Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed progressing Mr X’s homelessness application by failing to make timely and appropriate enquiries into Mr X’s evidence. This caused Mr X uncertainty and avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy this injustice. The Council was also at fault for failing to offer Mr X reasonable adjustments due to his disabilities. This caused further avoidable distress. The Council has already apologised and put measures in place to support Mr X going forward. I consider that sufficient to remedy the injustice this caused Mr X. The Council agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his homelessness application between July and November 2025. He said the Council delayed assessing his application, failed to properly consider his medical evidence showing that his current accommodation was unsuitable, and did not make reasonable adjustments to meet his needs.

2. Mr X said these failings caused him avoidable distress, worsened his health, made it more difficult for him to engage with the Council, and left him living in unsuitable accommodation. He wants the Council to progress his application, provide suitable permanent accommodation near his support network, apologise, and make a financial payment to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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

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 definition

9. 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)
10. Someone is threatened with homelessness if:

• 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)

Section 21 notice

11. A section 21 notice prior to May 2026 allowed a landlord to serve a valid notice on an assured shorthold tenant requiring them to leave, usually giving at least two months’ notice.

Applications

12. 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

13. 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)

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

14. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
15. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
16. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services, but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

Background

17. Mr X has autism, which makes him highly sensitive to noise. In 2021, the Council accepted the relief duty after he presented as homeless and provided him with interim accommodation. Later that year, he secured a room in a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) outside the Council’s borough, property A. Securing property A meant the Council ended its homelessness duty towards Mr X.

Matters subject to investigation

18. Late in July 2025 Mr X contacted the Council and made an online homelessness application. He said it was no longer reasonable for him to live at property A due to anti-social behaviour (ASB) and excessive noise from neighbouring occupants which caused him anxiety and distress. To support his application Mr X submitted two medical reports that confirmed his various mental health disorder diagnoses.
19. Through his application Mr X stated it was safe to call him and leave voicemail messages, but he preferred to communicate via email. He also informed the Council he needed support as he had difficulties budgeting, had a history of mental health problems and learning disabilities and needed benefits to go towards housing costs.
20. The same day the Council sent Mr X his Personal Housing Plan (PHP) via the portal. It said his PHP was now available to view in the portal, but he needed to create an account before he was able to view it. The message further explained that to create an account he needed to paste the link available into his browser address bar and press return. The message ended informing him the link expired in seven days.
21. In early August the Council contacted Mr X again through the portal asking him for proof of identification.
22. A few days later, Mr X complained to the Council. He said it delayed processing his application as nobody had contacted him and he was still living at property A.
23. A week later, Mr X contacted the Council again as he had no response to his complaint and the Council was in breach of the Equality Act for failing to make reasonable adjustments due to his disabilities. He said he needed the Council to provide clear instructions on how and where to submit his supporting evidence.
24. In August the Council asked Mr X to provide a police report outlining he should no longer remain at property A. It said he had 24 hours to submit this and failure to provide this information would result in it closing his homeless application.
25. In early September the Council responded to Mr X at its stage one. The Council informed Mr X he needed to contact his landlord first to report ASB and failing their action, contact his local council to report ASB or go to the police in an event of a serious incident. It further reminded Mr X to provide a Section 21 notice or police report advising him not to return to property A which would evidence he was at risk of becoming homeless. The Council concluded without the requested documents it could not proceed with his application.
26. The same day, unhappy about the Council’s response, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. He said the Council asked him to provide this additional evidence, which he said were both irrelevant to his situation and it did not tell him how to submit the additional information. He further said, contacting the police about the ASB at property A would put him at risk of exposing himself to further harm and the Council’s delay in progressing his application, had a significant impact on his mental health.
27. In mid-September, the Council assigned Mr X’s case to a housing officer, Mr Z, who sent him documents to complete and attempted to contact him by telephone. Mr Z instead suggested an in-person appointment. Mr X explained that, due to his disabilities, he struggled with in-person appointments but asked if he could use a recording device as he might not be able to fully understand everything Mr Z would say to him in the meeting. Mr Z confirmed that this was not permitted but offered to conduct the assessment by telephone instead.
28. In late September Mr Z sent Mr X further information about the portal. He explained it uses the portal to collate documents and Mr X can use it to upload his evidence and find out if any other documents were outstanding.
29. In late September, an NHS community-based mental health service - which provides mental health care for adults - issued a letter stating Mr X’s current accommodation in an HMO was wholly unsuitable.
30. In October, the Council's stage two complaint response accepted there had been a gap in communication between his application and the Council reaching out to him late in August and that it should have made further enquiries into Mr X's circumstances. It said that, although there was evidence of Mr X's difficulties with noise, there was insufficient evidence to conclude it was unreasonable for him to remain at property A. The Council said Mr Z would next fully assess his homelessness application. It further acknowledged it failed to offer him to make reasonable adjustments required by Mr X’s disability and apologised for this oversight, but Mr Z would help him with uploading documents in the future.
31. A day after the Council’s final complaint response, Mr X complained to the Council again. He said it failed to implement the findings and provisions it agreed to in its response to him a day earlier.
32. A few days later Mr X complained to us.
33. In late October, Mr Z informed Mr X that the Council had agreed to implement the following reasonable adjustments. The Council would:
• no longer attempt to communicate with Mr X by telephone; and
• arrange an appointment in a quiet meeting room near its main reception area and proposed an appointment time for the following week.
34. In late October the Council responded to Mr X’s second complaint from earlier in the month. It acknowledged it needed to make reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act and decided his case worker was to communicate in writing only and would assist him in uploading information to support his application.

My findings

Mr X’s homelessness application

35. Mr X said property A was unsuitable because his medically evidenced hypersensitivity to noise was worsened by his disabilities, and because he was experiencing excessive noise and violent behaviour from other occupants, which he considered to be ASB.
36. The Council considered Mr X’s medical evidence and accepted that it established he is hypersensitive to noise. It decided further information about Mr X’s living conditions and alleged ASB was needed to decide whether it was unreasonable for him to remain at property A. However, rather than making those enquiries, it told Mr X it would close his homelessness application unless he provided a police report or section 21 notice. The Council later acknowledged that a police report was not strictly necessary and that it should have considered making further enquiries and then assess the information available to decide whether it was sufficient to make a decision on Mr X’s application. The Council was therefore not at fault for failing to consider Mr X’s medical evidence, but was at fault for failing to make timely enquiries and properly assess all evidence alongside Mr X’s housing circumstances. This caused a delay in progressing Mr X’s homelessness application and uncertainty.
37. The Council apologised for the delay in Mr X’s homelessness application in October and said Mr Z would next consider all evidence before deciding Mr X’s application. I do not consider the Council’s apology sufficient to remedy Mr X’s uncertainty caused by the delay.

Failure to offer reasonable adjustments

38. Even though Mr X could have been more specific when he stated his support needs as part of his homelessness application form in line with paragraph 19 above, the Council had a duty to consider reasonable adjustments as it was aware of Mr X’s disabilities. In its stage two complaint response, it acknowledged that it should have offered him assistance in managing his homelessness approach, given the medical information available when he applied.
39. The Council’s failure to offer appropriate assistance when Mr X first contacted it in July 2025 was fault and caused him avoidable distress. However, the Council accepted this failure, apologised, and put measures in place to provide the assistance identified in paragraphs 33 and 34. I find the Council’s actions including its apology provided a suitable remedy for the avoidable distress it caused.

Back to top

Actions

40. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following actions:
1. Apologise and make a payment of £100 to Mr X in recognition of the uncertainty the Council caused by failing to make further enquiries which delayed Mr X’s housing application.

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 the apology I have recommended.

2. Remind staff by way of briefing or training:
• of its duty to make enquiries to establish what further homelessness duty, if any, it owes an applicant, recognising that the threshold for making such enquiries is low; and
• of its anticipatory duty to consider reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and, where an applicant indicates they may need support, proactively ask whether any adjustment is required to enable them to access and use its services.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I have found fault and the Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman