Summary: Mr X complained about the actions and decisions made by a case officer when he was homeless. We found some procedural faults by the Council, but we are satisfied it did not cause a significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the actions and decisions of a case officer when he asked for help and approached the Council as homeless. He says this caused him significant frustration and distress and he had slept in his car around this time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided (including case records and decision letters), as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr 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

Law and administrative background

Homeless applications

9. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them.
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty and interim accommodation

11. 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)
12. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (Housing Act 1996, section 188). Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
13. A council can end the relief duty for a number of specific reasons. Relevant to this complaint, where an applicant is not in priority need, the council can serve a notice to end the relief duty if 56 days have passed since it accepted the relief duty and it has complied with the relief duty. No further duties arise after this.
14. When making decisions about an applicant’s priority need or ending a homeless duty, a council must send a letter in writing and notify the applicant of their right to request a review of that decision.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

15. Mr X has been on the Council’s housing register for several years. He is eligible to bid on one-bedroom properties.
16. In early June 2025, Mr X made a homelessness application. Council Officer B assessed him. The case notes said he had slept in his car for a week. He had also stayed with family and friends. Officer B sent a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) to Mr X. This said it was satisfied he was threatened with homelessness. It advised exploring the private rented sector as the quickest option for settled accommodation. Mr X gave some medical information.
17. A few days later, case records note Officer B rang Mr X. He told them a decision he made with his personal medical information. They noted Mr X became argumentative. The notes say Officer B advised they would only communicate via email with Mr X and ended the call.
18. In early July 2025, the Council sent Mr X a decision letter. It decided he was “threatened with homelessness”, “eligible for assistance”, but he did not have a “priority need for housing assistance”. In its view, Mr X was not significantly more vulnerable than an average person as a result of being homeless. After reviewing the information he provided, he did not fall into any priority need group. It had no duty to provide interim or temporary accommodation. It would continue to support him under the relief duty. The letter said if he disagreed with the decision, he had the right to ask for a review.
19. Mr X sent Officer B emails requesting a call. Officer B emailed him and said the decision was made on the information available. They advised he could supply more medical information if he felt the decision was wrong. Mr X rang Customer Service asking Officer B to call him. Customer Service clarified why Officer B would only email. It explained based on his medical evidence, he did not meet the threshold for priority need. It gave other advice about the private rented sector, and it could help him with deposits if needed. Mr X said he was not interested in private renting due to past experiences.
20. Officer B emailed Mr X in response to his contacts. He asked how long he had to wait for a house as he had been bidding for several years. Officer B said housing waiting lists had significant wait times. They repeated previous advice and shared information on other options to pursue with his housing situation. They asked where he was sleeping in his car so its outreach team could find him.
21. In early August 2025, the Council sent Mr X a decision letter. It was satisfied he was homeless, eligible for assistance and he did not have priority need. This meant it did not owe any further duty other than providing advice. It was satisfied it had given assistance, but he had declined the support. It ended the relief duty. It explained its decision and how it considered his medical information. The letter said if he disagreed with the decision, he had the right to ask for a review.
22. Mr X rang Customer Service again. He questioned why he was not in priority need when he was homeless. Case notes said the legislation was explained to him. It gave him information on how to request a review of the decision.
23. Mr X complained to the Council. He was dissatisfied with Officer B’s actions and their conduct. The Council responded the following week. It apologised if he thought he received poor service. It said officers might have to ask sensitive questions to assess the correct information. It was overall satisfied it had handled his case appropriately and given the correct advice. In mid-August 2025, Mr X complained to us.

Analysis

Not in priority decision

24. While Mr X may have been homeless at the time, the Council explained why it did not consider him as priority need. It said he needed to have significant mental health difficulties or severe illness/disability substantially impacting him. It referred to his medical information and why he did not meet this threshold. This was a decision it was entitled to make. There was no fault in the decision-making process and so I cannot criticise the merits of the professional judgement it reached, even if Mr X strongly disagrees.

Homelessness duties

25. From records by the Council, it appears it initially accepted the prevention duty and issued a PHP to Mr X. But it did not issue a formal decision letter explaining how it came to this decision based on Mr X’s circumstances. This is fault.
26. The Council said it accepted the relief duty in July 2025. But this letter said it was satisfied he was “threatened with homelessness”. On balance, this is likely a typing mistake but, in any event, is confusing and letters outlining legal duties should be accurate. This is fault.
27. The Council ended the relief duty to Mr X in early August 2025. This was 28 days after accepting it. This is fault. There are specific reasons the Council could end this before 56 days passed, but the circumstances in Paragraph 13 apply in Mr X’s case. It ended it early, rather than in September 2025. This is fault.
28. However, while there are procedural faults (as the Council should act in line with its legal duties) in practice I do not consider the above faults changed anything for Mr X in terms of his housing situation. The Council decided Mr X was not in priority need so it did not have to offer any accommodation to him, even though he was homeless. The Council did offer support and information as it should to help him find suitable accommodation. Mr X did not engage with this, which is his choice. It also gave him the appropriate review rights which he did not use. Therefore, had it not been for these faults, these did not cause significant injustice to Mr X, as the outcome would likely have been the same and he did not miss out on any accommodation.

Communication by Officer B

29. Mr X is unhappy with Officer B’s conduct. He said they asked personal medical questions and made threats about him going to prison. I have not seen any other supporting evidence of this. Also, records showed calls with Mr X were sometimes challenging. Mr X may dispute this, but I cannot say either way, and I have no recordings. However, the Council’s records note this, and it is entitled to consider and manage contact for the welfare of staff. When questioned, it told him the reasons why. This is appropriate.
30. While Mr X may have wanted calls, I also see Officer B still responded to him through email. I appreciate Mr X likely wanted more immediate support in the form of housing but given he was not in priority need, they were limited in what they could do. They offered advice as expected, advised him to send more medical information if he wished, and asked for his location to support him. On balance, I have no significant concerns of inappropriate behaviour by Officer B.

Priority banding

31. I recognise Mr X’s primary aim is to get a house and he wanted higher priority to get one quicker. But this is based on housing need. The main point of Mr X’s formal complaint was about Officer B in relation to his homelessness.
32. He did mention dissatisfaction about bidding on the housing register for years with no success. But the social housing allocations team is separate to the homelessness team and operates under a different legal framework. It appears Mr X did not contact housing allocations to update them on his homeless circumstances at the time, to see if it affected his banding. I do not find fault by the Council here.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault but not causing significant injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman