Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing. The Council was at fault for its delay in responding to the probation service referral, failing to provide a written decision, delaying its decision to award the main housing duty and poor complaint handling. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused. It should also make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his housing, he says the Council;

• failed to act on an urgent housing referral made in April 2025;
• failed to make reasonable adjustments; and
• mishandled his complaint.

2. Mr X says the Council’s inaction has caused him to remain homeless. He also says this has affected his wellbeing and recovery from alcohol addiction. Mr X says he has taken a significant amount of time chasing the Council’s responses which has caused him avoidable frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5),
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 not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for him. This is because, there is no evidence that Mr X complained about this matter to the Council before he complained to the Ombudsman We generally expect complainants to use a council’s complaints procedure before we will investigate a complaint. In this case, if Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response to any reasonable adjustment request, it was reasonable for the Council to have a chance to investigate and respond to his concerns.
7. I have considered the remainder of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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

Legislation and guidance

Public authorities’ notification

10. Under section 213B of Housing Act 1996, as amended, public authorities are required to notify a housing authority of service users they consider may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days.

Homelessness

11. 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)
12. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

Applications

13. 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

14. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent 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 be tailored to the household, and 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

15. 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

16. 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)

Decision letters

17. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188)

18. 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 difference between interim and temporary accommodation

19. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
20. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
21. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
22. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
23. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
24. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
25. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Review rights

26. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

The Council’s complaint policy

27. The Council operates a two stage complaint process. It notes it will aim reply to stage one complaints within ten working days.
28. If a complainant remains dissatisfied after the stage one process, the Council will investigate the complaint at stage two. The Council notes it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.

What happened?

29. At the end of April 2025, the probation service wrote to the Council to say that Mr X would become homeless at the end of May 2025, because he had been asked to leave his family home. The probation service noted it understood the referral was not a housing application, but the Council should respond to its request for homelessness support for Mr X.
30. In mid-July, the Council completed a homelessness assessment with Mr X. It noted in internal case records that this was following the referral from the probation service in April 2025. During this assessment, Mr X expressed he had been homeless for the past week and shared details of his medical conditions
31. The Council then completed a housing assessment and sent Mr X a personalised housing plan, which noted it owed him the relief duty.
32. Mr X then contacted the Council several times between July and September to ask for an update on housing support.
33. In early September, the Council emailed Mr X to say his application should be live within 28 days which should enable him to bid on properties after this date. The Council also asked Mr X if he wanted it to provide him with temporary accommodation.
34. Mr X responded the same day raising concerns about the delays and lack of communication. He expressed that he was homeless and staying with various friends which was unsuitable given his medical conditions. Mr X also told the Council temporary accommodation was unsuitable for him because of his medical needs.
35. In mid-August, Mr X made a stage one complaint to the Council.
36. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint in mid-September. It noted:

• it apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and for the delay in the Council contacting him about his homelessness application.
• as Mr X’s circumstances had now changed and he was homeless, it could register his housing application if Mr X provided information.

37. At the end of November, the Council wrote to Mr X with its decision of his application made in July 2025. It noted he was homeless and in priority need. It awarded him the main housing duty. It offered him temporary accommodation and explained his rights to review its decision.

Findings

The Council failed to act on an urgent housing referral made in April 2025

38. Despite the probation service referring Mr X to the Council in April 2025, noting that he would soon become homeless, there is no evidence the Council responded to this until July 2025.
39. Although the probation service referral was not a homelessness application, the Council must still act on these referrals. We would expect the Council to have contacted Mr X sooner to determine if it had a duty to provide homelessness assistance. The Council’s delay of around three months to do so was fault, which caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty about the homelessness support he was eligible for.
40. When the Council did contact Mr X, in July 2025, it completed an assessment and decided it owed him a relief duty. Despite this, there is no evidence that it issued a decision letter to tell him this. The Council’s failure to provide its decision in writing was not in line with the Code and was fault. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about his housing rights.
41. The Code also says a council should be able to decide whether it owes a main housing duty within 57 days. This means the Council should have decided whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty by mid-September 2025, at the latest. But, the Council did not make this decision until the end of November 2025. The delay of around nine weeks to accept the main housing duty was fault. This, added to the delay in the Council responding to the probation request meant that Mr X was waiting a considerable amount of time.
42. Given that the Council eventually went on to accept the main housing duty, it is likely it would have made the same decision in September 2025, if it had made this in time, as there is no evidence that Mr X’s circumstances had changed.
43. I have considered the injustice the delay in making the decision has caused Mr X. I note that the Council did ask Mr X in September 2025 if he wanted it to provide temporary accommodation. As the Council had only awarded Mr X the relief duty at this point, it is likely that this offer was for interim accommodation rather than temporary accommodation.
44. Mr X told the Council that temporary/interim accommodation, particularly hostel accommodation would be unsuitable for him because of his medical, mental health and recovery needs. But, if the Council had made the main housing duty on time, this would have enabled Mr X to have asked for a suitability review of any accommodation the Council offered him, which would have taken account of any medical needs. The Council’s delay in deciding the main housing duty caused Mr X an injustice. However, this is limited to frustration and uncertainty, as it is not possible for me to determine whether Mr X would have accepted any offer of accommodation from the Council.
45. Mr X still has the option of approaching the Council to ask it to provide temporary accommodation, if he considers any offer made to be unsuitable, he can ask the Council for a suitability review.
46. I have not made any further service improvement recommendations because I am satisfied the Council has already agreed to implement these in other similar complaints we have investigated.

The Council mishandled Mr X’s complaint

47. Mr X complained to the Council in August 2025. The Council responded to this complaint almost four weeks later. This was not in line with the Council’s complaint policy which notes it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. This was fault which caused Mr X frustration. The Council has already apologised for the delay which was a sufficient remedy.
48. I am also concerned that instead of directing Mr X to stage two of its complaint process, if he remained unhappy, it noted he could instead approach the Ombudsman. This again was not in line with the Council’s complaint policy and as a result, Mr X missed an opportunity for an internal independent review of his complaint. I will ask the Council to apologise to Mr X for this and make service improvements.

Back to top

Action

49. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X for 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 £200 for the frustration, uncertainty and missed review rights caused to Mr X by its delay in responding to the probation service referral, failing to provide a written decision and delaying its decision to award the main housing duty.
• We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because the Council delayed in responding to Mr X’s complaint and failed to direct him to stage two of the complaint process.  In order to prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints.

50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman