Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in dealing with her homelessness application despite her priority need due to domestic violence. We find the Council at fault for a delay in assessing Miss X’s application. The delay caused Miss X distress and frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed in dealing with her homelessness application despite her priority need due to domestic abuse. Miss X also complains the Council’s stage two complaint response was not impartial and she does not trust the Council’s further actions. Miss X told us, as a result of the Council’s actions, she remained homeless for longer than necessary and the situation caused her emotional harm and impacted her ability to spend time with her children. Miss X would like a neighbouring Council or independent contractor to manage her housing case.

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, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

6. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
7. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
8. 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. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

9. 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)

The relief duty

10. 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

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (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)

What happened

12. Miss X submitted a homelessness application to the Council in July 2025. In the application, Miss X told the Council she was homeless due to fleeing domestic abuse.
13. The Council attempted to contact Miss X the following day but was unsuccessful. Miss X contacted the Council to confirm her contact details.
14. The Council was able to contact Miss X two days after receiving her application. The Council planned a meeting with Miss X and sent some paperwork ahead of the meeting.
15. The day before the planned meeting the Council contacted Miss X to rearrange the meeting for the following week.
16. The Council failed to attend the re-arranged meeting without informing Miss X it would not attend. Over the following week Miss X contacted the Council twice to discuss the missed meeting.
17. Miss X submitted a complaint to the Council on the last day in July due to the Council’s lack of communication and cancelled meeting. Part of Miss X’s complaint related to the housing officer in charge of the case. Miss X requested her case be assigned to a new housing officer.
18. The Council issued a stage one complaint response in the second week of August. The Council’s response accepted there had been delays in processing the homelessness application and this was due to poor communication from the housing officer. The Council did not offer a new housing officer and explained Miss X’s application would be progressed by the same officer.
19. The officer contacted Miss X the same day to arrange a phone call to progress the application. Miss X did not respond to this contact.
20. The officer contacted Miss X again the following week, however Miss X did not respond.
21. In the third week of August, Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. Miss X again requested a new housing officer.
22. At the end of August, the Council contacted Miss X to explain that it was considering closing her case due to non-engagement. Miss X responded to explain she refused to engage with the housing officer in charge of her case due to the complaint she had submitted.
23. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in the first week of September. In the stage two response, the Council agreed its stage one response had not addressed all the issue Miss X raised at stage one. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint and provided a more detailed response to Miss X’s complaints.
24. The Council’s stage two complaint response also explained why it did not consider a new housing officer was necessary to progress Miss X’s case.
25. Following further communication with Miss X and her advocate, the Council agreed to reallocate Miss X’s case to a different housing officer.
26. The new case officer contacted Miss X and arranged a meeting to discuss her application. The application was assessed and, in the second week of September, the Council agreed Miss X was homeless with priority need. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the relief duty and it offered interim accommodation. Miss X declined this offer.
27. Once the Council’s relief duty ended, it accepted the main housing duty for Miss X.

My findings

28. Due to ongoing poor communication, there was a two month delay in the Council assessing Miss X’s homelessness application. This is fault which caused Miss X distress and frustration. Given Miss X’s decision to refuse the Council’s offer of interim accommodation, I do not consider the delay impacted Miss X’s right to interim accommodation.
29. There is no evidence fault in the Council’s correspondence with Miss X in which it explained that non engagement would result in the application being closed. As Miss X had not responded to the Council’s emails, it was reasonable for the Council to consider closing the case after providing an opportunity for her to engage.
30. There is no evidence fault in the Council’s consideration of the stage two complaint. The Council issued a detailed and considered stage two complaint response which upheld Miss X’s complaint and provided outcomes to remedy the injustice caused by the poor communication.

Back to top

Action

31. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
• Make a symbolic payment of £150 in recognition of the injustice caused by the delay in assessing Miss X’s homelessness application.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman