Summary: We have upheld Ms Y’s complaint about an initial delay in contacting her after she sent it her eviction notice. The Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained, on behalf of Ms Y, about the Council’s handling of Ms Y’s homelessness application. Mr X said the Council:
• delayed contacting Ms Y after she provided an eviction notice and wrongly told him it would owe no homelessness duty until the notice expired;
• did not arrange an interpreter when it called Ms Y on 17 July 2025; and
• asked for some documents more than once, which delayed its decision to award band 3 on its housing register.
2. Mr X also said there were complaints handling failures. He was unhappy the complaint was considered by a manager from the service at stage 1 and that the Council refused to pay compensation at stage 2.
3. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused Ms Y ongoing stress, anxiety and sleepless nights.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms Y was living in private rented sector accommodation. Her landlord issued her with a notice to leave the property. She provided a copy to the Council on 23 May 2025. I understand the notice asked her to leave by 10 July.
9. On 2 July, Mr X contacted the Council. He says the officer advised him the Council did not owe a homelessness duty until the notice had expired, so would not take action until then.
10. On 3 July, the Council contacted Ms Y to obtain initial information. Ms Y said she wanted Mr X to act as interpreter for further calls/meetings. Also on 3 July, the Council asked Ms Y to provide documents and she did so on 4 July. On 7 July, the Council asked for the documents again.
11. On 17 July, the Council called Ms Y to arrange a time for a detailed assessment of her case. Ms Y reminded it she needed Mr X to be present. The Council called Mr X and arranged a time to call when he was available. The assessment was completed on 18 July, and the Council accepted a prevention duty on 24 July. The Council accepted a housing register application on 4 August.
12. In its complaint responses, the Council:
• accepted a delay in contacting Ms Y initially. It explained there had been a 65% increase in the number of applications received in the previous two years, but it had now increased its resources to deal with this;
• explained the steps it had taken to ensure officers gave correct advice about when it may owe a prevention duty;
• accepted Ms Y had provided the documents it asked for on 4 July;
• acknowledged it knew Ms Y needed an interpreter when it called her on 17 July, but said all subsequent appointments were jointly with Mr X;
• explained it stage 1 response was issued by a Team Lead and said compensation was not agreed because matters had been addressed as the application proceeded.
13. The Council ended the prevention duty in December 2025 because the landlord had not progressed the eviction by starting court action.

My assessment

14. I have considered the period to 13 August 2025 when the final complaint response was issued.
15. The Council accepted it asked again for documents on 7 July that had been provided on 4 July. There is no evidence this caused a delay in decision-making, nor a sufficient injustice to Ms Y to justify further investigation.
16. The Council also accepted it called Ms Y on 17 July, although it was already aware she needed Mr X to act as interpreter. Again, there is no evidence this caused a delay in progressing the application, not a sufficient injustice to Ms X to justify further investigation.
17. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for an initial delay in contacting Ms Y after she provided the eviction notice. This caused Ms Y uncertainty about whether and how the Council would assist her. We therefore asked the Council to take action to remedy the injustice, and it has agreed to take the following steps within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms Y in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• pay her £200 to remedy the injustice caused. This payment is in line with our guidance on remedies.
18. The Council has already increased resources to ensure it contacts applicants in a timely manner and has provided training and guidance to relevant staff to ensure they give correct advice about the Council’s duties where an applicant is at risk of homelessness. Therefore, further recommendations were not needed in relation to those issues.
19. We do not usually investigate complaints handling unless we are also investigating the underlying matter and there is no good reason to do on this occasion.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We have upheld the complaint about an initial delay in contacting Ms Y about her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing sufficient injustice to justify investigating the other parts of the complaint further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman