Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to provide him with homelessness support and temporary accommodation, so he and his family became street homeless causing distress and impacting onto their health and well-being. The Council has accepted it was at fault because it delayed contacting Mr X and providing him with advice. It has already apologised to Mr X and offered him a payment in recognition of the distress caused. We have completed our investigation as the Council’s offer is a suitable one to remedy the injustice caused in this case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to provide him with timely homelessness support and temporary accommodation (TA) which resulted in the family being street homeless causing distress and impacting onto their health and well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint from his approach to the Council in May 2025 to October 2025 when Mr X secured accommodation and complained to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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 statutory guidance

7. 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.
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)

The prevention duty

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation s 188

11. 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)
12. 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.

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.

What happened in this case

14. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include all the information I considered as part of my investigation.
15. Mr X lived in a privately rented property with his wife and adult son. Mr X submitted an online housing advice form to the Council on 3 May 2025 as his landlord was seeking possession of the property. The landlord’s Section 21 notice expired on 31 March 2025, and the courts granted the possession order for 20 August 2025.
16. Mr X complained to the Council on 10 August 2025 a housing officer failed to contact him despite his visits to the Council offices and reporting the eviction order. Mr X asked the Council to progress his homelessness application as a priority and secure suitable TA for his family.
17. A housing officer contacted Mr X on 18 August 2025 to arrange an assessment of his circumstances on 19 August 2025. Mr X could not attend the appointment offered in the morning. The housing officer rearranged it for later in the day saying they were mindful Mr X would be homeless the next day and wanted to discuss the options with him. Mr X asked the housing officer to reschedule it for 20 August 2025, the date of the family’s eviction from the property.
18. The housing officer carried out a vulnerability assessment on Mr X and drew up a personalised housing plan (PHP) on 21 August 2025. Mr X said he had not looked for alternative private accommodation as it was too expensive. Mr X provided information about the health conditions of the family, so the Council sent it immediately to its medical adviser to consider.
19. The medical adviser considered the family’s medical needs but said they did not have any medical priority or that they were significantly vulnerable. The housing officer told Mr X they were not awarded any medical priority or vulnerability.
20. The Council accepted a relief duty towards Mr X on 22 August 2025 as it considered he was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a local connection to the Council. The Council told Mr X about the relief duty, and his right to request a review of the decision.
21. Mr X complained to the Council again on 21 August 2025 it had failed to help prevent their homelessness and to provide relief once they became homeless. Mr X said the family had been turned away from the Council offices and separately had to find accommodation including sleeping at a place of worship.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage 1 of the complaint procedure on 26 August 2025. It noted Mr X had submitted the online housing advice form in May 2025. A housing officer had spoken to Mr X on 18 August 2025 and given advice about his rights as a tenant in the private rented sector.
23. The Council noted Mr X had asked for TA for his household. It confirmed the housing officer had assessed Mr X’s situation, gained medical information for the whole family and sought medical advice from an independent medical adviser. The officer used the information to determine whether the Council had a duty to provide Mr X and family with TA. The officer told Mr X on 21 August 2025 the duty did not arise as the Council had no reason to believe the household was vulnerable. The Council then accepted a relief duty towards Mr X and the housing officer explained the options available to him. The Council apologised for the delayed response time which had been due to staff shortages and said it would be supporting him to find suitable alternative accommodation.
24. Mr X remained unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response and asked to go to stage 2. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not provided him with TA and did not advise this would be the case before the eviction. Mr X also complained about the time taken to allocate his housing advice case to a housing officer.
25. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint, confirmed the contact with Mr X, the assessment on 20 August 2025 and decision not to provide him with TA. The Council noted Mr X said he had attended the Council offices during May, June and July with the bailiff’s warrant. And told to upload the documents to his online form. The Council confirmed it had no record of contact from Mr X on those dates. It assumed Mr X had spoken to the Customer Fulfilment team who provided the advice. But the team did not pass any information onto Housing Solutions.
26. The Council explained residents are advised to submit an online housing advice form. It should be allocated to a housing officer within two working days and then contact made within 10 working days. The Council accepted the Housing Solutions team had not made contact until 18 August 2025 and only after Mr X complained. It also accepted that when Mr X went to the Council’s offices officers should have taken his details with advice being given by the Housing Solutions team. But there was no record the Housing Solutions team were notified and therefore aware he had been to the offices.
27. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint about the delay in contacting him until 18 August 2025. And that he was not provided with appropriate advice when he attended the Council offices before then. The Council apologised for the distress caused and offered Mr X a payment of £250 to acknowledge the service failures and impact onto Mr X and his family
28. The Council confirmed the delays were due to staff shortages and it was attempting to trying to resolve the issue through a recruitment campaign to become fully staffed. It would also remind staff of the timescales to allocate cases and for contact to be made. And to ensure that all contacts are logged on the duty/call log so Housing Solutions are aware of them.
29. The Council noted Mr X requested it reconsider the decision not to provide him with TA. The Council advised it could not review the assessment on his priority need through the complaint procedure. This was because Mr X had a statutory right to request a review of some decisions and this was the route to take.
30. Mr X and his family moved into a two bedroomed property in October 2025 and complained to us. Mr X says the Council’s failure to provide support, and TA has caused his wife to have suicidal thoughts and be referred to mental health services for intervention.

My assessment

31. The evidence provided shows the Council considered whether its duty to provide Mr X with interim accommodation was triggered in August 2025. The accommodation would be interim at this point rather than TA. The Council carried out an assessment of Mr X’s circumstances and earned medical advice. It determined that Mr X and family were not significantly vulnerable. This was because they were an adult household and had no dependent children or medical needs. So, there was therefore no duty to provide interim accommodation. I am aware Mr X does not agree but is a merits decision the Council is entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault as the documents show the Council considered the information provided including medical advice.
32. The Council has however acknowledged it did not contact Mr X in May 25 after he submitted the housing advice form. And it missed opportunities to contact him in June and July when he attended the Council offices. This is fault by the Council, as it has accepted, because it did not trigger his homelessness application sooner than it did in August 2025. If it had then the Council would have been able to give Mr X advice and assess his circumstances much earlier. Although I consider the Council was likely to come to same view about the vulnerability of Mr X and his family. And so, Mr X would have been aware earlier in the process the Council would not provide him with interim accommodation as it did not consider he was vulnerable and therefore not in priority need.
33. I consider the injustice caused to Mr X by the Council’s fault is uncertainty. This was about whether it would offer him interim accommodation and offer him advice sooner. If so, it would have made Mr X aware he would need to secure his own interim, temporary or more permanent accommodation once evicted. The Council has already apologised to Mr X and offered him a payment of £250 to recognise the distress caused and the service failures leading to delay in contacting him. While I am aware Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s offer the payment is in line with our Guidance on Remedies for a symbolic distress payment so is a suitable offer for Council to make to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused. In view of this we would not seek or recommend a higher payment for Mr X. The Council may wish to remake the offer to Mr X, and it will be for Mr X to decide whether to accept it.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice and the Council has already offered suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman