Summary: Miss D complains the Council delayed progressing her homelessness application. I have found fault by the Council including delay and failing to explain its actions to Miss D. The Council has agreed to pay Miss D redress for avoidable distress and has also carried out staff training.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council delayed progressing her homelessness application and delayed issuing a decision. Miss D also refers to disagreement with the Council’s decision that she is not in priority need. Miss D says the delays by the Council meant it issued a decision on her case two weeks prior to her scheduled eviction meaning she did not have time to appeal the priority need decision without facing street homelessness.

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 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated how the Council dealt with Miss D’s homelessness application (application). I have not investigated the Council’s decision about priority need, that is because Miss D had a right of review and has, correctly, used that right.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared a draft decision with both parties, after consideration of their comments I issued a revised draft decision and again invited comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 7 April 2025 a Support Worker referred Miss D to the Council as homeless. Miss D submitted a homelessness application form on behalf of her household and said she was facing eviction. The Council sent Miss D a standard email listing the information she needed to supply including ID, medical and financial information, evidence relating to the eviction. On 8 April an Officer assessed the initial information including a section 21 notice (eviction notice) and accepted a prevention duty towards Miss D. They wrote to Miss D with the decision and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP). On 28 May Miss D’s Support Worker asked if the Council had reached a decision on the application. Miss D also asked for an update on 6 June. The Council replied that it would make a decision soon and then send a decision letter. On 9 June the Support Worker told the Council Miss D had received a possession order as part of the eviction process and asked what the Council would do to prevent the household becoming street homeless.
8. On 16 June the Officer asked for Miss D’s medical evidence from the Mental Health Team and received some information on 4 July. On 11 July the Support Worker asked the Council if a decision had been made on the application. The prevention duty had ended. She asked why the Council had not accepted a relief duty in the case and asked the Council to clarify. Later that day the Officer spoke to Miss D and noted the prevention duty had been extended because the Council was still waiting for the bailiff warrant to evict Miss D. The Officer said it was “best to extend rather than accept relief as [Miss D] is still not homeless”. The Officer also scheduled an appointment to meet with Miss D (via Teams) to discuss the case on 22 July. On 22 July the Officer emailed Miss D cancelling the meeting and offered to reschedule it. On 31 July the Officer called Miss D. Miss D says the Officer told her a ‘decision’ had been made that she was not in priority need. They would send a letter soon and would refer Miss D to the Rough Sleeper Team for assistance. I understand Miss D recalls the Officer stating Miss D’s inability to leave her property because of mental health issues was a “choice”. On the same day the Council received a copy of the bailiff warrant.
9. On 1 August Miss D complained to the Council. The decision about priority need was wrong. She understood the Officer had referred her to the Rough Sleeper Team and then closed her case. The Officer had also told Miss D her mental health was a “choice”. On 5 August the Council received some additional information about Miss D’s application (a connected lives assessment). On 6 August the Support Worker asked for a decision letter about the priority need decision. On 11 August the Council received medical information relating to the family. On the same day Miss D asked the Council for the decision letter she had been promised. The Officer told Miss D it was a ‘minded to’ decision and they were still assessing the medical evidence.
10. On 18 August Miss D emailed the Council, she had been told a decision was reached on her priority need, but the Council had subsequently said a formal decision had not been made. She was confused and had not received a letter. She had a rescheduled meeting that day which had been cancelled. On 20 August the Council replied to the complaint. It confirmed a referral had been made to the Rough Sleeper Team and that a full decision on the application and priority need had not yet been made. In respect of the Officer’s comment about Miss D’s mental health the Council said the Officer felt the comment had been taken out of context and it was not intended to cause offence. It apologised for any distress. Later that day Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She remained confused about what was happening with her case including why the prevention duty had been extended.
11. On 21 August the Council received additional medical evidence relating to the family. The same day the Council told Miss D it would like to meet with her before a full decision was reached on the application. On 28 August the Officer told Miss D her provisional decision was Miss D did not have priority need, so Miss D needed to look for a private rental home. On 5 September the Officer had a Teams meeting with Miss D, she advised Miss D to look for a private rental. Miss D said she could not afford the cost. On 16 September the Council issued its final complaint response. It said Miss D’s application was being considered. It had taken comments made by the Officer seriously and would remind staff about professionalism and sensitivity. Later that day the Council accepted a relief duty towards Miss D and updated her PHP. It sent Miss D a decision letter. On 17 September the Council issued its decision that Miss D was not in priority need. It explained this meant it did not have to provide interim accommodation and set out Miss D’s review rights. Miss D subsequently asked the Council to review the priority need decision.
12. On 29 September the Council wrote to Miss D after she requested temporary accommodation pending the outcome of the review. It explained why it would not provide accommodation. On 30 September the Council wrote to Miss D’s MP and said it had a duty to support Miss D to find accommodation, but it would not be providing temporary accommodation. Miss D had requested a review of the decision and had requested accommodation pending the review outcome which the Council would assess before her eviction date. Also on that day Miss D was evicted from her home. She moved in with a family member and is sharing a one bedroom property with the family member and a child.
13. On 2 October the Council told Miss D’s landlord it could not assist with storage of Miss D’s possessions. On 13 October the Council wrote again to Miss D’s MP. It said the Council owed Miss D a homelessness duty including supporting her to find private rented accommodation. It repeated that Miss D’s request for temporary accommodation pending the outcome of her review would be assessed by her eviction date (despite Miss D already being evicted). On 28 October the Council issued its review decision. It found Miss D was in priority need.

Events after my investigation

14. I understand that once the Council accepted Miss D was in priority need it offered her interim accommodation. Miss D told me the properties selected were not suitable for her needs and she is waiting for a suitable property.

What should have happened

Threatened with homelessness

15. 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

16. 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)

Interim accommodation

17. 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) 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.
18. 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.

The prevention duty

19. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants 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

20. 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

21. 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)

Review rights

22. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified 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.

Accommodation pending review

23. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Protection of belongings

24. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)
25. The Council says it should consider requests for assistance with storage of possessions. An Officer should assess if they have reason to believe an applicant’s property is in danger of loss or damage because the applicant cannot protect it and no other suitable arrangements have been made. Where that applies the Council can provide assistance.

Was there fault by the Council

26. The Council should have accepted a relief duty towards Miss D sooner. Once it was in receipt of the bailiff warrant on 31 July it could and should have accepted a relief duty, this would also have aligned with the Officer telling Miss D earlier that month the Council was waiting for the bailiff warrant to accept a relief duty. There was delay of around six weeks in this matter.
27. The Council failed to send Miss D a ‘minded to’ letter about priority need and did not properly explain the process at the end of July. The Council accepts a letter was not sent and the Officer did not make it clear to Miss D what the process was at that time. Miss D and her Support Worker had to chase up the Council several times before an explanation was given. In August the Council received three sets of additional information relating to Miss D’s priority need. It had a duty to assess that evidence, so I do not consider it at fault for evaluating the information in August or for holding off issuing a minded to or full decision letter. It advised Miss D on 11 August that it was now assessing the information before issuing a decision letter. That said, it is possible the Council could have issued its priority need decision soon after the 5 September meeting given it had no further evidence to consider, whilst the delay is minimal (it took a further 12 days to send the decision) the timeframe was important because of the imminency of Miss D’s eviction.
28. Miss D says the Officer was wrong to make comments about her mental health in July and she felt her conditions had been minimised. There is fault in this matter. The Officer should not have commented on how she viewed Miss D’s health; this was inappropriate and caused Miss D avoidable distress. The Council has already apologised and taken action to make a service improvement which I set out below.
29. The Council told Miss D it was referring her to the Rough Sleeper Team. That referral did not happen, and I cannot see Miss D was clearly advised about this. The Council says there was a change in procedures at the time it offered to make the referral meaning Miss D was no longer eligible for assistance by that Team. The Council should have notified Miss D and provided a clear explanation about why assistance was no longer available.
30. The Council failed to consider if Miss D was eligible for assistance with storage of her possessions. Miss D says she asked the Council, during a telephone call before her eviction, about assistance but none was provided. I have evidence the Landlord asked the Council about storage at the start of October, and the Council wrongly stated no help could be given. The Council should have contacted Miss D after the Landlord spoke to an Officer and assessed whether she was eligible for assistance.

Did the fault cause an injustice

31. The delay and poor communications with Miss D caused Miss D avoidable distress. I cannot say, had the delays not occurred, that Miss D would have accepted interim accommodation at the point of her eviction given she has subsequently not accepted offers made by the Council and has decided to wait for accommodation she feels is better suited to her needs. The Council failed to contact Miss D about storage of her possessions. I cannot say if she would have been eligible for assistance, but she certainly lost an opportunity to have her needs assessed.

Back to top

Action

32. The Council has agreed with my recommendations and will pay Miss D £350 for the avoidable distress she experienced as a result of the faults identified.
33. The Council should also confirm to Miss D what action it is taking to find her suitable temporary accommodation.
34. The Council has made service improvements because of this case. It has carried out training about sensitivity and professionalism for staff and raised the matter at team meetings.
35. 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

36. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman