Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Mr X’s homelessness. The Council failed to properly consider and record whether it owed Mr X an interim housing duty. The Council also did not do enough to relieve Mr X’s homelessness and to enable it to determine if he was in priority need. The Council’s failure to issue a review decision on Mr X’s homelessness application within the statutory timescale was also fault. It was also at fault for its lack of communication, delayed complaint response and poor record keeping. The Council will issue the review decision and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to recognise the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness. In particular, he said the Council:
1. Did not progress his homelessness application in a timely manner and failed to provide support to relieve his homelessness.
2. Failed to communicate and handle his complaints in a timely manner.
2. Mr X said as a result he continues to be homeless and his mental health has worsened.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

9. 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.
10. 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)

Duty to provide interim accommodation

11. A council must provide interim accommodation while it makes enquiries into a homeless application if it has “reason to believe” that the applicant may be:

• Homeless
• Eligible for assistance
• In priority need

12. The law sets a very low threshold for councils to provide interim accommodation while considering whether to provide long term housing.

Priority need

13. 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;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

14. The Homelessness Code of Guidance states that the 'reason to believe' evidential threshold for providing interim accommodation is low and the duty to provide interim accommodation arises before the Council makes its full enquiries.

The relief duty

15. The relief duty applies when a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance.
16. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
17. When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

Review rights

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various decisions including giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end and that an applicant is not in priority need.
19. Councils must complete reviews of its decision within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

The Council’s corporate complaints policy

20. The Council uses a two-stage procedure to deal with corporate complaints:

• Stage one: the Council will send a full response within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If a response is not given within this time the Council will contact the complainant to agree to an extension.
• Stage two: the Council will issue a response within 20 working days.

What happened

21. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
22. Mr X has been homeless since October 2024.
23. In March 2025 Mr X asked the Council for homelessness support. The Council held an interview and conducted an assessment. The Council case notes showed that Mr X said people were making threats to his life. The Council said Mr X would need to show evidence from the police of his life being in danger for the Council’s consideration. The Council also noted “no priority need identified.”
24. The Council’s record of Mr X’s interview showed that Mr X provided it with a crime reference number. Its records also showed an email from Mr X’s solicitors dated February 2025 about a third party’s behaviour and “malicious communication” in relation to Mr X.
25. In mid-March 2025 the Council accepted the relief duty. The Council’s decision letter stated that it was satisfied Mr X was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a local connection with the Council. The case notes showed that the Council would write to Mr X’s GP for more information concerning his medical condition because Mr X was “not able to articulate his medical condition to ascertain whether he was medically vulnerable." The Council said it would seek its medical adviser’s opinion after receiving Mr X’s medical information and contact him to discuss his options.
26. The Council also completed a personalised housing plan (PHP) with Mr X. A copy of the PHP showed that Mr X was required to look for properties in the private sector and register on the housing register for social housing. The PHP also stated that the Council “shall look for accommodation and notify (Mr X) of the property available ASAP (as soon as possible)” and it would keep his PHP under review.
27. In mid-March 2025 the Council wrote to Mr X’s GP requesting information regarding his medical conditions to enable it to complete its assessment.
28. In early May 2025 the Council contacted the GP surgery asking for an update regarding its request. The Council also told Mr X it had not received a response from his GP and that Mr X may wish to chase the report vias his GP because the Council needed to “ascertain his medical condition to determine his priority need.”
29. Mr X said the councillor who supported him at the time made numerous attempts to contact the Council for an update but received no response.
30. In June 2025 Mr X complained to the Council. He complained he was homeless and had not received any communication or support from the Council to relieve his homelessness. The Council responded that a caseworker was still looking into Mr X’s case and was awaiting feedback on the medical report.
31. In late June 2025 the Council made a decision to end the relief duty. The Council said it had considered all available information and was satisfied that:

• Mr X did not have a priority need, and given that 56 days had passed since it accepted the relief duty, it was entitled to end this duty.
• It had “complied with the reasonable steps it had stated that it should take as per Mr X’s assessment and personalised housing plan”.

32. The Council explained that Mr X was not in priority need – it said it had been informed that Mr X had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) but was “yet to be assessed” and was “not receiving any treatment or medication for this condition.”
33. The Council also noted that Mr X was not vulnerable as a result of various reasons including mental illness, learning or physical disability and from having left his home because of violence or threats of violence that were likely to be carried out. It explained that having considered Mr X’s circumstances and the information available about his mental health, it was satisfied that Mr X would not suffer more harm, injury or detriment than an ordinary person if made homeless. The Council said it was “satisfied that despite Mr X’s medical problems and circumstances, Mr X will be able to do the things that (the Council) will expect an ordinary person if made homeless to do, e.g. try and find alternative accommodation, maintain communication” etc.
34. The Council’s decision letter also outlined the next steps it would take which included writing to Mr X’s GP regarding his medical condition and providing him with a list of affordable private rented accommodation. The Council’s case notes do not outline what actions it took in this regard.
35. Mr X said that the Council’s decision letter contained false information stating the Council had given a list of affordable private rented accommodation under the relief duty when it had not done this. Mr X said the letter also stated that he was not vulnerable because of a mental illness or disability (which Mr X said was in contradiction to evidence from the GP) or that he had left his home due to violence or threats of violence (which Mr X said was in contradiction to evidence from his solicitor and the police).
36. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. The Council asked Mr X to fill in a review request form in mid-August 2025 which Mr X completed and returned to the Council. Mr X said he also sent the Council the completed medical form he received from his GP and that the GP had also sent this to the Council directly.
37. Mr X provided us with a copy of the completed medical form from his GP dated early May 2025. This form stated that Mr X had a mental health condition and was on medication for it. The GP also noted that Mr X’s condition had deteriorated since December 2024 and that he had been referred to the community mental health team. The GP also commented that Mr X was sleeping in a car due to which he had many chest infections needing medication, and that his previous address was not safe.
38. In August 2025 the Council also issued a stage one complaint response. In it the Council:

• Acknowledged that the delay in providing Mr X with a formal outcome on his homelessness application was “unacceptable”.
• Apologised for its poor communication and accepted it had not told Mr X of the outcome of his application or the reason for its closure. It said it had closed Mr X’s case in early July 2025 as the 56-day relief duty had ended and Mr X was found not to be in priority need.
• Said it had emailed Mr X and his GP in early May 2025 to request his medical records to determine priority need but had not received a response from the GP or Mr X. The Council said the lack of medical information meant it was unable to fully assess Mr X’s circumstances and confirm priority need. It said it was now awaiting the medical records from his GP.
• Stated that because more than 21 days had passed since Mr X’s case was closed, Mr X would need to make a new homelessness application if he was still homeless.
• Said Mr X’s complaint had highlighted a “critical” failure in its communication procedures and it was taking steps to prevent this from happening again.

39. In mid-September 2025 the Council told Mr X that it would contact him again when it would start looking into his case and that it would let him know if it had not considered his case before the deadline.
40. The Council case notes from late November 2025 showed that there had been no correspondence with Mr X as the caseworker had been “dealing with more urgent cases” and it would look at the review “sooner than later”. The notes also stated that Mr X said he had provided the medical information to the assessment team but this information was not on file.
41. In response to our enquiries the Council said:

• The timeline provided by its caseworker suggested that the Council had received medical information in early May 2025. But the Council was unable to locate the GP medical evidence form on the case files but had an “email record from (mid) November 2025.”
• It had not issued a stage two complaint response due to a backlog and the complaint investigating officer had now received information from the service to enable them to issue a final complaint response.
• It was considering the review request Mr X submitted and it estimated to have a decision by the end of May 2026.

42. The Council issued a stage two complaint response after we issued a draft decision. In it the Council:

• Apologised for the delay in completing a review of its decision on Mr X’s homelessness application which was due to the high volume of cases awaiting review.
• Confirmed that Mr X’s medical records were received by his original case officer during the course of his homelessness application but that officer no longer worked for the Council and it was unable to establish why Mr X’s medical information was not passed to its Reviews team when Mr X requested a review. Further the Council also did not consider this information when Mr X provided it again during the complaint investigation stage. The Council confirmed that the reviewing officer now had the medical information and it would be taken into account when a review decision was made.
• Said the decision made to end the relief duty was based on the information available at the time – the threshold for priority need was not met and therefore temporary accommodation was not offered. The Council said it had acted in accordance with its statutory duties to assess Mr X’s homelessness application and “applying the prevention duty rather than the relief duty” based on the information available at the time. It added that appropriate consideration was given to Mr X’s circumstances including issuing a PHP and a decision on his homelessness application.
• Said Mr X was entitled to join the housing register and the Council said that he should continue exploring accommodation in the private rental sector.
• Said its complaints investigating officer remained in regular contact with Mr X and made enquiries during the winter period to secure emergency assistance and welfare support due to concerns for Mr X’s safety and wellbeing.

43. It offered Mr X a payment of £850 in total to acknowledge the injustice he was caused by its faults. It reassured Mr X that it would issue a review decision as a matter of urgency.

Analysis

Homelessness application

44. Councils only need to have “reason to believe” someone may be homeless, eligible and vulnerable. This threshold is very low, meaning councils do not need to wait for extensive proof and must secure interim accommodation if they suspect that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need.
45. The Council noted that Mr X did not have a priority need when he first contacted the Council for support in March 2025. However, its case notes did not explain how it considered that the “reason to believe” threshold was not met when it decided that Mr X did not have a priority need for a medical or any other reason. Further, the Council made enquiries with Mr X’s GP regarding his medical condition to ascertain his priority which suggests that it had reason to believe Mr X may be medically vulnerable and in priority need. The Council’s failure to properly record its consideration of the reason to believe threshold was fault which leaves doubt over the decision it made at the time.
46. The Council wrote to Mr X’s GP to request his medical information to determine if he was in priority need when it accepted the relief duty. There was no evidence the Council received this information from Mr X’s GP. The Council made the decision to end the relief duty and noted that Mr X was not in priority need without the evidence it had requested to enable it to determine this. While the Council was entitled to make its decision, it should have done more to ensure it had the information it decided it needed to make a decision on Mr X’s priority need. There was no evidence to show it did that which was fault.
47. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what decision the Council would have made if it had received and properly considered the medical information from Mr X’s GP in a timely manner. However, this leaves Mr X with a sense of uncertainty over what the Council may have decided.
48. The Council’s case records of Mr X’s homelessness were poor. The records did not show what steps, if any, the Council took when it accepted the relief duty. The Council stated that it would provide Mr X with a list of private rented accommodation when it accepted and ended the relief duty and as an agreed action in the PHP. There was no evidence to show it did this which was fault.
49. The Council also said it would write to Mr X’s GP again for his medical records when it ended the relief duty and I asked it for an update on this request. The evidence the Council provided did not show it contacted Mr X’s GP again and/or received an update. This was also fault.

Review of homelessness decision

50. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s request for review of its decision in September 2025. It had eight weeks to make this decision and it told us it would provide an outcome by the end of May 2026. The Council’s delay was fault that caused avoidable uncertainty.

Communication and complaint handling

51. The Council accepted that its communication regarding Mr X’s homelessness was poor – it did not inform Mr X of the outcome of his homelessness application and it failed to contact Mr X regarding the delay in reviewing its homelessness decision. This was fault which caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
52. The Council also failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint in line with the timescales set out in its published policy which was fault that added to Mr X’s frustration.

Personal remedy and service improvements

53. In response to our draft decision, the Council issued a stage two complaint response in which it apologised to Mr X and offered to make a payment of £850 to acknowledge the injustice caused by its faults. The Council’s apology and offer of financial payment is in line with our guidance on remedies.
54. Last year we issued a report on a separate complaint about this Council and the way it responded to homelessness applications. We made recommendations to address this and poor complaint handling and it provided evidence of the actions it has taken to address these issues. We have recently recommended the Council make further improvements to its services on similar matters on other complaints therefore I do not consider it necessary to repeat these or make further recommendations on Mr X’s complaint. We are continuing to monitor the Council through our casework.

Back to top

Actions

55. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. If it has not already, pay Mr X £850 in total to acknowledge the avoidable uncertainty caused by the delay in making decisions on his homelessness application, and the time and trouble he was put to due to the Council’s delayed complaint responses.
2. If it has not already, issue a review outcome of its homelessness decision.
56. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman