Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to consider whether it owed her a homelessness duty and issue a decision with review rights. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about a lack of support from the Council when she was effectively homeless because her registered social landlord had not completed essential repairs so she could not live in her home and was having to pay for alternative accommodation. Ms X also complained the Council failed to consider a safeguarding referral.
2. Ms X said the Council’s failings had a profound impact on her mental health and she suffered a financial loss as she had to pay for alternative accommodation.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Safeguarding referral

6. Ms X made a safeguarding referral in September 2024, having been advised to contact the Council by a housing charity, for an assessment of her need for care and support. An officer spoke to her by telephone, and a home visit was arranged a few days later. Ms X explained that disrepair in her rented property meant she could not live there and was having to fund alternative accommodation herself. She explained that the Council’s housing standards team and a housing charity were supporting her with her housing issues and that she had made a formal complaint to her landlord.
7. The Council contacted the housing standards team, the landlord, and the housing charity, and arranged a multi-agency meeting. Following its enquiries, the Council concluded safeguarding action was not needed on the grounds that:
• there was no indication Ms X needed care and support;
• she was already receiving appropriate support with her housing issues; and
• she was not at risk of abuse or neglect because she was not living at the property.
8. The Council explained its decision to Ms X by telephone and confirmed it in writing.
9. The Council made appropriate enquiries before deciding safeguarding action was not needed. It informed Ms X of its decision and explained its reasons. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation.

Homelessness

10. The Council’s housing standards team made a referral to its housing team in September 2024. At that stage, the landlord was saying they would arrange alternative accommodation on a temporary basis whilst works were carried out at the rented property. Council records say Ms X did not want alternative accommodation as she wanted to return to the rented property. The Council advised Ms X to cooperate with the landlord to prevent her becoming homeless as otherwise she risked being found intentionally homeless.
11. Shortly after, the landlord reported they had received a letter form Ms X’s G.P that said the rented property was not suitable for her because of her medical needs. In addition, the landlord said there was no guarantee that the proposed works would address the issue Ms X complained of. Therefore, it said it would offer permanent alternative accommodation. Again, the Council advised Ms X to cooperate with the landlord.
12. I have seen records to show the landlord offered three possible alternative properties. The landlord told the Council Ms X had declined the alternative properties offered so it had issued a notice for her to leave the rented property. When the Council contacted Ms X about this, she said she had not received the notice, although the landlord said it had been hand-delivered to her address. The landlord therefore sent a further copy of the notice by email. The notice said she must leave the rented property by late March 2025.
13. In its complaint response, the Council said it was clear Ms X’s goal was for her landlord to complete appropriate repairs so she could return to the rented property. By the time its housing team got involved, she was already in dispute with the landlord and there was little the Council could contribute to that situation. It said there was no evidence of harassment by the landlord but that, in any event, it had no power to take formal action against registered social providers. Further, the Housing Ombudsman Service were considering Ms X’s complaint about her landlord during this period.
14. The law says councils are under a duty to make enquiries to determine whether they owe a homelessness duty if they have “reason to believe” an applicant is homeless or at risk of homelessness. That threshold was not met when the housing team first became involved because the landlord was willing to offer alternative accommodation to prevent Ms X becoming homeless.
15. That situation changed after the landlord issued the notice for Ms X to leave, although the landlord had assured the Council an alternative property would be available for Ms X when the notice expired or shortly afterwards. I also note that, at the point the Council issued its final complaint response in May 2025, it had not received any evidence that the landlord was pursuing court action to evict Ms X from the property.
16. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for not making enquiries in March 2025, prior to the notice expiring, deciding whether it owed Ms X a homelessness duty and issuing a reviewable decision. Ms X has suffered an injustice because she was left uncertain about whether and how the Council would assist her and was denied the chance to challenge its decision.
17. Therefore, we asked the Council to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused and it agreed to take the following steps within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice.
18. In addition, the Council has taken the following action:
1. carried out a homelessness assessment and accepted a prevention duty;
2. considered and decided it does not owe Ms X a duty to provide interim accommodation;
3. considered what decisions it would have made in March 2025 and confirmed it would have made the same decisions as it has now made.
4. begun a review of its processes, which will be supported by training for relevant staff and decided to ensure that, where there is reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, appropriate enquiries are made and decisions are issued with review rights.
19. The Council will provide us with relevant evidence to show it has taken the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman