Summary: Mr D complains the Council delayed accepting a homelessness application and providing interim accommodation. I have found the Council at fault because it could have accepted a relief duty towards Mr D three weeks sooner and offered interim accommodation at that point. I have asked the Council to consider paying Mr D redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed accepting a homelessness application from him in 2025. Mr D also says the Council mishandled the homelessness application and left him and his child without accommodation for over 70 days.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
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 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 has considered events from February 2025 (when Mr D approached the Council) to 20 August (when the Council issued its final stage complaint response). I have advised Mr D that a complaint about events after August 2025 or about matters not covered by the 2025 complaint (including issues with Social Services not directly related to his homelessness, the suitability of interim accommodation and an alleged attack whilst staying at interim accommodation) would be premature. He would need to first make a new formal complaint about those matters to the Council before he can bring them to the Ombudsman.
6. My investigation looks at the actions of the Council; we cannot consider how Mr D’s former social housing landlord (landlord) dealt with his case. Mr D refers to corruption and the management of his tenancy and rent account. He can make a complaint about to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. Following a draft decision on this case the Council provided further evidence of its contact with Mr D which resulted in a revised draft decision. I shared that draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mr D was a social housing tenant. On 18 February 2025 he contacted the Council stating he could not return to his property because of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and homophobic abuse from a neighbour. He had slept rough the night before. He initially said his child was with him but subsequently confirmed the child had stayed with a relative. He said he had ended his tenancy and handed over the keys to a locksmith. He gave the name of a Police Officer involved with the harassment case but did not have any incident numbers or reports. He also stated his child had severe learning difficulties and it was not safe to leave them alone. The same day the Council tried to contact the Police and left messages. An Officer also contacted the landlord who reported there was no evidence of ASB against Mr D, they had advised Mr D he would be intentionally homeless if he ended his tenancy. The landlord confirmed that Mr D was still a tenant, it had not ended the tenancy yet. The Council noted that Mr D was not currently homeless. It spoke to Mr D and advised him the tenancy was still active and he could return home. The Council told Mr D it would have to inform Children’s Services as he had initially told the Council his son had slept rough with him.
9. On 21 February Mr D called the Council and reiterated that he had to leave his home. He wanted the Council to accept a homelessness approach, and the Police would be updating him shortly. Later that day the landlord told the Council they had received the property keys. The landlord confirmed there were no ongoing repair issues to the property. A Council Officer then spoke to Mr D who said he had reported the ASB to the Police who had advised him to leave the property. The Officer advised Mr D to speak to his landlord about any tenancy issues.
10. A Social Worker emailed the Council on 26 February that Mr D was sleeping in his car. They asked the Council to contact him and discuss housing options. On the same day Mr D called the Council and said he would get information from the Police and call back. He then called again and said the Police had sent all the evidence to Adult Social Care. The Council explained it had not seen any evidence to show he could not return to his property. On 28 February Mr D told the Council the Police had said he should not return to his property. The Council asked Mr D to contact the Police Officer involved in his case to ask them to send the evidence to the Housing Team. On the same day the Council contacted the Adult Social Care Team and asked if it had received Police evidence. Adult Social Care said it had not received any Police reports. The Council noted it did not have reason to believe Mr D was homeless at present because he had accommodation he could return to.
11. On 3 March Mr D told the Council he was still sleeping rough and sent a screenshot of a Police incident report. Mr D made further contact with the Council on the 4 and 5 March reiterating he was sleeping rough. The landlord also confirmed to the Council that Mr D had terminated the tenancy against its advice and it would end 30 March. On 7 March Mr D called the Council and said he had spoken to the Police. The Council explained it had not received any evidence and not had any confirmation from the Police that he was at risk in his home. On 10 March the Council booked an appointment to meet Mr D on 21 March. Mr D called the Council again the next day and confirmed his child was not currently staying with him.
12. On 11 March the Council contacted Mr D after he stated he had Police documents. The Council asked to see the documentation so it could assess his housing circumstances. Mr D provided a screenshot of a Police victim report which stated the report was not related a to a crime being investigated and was about a concern for Mr D’s safety. He had referred to verbal abuse and threats and was sleeping in his car. He wanted support with housing.
13. On 21 March a Homelessness Advisor (Advisor) spoke to Mr D and carried out an assessment. Mr D said he had been subject to repeated harassment and ASB at his home. Mr D had been sleeping in his car since mid-February, and his child was staying elsewhere. On the same day the Advisor sent Mr D a homeless duty prevention acceptance letter and a personalised housing plan (PHP). He asked Mr D to provide any medical evidence or evidence relating to ASB/ issues with his property. Mr D said he would ask his medical professionals to send evidence direct to the Council.
14. On 24 March the landlord confirmed to the Council that Mr D had terminated his tenancy. On the same day the Advisor asked Mr D to provide copies of documentation including income and bank statements. Also that day Adult Social Care confirmed to the Advisor that Mr D had spoken to a Social Care Officer but did not meet safeguarding criteria and no unmet social care needs were identified. He had been told to liaise with the Housing Team about his homelessness. On 25 March the landlord told the Council the tenancy would formally end on 30 March.
15. On 31 March Children’s Services noted that Mr D and his child had been ‘moving from place to place’. When asked where he was living Mr D told the Officer he was staying ‘with family for a couple of days’. On 1 April Children’s Services also noted Mr D was currently staying with family. On 16 April Children’s Services recorded an Officer had visited Mr D’s current temporary accommodation (at a family member’s home). He told Officers he and his child could stay there for ‘around a month’.
16. In April the Advisor made checks about whether Mr D had been in rent arrears at his former property and if a payment plan was in place. On 23 April Mr D told the Council he was still homeless and there had been ‘no safeguarding’. Also on 23 April the Advisor sent Mr D confirmation the Council had accepted a relief duty towards him and provided an updated PHP which said the Council would provide emergency accommodation. On 24 April the Advisor sought confirmation of whether Mr D had full custody of his child. It was confirmed Mr D was the main carer. On the same day an Officer spoke to Mr D about his bidding for advertised social housing. Mr D said he required emergency accommodation but wanted to make his own arrangements until 28 April when he would to go back to sleeping in his car. The Council advised him to update it if he had no accommodation earlier than 28 April. That day the Advisor emailed the Social Worker assigned to Mr D, the Council would provide interim accommodation for Mr D after 28 April if Mr D did not have anywhere to stay. On 28 April the Advisor called Mr D who said he would be without accommodation from the next day as he could not stay with a friend/ family member any longer.
17. On 29 April the Council arranged a twin room emergency hotel accommodation for Mr D and his child. It formally notified him that he had been assessed as homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. He was eligible to receive interim accommodation whilst the Council made enquiries into his case and decided if it owed him a main housing duty. On 20 May Mr D and his child moved to alternative B&B style interim accommodation. On 9 June the family moved to a self-contained property with its own bathroom and kitchen facilities.
18. On 23 June the Advisor wrote to Mr D with the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. They detailed the information and points the Council had considered. Mr D had been offered a meeting by his landlord to discuss his concerns but had decided to end his tenancy. That was determined to be a deliberate action which had resulted in homelessness. The Council considered it would have been reasonable for Mr D to remain in his former home because he was receiving support to help resolve issues. It explained it only owed Mr D a short-term interim accommodation duty if its actions to help him resolve his homelessness ended unsuccessfully. It also asked for consent to make a referral to Children’s Services because he was an intentionally homeless family. Mr D could request a review of the decision.
19. On 24 June Mr D complained to the Council. He had been left homeless sleeping in his car for 67 days and had only received assistance from the Council after he sought support from an organisation. He disputed the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. On 27 June Mr D added to his complaint. He said he had to flee his former home after homophobic threats and harassment. He had a health condition and a disabled child. The Council had wrongly told him in February to return to his property. He asked the Council to review its decision that he was intentionally homeless. A Complaints Officer spoke to Mr D about his case on 30 June.
20. On 24 July the Council replied to the complaint. It had considered whether the correct homelessness process had been followed and if safeguarding action should have been taken. The Council said it had checked with Mr D’s landlord in February and there were no open ASB cases relating to his tenancy. He was told at the time if he gave up his tenancy, he could be making himself intentionally homeless and had been encouraged to engage with his landlord. The Council said it had followed the correct process and had accepted a homelessness application once Mr D had formally given up his tenancy in March. It accepted there was some delay reviewing if Mr D was in priority need and this could have been done sooner. Mr D had told the Council he had accommodation up to 28 April, so the delay did not cause him to be without accommodation. The Council stated it would now process the review request. The Council said its duty decision letter in June was five days over the 56 day target and apologised. The Council also said it had acted in line with safeguarding processes and had made checks with Social Care in February and contacted the Housing Safeguarding Officer in March. The Council offered Mr D £100 for the delays it identified.
21. On 27 July Mr D told the Council its complaint response had not dealt with him sending Police evidence which it then denied receiving. He also said the Council should have made a safeguarding referral because of his mental health condition. On 11 August the Council issued its review decision. It had overturned the decision that Mr D was intentionally homeless ‘despite the lack of Police evidence for ASB’. The Council had only received from Mr D proof that he had reported incidents but nothing further. The Council noted in its records that given the family’s circumstances including Mr D’s health it would be in the best interest to allow the homelessness case to remain open.
22. On 15 August an Officer spoke to Mr D about his complaint. On 20 August the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It considered if safeguarding had been addressed and said that no significant concerns had been raised when the Council contacted Social Services in February. Social Services had confirmed they were already in contact with Mr D. Based on that information and existing involvement by that service area a further referral was not deemed necessary. The Council said no Police reports had been received. Mr D wanted additional financial redress and had referred to dental treatment costs, loss of income and rent arrears with his former landlord. The Council explained it considered the redress offer was appropriate and the points raised by Mr D fell outside the scope of the complaint process and redress scheme.

What should have happened

Homelessness

23. An applicant should not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. There is no simple test of reasonableness. It is for the housing authority to make a judgement on the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances of the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(3))

Applications

24. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
25. When a person asks the Council for homelessness assistance an Officer will carry out an initial assessment of the case to identify if the person is at immediate risk of homelessness and to verify their circumstances. Where an applicant says they have a home but cannot reasonably be expected to live there the Council will make checks. If there are allegations of ASB the Council will check with the landlord, ask for evidence of Police involvement and check whether ASB Teams have been involved. It will decide if the evidence shows it is not reasonable for the applicant to remain in the property. Where it decides the applicant can remain it will not accept a homelessness application and can offer advice.
26. Where a homelessness application is taken by the Council the case is allocated to an Advisor. They will meet with the applicant and conduct a full assessment taking account of the applicant’s circumstances, whether they are eligible for assistance and in priority need. They should also consider if the applicant has support needs and if a referral to Adult Social Care or Children’s Services is required. If an applicant says they are street homeless/ sleeping in a car the Council will assess if they are owed a homelessness duty. If they are in priority need the Council will offer interim accommodation. An applicant with a dependant child is treat as a priority group. Where the Council decides it does not owe a housing duty it will ask for consent to make a referral to Children’s Services.

The prevention duty

27. If councils are satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicant to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

28. 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

29. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

30. 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)

Priority need

31. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

Review rights

32. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the a range of decisions including:

• their eligibility for assistance
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness

Was there fault by the Council

33. Mr D feels the Council should have accepted he was homeless when he approached it for assistance in February 2025. The evidence shows me the Council made checks with Mr D’s landlord who verified there were no records of ASB lodged by Mr D and he had a secure tenancy. The Council had no evidence at that point that Mr D could not safely return to his home. By the end of that month the Council still had no evidence of the Police investigating incidents of ASB/ harassment. Mr D said he had sent evidence to Adult Social Care, but the Council confirmed with that service that no evidence had been received. I do not see the Council is at fault in February for its handling of the case. It did not have reason to believe Mr D could not return to his property as it had no evidence he was at risk.
34. I do consider the Council delayed accepting a homelessness application from Mr D in March. It accepted an application on 10 March and booked an interview and assessment with Mr D for 21 March. The only new evidence received by the Council in early March was the landlord’s confirmation on 5 March that Mr D had terminated his tenancy. I see no reason why the Council did not accept a homelessness application that day and arrange a prompt assessment/ interview given it had reason to believe Mr D would soon be without access to any secure accommodation.
35. There is also fault by the Council in that it delayed accepting a relief duty towards Mr D. Taking account of the delay above I consider this could have been accepted by late March rather than over three weeks later. The Council also delayed assessing if Mr D was in priority need. That also could have been decided by late March, and the Council has already accepted it delayed, in its complaint response to Mr D, and apologised.
36. Mr D says the Council should have offered him interim accommodation sooner than 29 April. Had the delays not occurred the Council would have been able to accept a relief duty and consider interim accommodation at the end of March when Mr D’s tenancy formally ended. Mr D initially told me he was sleeping rough (including in his car) for the entire period until he was placed into interim accommodation. He disputed he told the Council in April he was staying with friends. I asked Mr D if he had any evidence to show where he was staying from the end of March through to 24 April, he has not been able to evidence to me where he was staying. In response to my revised draft decision on this case Mr D told me ‘I temporarily stayed with family members’ for parts of the period of homelessness. The Council’s records show that Children’s Services were making checks of where Mr D’s child was staying over the same period and it records show me that Mr D told Officers he was staying with family members. The contemporaneous note made by the Council on 24 April also refers to Mr D having somewhere to stay at that point until the end of the month. I have no evidence to call the Council’s records into question. Taking all the information I have into account I am satisfied Mr D was staying with friends/ family from the end of March and through April. Had the fault above not occurred the Council would have been able to consider and offer interim accommodation at the end of March; I cannot say whether Mr D would have accepted it given he turned down the offer of assistance with accommodation on 24 April.
37. Mr D says the Council should have made a safeguarding referral. In respect of his child the Council did make a referral to Children’s Service in February after Mr D had initially stated his child had slept rough with him. The Council followed the correct process in making that referral. The 20 August complaint response sets out the Council’s actions in respect of a referral for Mr D. It made the appropriate checks with Adult Social Care and a Social Worker in February. On the basis of information received during that contact the Council determined Mr D had existing involvement with the service and a referral was not required. I have not found fault in how the Council handled this matter. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong: that applies to this part of the complaint.

Did the fault cause an injustice

38. Mr D says he wants £3,500 for financial losses, £400 for dental costs, £4,000 for loss of reputation, £4,000 for health complications and £10,000 for the impact on his child’s schooling. I advised Mr D at the start of the investigation the Ombudsman provides remedies for injustice, not compensation or fines. Our focus is on restoring services that have been denied and taking practical steps to put things right. Where it is appropriate to consider financial redress, it is often a modest amount. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation. We also do not assess if a Council has been negligent, and we direct people to the courts where they are seeking large sums of money or damages.
39. The faults by the Council in this case resulted in Mr D having to wait just over three weeks longer than necessary to be accepted as having a relief duty. He also could have been offered interim accommodation at the end of March, had the delays not occurred, although I cannot say whether he would have accepted the assistance at that point. Mr D maintains he was rough sleeping at times during the end of March up to 29 April. I am unable to verify that was the case and the records kept by the Council show it had been informed by Mr D that he was staying with friends/ family. I am satisfied there was a lost opportunity to offer Mr D interim accommodation because of the fault by the Council.

Back to top

Action

40. The Council has already offered Mr D £100 for the delays in his case and apologised. In view of the additional fault and injustice identified above the Council has agreed to pay Mr D a further £100.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman