Summary: Mr D says the Council has delayed responding to his statutory review request relating to his homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council. It has delayed by around 12 months. This meant Mr D was caused avoidable time and trouble chasing up the case and making a complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Mr D redress and has issued the review decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to reply to his statutory review request regarding the ending of relief duty made in 2025. He says the Council is deliberately delaying issuing a response to hinder his ability to progress the matter to court.
2. Mr D is also dissatisfied with the Council’s decision that was not eligible to join its housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated how the Council handled Mr D’s request for a statutory review of its decision to end the relief duty in 2025. I have not looked at whether the decision to end the duty was correct because that should be considered under the statutory review process by the Council and Mr D can then take the matter to the county court. I am solely looking at how the Council has dealt with the request for a review. I have also not investigated how the Council dealt with Mr D’s dissatisfaction with its decision that he was ineligible to joining the housing register. That is because Mr D has correctly used his review rights and has progressed this matter to the county court.

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. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 4 July 2024 Mr D contacted the Council because he had received an eviction notice and was facing homelessness. The Council took a homelessness application and booked an assessment. On 13 August the Council carried out a homelessness assessment and accepted a prevention duty towards Mr D. During October to December the Council sought proof of income from Mr D.
9. During February 2025 and March the Council was in contact with Mr D about offers of accommodation. It is unclear when the Council accepted a relief duty towards Mr D, there is reference to it dated 20 March 2025 on the case notes.
10. On 25 March the Council reviewed Mr D’s case and concluded it had taken reasonable steps to prevent and relieve homelessness. It decided no further relief duty was owed to Mr D. It notified Mr D on 27 March and explained he could request a statutory review. On 27 March Mr D requested the Council review its decision. The Case Officer noted the request had been received and it was forwarded to the Business Support Team the next day. The Case Officer told Mr D the request had been forwarded.
11. On 2 September Mr D complained to the Council. He requested a review of its decision about the relief duty over five months ago and not received a response. On 13 October the Council replied to the complaint. It said the review had not been completed yet and apologised for the time taken. The review request had not been received by the Reviews Team due to an administrative error. The Council was now looking at improving the process for logging review requests and Mr D’s case had been allocated to a Review Officer.

Events outside the investigation timeframe

12. I started my investigation in April 2026. I asked the Council whether it had progressed Mr D’s review. It said that it had assigned the case to Reviews Officer after September 2025. That Officer had then left their post, and the review had not been progressed. The case had recently been reassigned to another Officer to progress.
13. On 8 May 2026 the Council issued the review decision. It upheld its original decision to end the relief duty.

What should have happened

The relief duty

14. 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)

Review rights

15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a range of reasons including giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

Review procedure

16. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
17. The Council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the Council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Procedures at the Council

18. Prior to December 2025 the Council advised applicants to notify their Case Officer if they wanted to submit a request for a statutory review. The Case Officer filled out a form, and their Manager authorised the review request. The form would then be sent to the Business Support Team to register the review and forward the form to the Reviews Team. A Reviews Team Manager would allocate the case to a Reviews Officer to carry out the review and send a decision to the applicant.
19. From December 2025 the Council introduced a new process for statutory review requests. It acknowledges the previous system had ‘multiple hand-offs, which created significant delays’ and resulted in a ‘substantial review backlog’. The new system advises applicants when they receive a duty decision to email a review request to the Reviews Team inbox. The Council should then acknowledge receipt within 48 hours and allocate to a Reviews Officer.

Was there fault by the Council

20. The Council failed to consider and respond to Mr D’s request for a review of its decision to discharge its homelessness duty. Mr D requested a review on 27 March 2025 and should have received a decision by the end of May. Instead, as of early May 2026, he is still waiting for a decision from the Council. That is unacceptable and a delay of nearly 12 months. The Council says the review was not recorded by the Business Support Team when it was received in March 2025. It accepts there was an error. No action was then taken until Mr D complained in September. The review was assigned to a Reviews Officer but not progressed and the Officer left the Council. Again no action was taken until I started investigating the case at which point the Council allocated the review to another Officer and has assured me that a decision will be issued to Mr D soon.

Did the fault cause an injustice

21. Mr D has been subject to around 12 months delay due to fault by the Council. Even after he formally complained about the lack of progress the Council failed to ensure his review was taken forward to decision stage. Mr D has been caused avoidable time and trouble.

Back to top

Action

22. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr D the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Mr D £150 for avoidable time and trouble and apologise
• Issued the review decision.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the redress payment within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman