2024 is fault.
64. I am also satisfied there was a delay offering X and Y a property when the Council accepted the main housing duty in June 2025. There is no evidence the Council offered X and Y a property until August 2025. That delay is fault. I am also concerned when the Council accepted the property was not suitable in October 2025 it did not offer X and Y another property. That again is fault.
65. X and Y say the Council failed to consider their disability needs when allocating them a banding. I set out in paragraph 19 the bands the Council uses for its housing register.
66. I am satisfied in allocating X and Y band 2 the Council has taken into account their medical conditions and disabilities. I say that because I am satisfied the Council referred X and Y’s case to its medical adviser who provided some advice about priority, referring to X and Y’s medical needs. I am also satisfied band 2 is the appropriate band for X and Y taking into account their health needs and disabilities as well as the fact they are homeless. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.
67. X and Y say the Council officer they spoke to in August 2024 was hostile and unhelpful. The Council has provided a note of that telephone conversation. That note shows there were some misunderstandings between X and Y and the officer and it was a difficult call. Without access to a recording of the call though I have no grounds to say the officer was hostile or unhelpful.
68. X and Y also say the Council invited them into the office for a meeting when they had made clear they could not attend an in-person meeting due to their medical conditions. Having considered the documentary evidence I have not found any evidence X and Y told the Council they could not attend face-to-face meetings before it invited them to one. In those circumstances I do not criticise the Council.
69. X and Y say the Council failed to respond to a complaint they put in during August 2024. The evidence I have seen satisfies me X and Y put in their complaint on 16 August 2024. I am satisfied the Council responded to that complaint the same day. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it.
70. I now have to consider what injustice X and Y have suffered because of the Council’s fault. It is clear X and Y have experienced significant distress. It is also likely X and Y missed out on an offer of interim or temporary accommodation. However, I also have to take into account X and Y actions. The evidence I have seen satisfies me on occasion X and Y have not provided the necessary documentation to the Council to enable it to offer a property. That is particularly the case for 2026. It also appears X and Y do not consider private rented accommodation suitable for their needs and have therefore not provided the Council with any evidence they have taken action required as part of the personalised housing plan to address their homelessness. There is also no evidence X and Y followed up on the private rented properties the Council provided them with a list of in March 2025.
71. I understand why X and Y believe private rented accommodation is not suitable given their medical conditions and the lack of security from a private let. However, that is a common factor for many homeless applicants. The Council is also able to discharge its duty by placing somebody in private sector accommodation and in X and Y’s case I am satisfied it has carried out a financial assessment to ensure X and Y can afford private rented accommodation. Unfortunately, as X and Y appear not to want to consider private rented accommodation that has likely also extended their homelessness.
72. In those circumstances I consider a suitable remedy would be for the Council to apologise to X and Y and pay them £1,000 to reflect their distress and uncertainty. I also recommended the Council contact X and Y to see whether they still require accommodation. If they do and the Council cannot identify suitable accommodation to discharge its duty it should offer X and Y temporary accommodation. The Council should also provide guidance to officers dealing with homeless applicants around the circumstances in which interim or temporary accommodation should be provided. That should make clear the need to keep clear records of why accommodation is not being provided, should that be the case. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

73. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to X and Y for the distress and uncertainty they experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay X and Y £1,000;
• discuss with X and Y whether they still need temporary accommodation/identify any longer term rented accommodation the Council considers suitable and affordable. If there is no suitable accommodation the Council should provide temporary accommodation pending it identifying suitable accommodation;
• provide guidance to officers on when to offer interim/temporary accommodation and the need to keep records of why it has not been offered if that is the case.
74. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

75. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman