Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to make adequate reasonable adjustments for her when it dealt with her homelessness assessment. There was no fault by the Council with how it considered Ms X’s request for reasonable adjustments.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to make adequate reasonable adjustments for her when it dealt with her homelessness assessment. Ms X said this caused delays with completing her homelessness assessment and that she received no support from the Council.

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 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 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated matters from June 2025 to October 2025. This covers the period from when Ms X received a section 21 notice from her previous landlord, and she informed the Council about it to when Ms X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Homelessness

7. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:

• 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))

8. 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)
9. 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)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. This assessment must include:
1. The circumstances that have caused them to become homeless or threatened with homelessness
2. Their housing needs
3. Their support needs (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.7)

Decision letters

11. 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)

Housing Allocations

12. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

Choice based lettings

13. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

Key events

14. Ms X had been on the Council’s housing register for some years.
15. Ms X lived in a private rented property. In June 2025, Ms X received a section 21 notice from her landlord and she notified the Council.
16. On 8 July, the Council contacted Ms X to complete a telephone homelessness assessment. During the telephone call, Ms X provided the Council with some information, but the call got disconnected. The Council called Ms X back and advised it would take an additional 30 minutes to complete the assessment and to discuss available housing options. Ms X said she could not continue with the conversation as she felt unwell. The Council offered to arrange a further telephone assessment at a date and time suitable for Ms X. The Council’s record showed Ms X said she did not wish to continue and that she ended the call. Ms X’s homelessness assessment was not completed.
17. On the same day, the Council issued a section 184 decision letter to Ms X about her homelessness application. The letter stated that the Council owed Ms X no housing duty because she had advised she no longer needed the Council’s assistance and she wished to withdraw her homelessness application.
18. Ms X disputed the content of the ‘no housing duty’ letter. Ms X explained she provided most of the information required and that she felt incredibly anxious during the telephone assessment which was why she could not continue with the assessment.
19. The Council told Ms X that the telephone call ended before all the required information was gathered. It offered Ms X another telephone assessment with a different officer. Ms X asked the Council to provide her with reasonable adjustments by sending her the list of assessment questions, and she would respond via email.
20. The Council advised Ms X it was unable to complete a full homelessness assessment solely through an exchange of emails. The Council then offered Ms X either a:

• telephone assessment at a time that was suitable for her; or
• face-to-face assessment with her at the Council’s office.

21. It explained that the purpose of the options was to allow the Council to explore Ms X’s circumstances fully, seek clarification where required and discuss the available housing options. The Council also provided Ms X with a copy of the assessment template for her to go through and complete as much information as she could in advance and in preparation for either the telephone or face-to-face assessment. The Council said Ms X did not complete or return the assessment template.
22. Ms X said she had already provided the Council with the required information during the initial telephone assessment on 8 July. Ms X said she could do neither a telephone nor a face-to-face assessment due to her anxiety and that there was no audit trail for telephone calls. Ms X reiterated her request for reasonable adjustments for an email assessment.
23. Between July and September, the Council and Ms X exchanged several emails on the same matter.
24. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about how it dealt with her housing case and its refusal to put in place the reasonable adjustments she requested to complete her homelessness assessment.
25. The Council in its responses to Ms X’s complaint:

• said its 8 July 2025 letter was issued in error to Ms X as her assessment was not completed and as such no legal housing duty was accepted. The Council apologised to Ms X for the confusion and distress the letter caused her.
• explained it considered Ms X’s reasonable adjustment request, it offered her either a re-arranged telephone or a face-to-face assessment at a time which was convenient for her and it adapted its process by sending Ms X the assessment template to complete before an assessment was scheduled to minimize the impact on her health.
• acknowledged Ms X provided it with some information during the initial telephone assessment, but it was unable to complete her assessment due to insufficient information. The Council said it needed to revisit certain questions to fully understand her housing circumstance and to decide and confirm the relevant housing duty outcome to her in writing.

26. On 1 September, Ms X told the Council that the section 21 notice had expired. Ms X continued to remain in her private rented accommodation.
27. In October, Ms X successfully bid for a property through the Council’s choice based letting scheme which was assessed to meet her needs. Ms X’s tenancy for the social rented property started at the end of October.
28. In its response to our enquiries, the Council:

• said Ms X’s case should have been recorded as an incomplete assessment which was closed as requested by Ms X. The Council accepted the ‘no housing duty’ letter it issued to Ms X on 8 July was inappropriate.
• recognised that Ms X experienced difficulty with the assessment process and in hindsight, it could have been helpful to have provided her earlier with a single clear written explanation. The Council said it could have set out the information it already gathered, the required outstanding information, the reason for the required information and the status of Ms X’s homelessness application.
• apologised for the confusion and additional uncertainty caused to Ms X by the Council’s incorrect letter and any lack of clarity in its subsequent communication about the assessment process.
• said there was no evidence that Ms X lost a specific housing opportunity or experienced a prolonged period of homelessness due to her incomplete assessment.

29. The Council also said it would share the following service learning from Ms X’s case with relevant staff:

• a section 184 decision letter must not be issued unless the Council has obtained sufficient information to reach the relevant statutory decision;
• where an applicant becomes distressed or cannot complete an assessment, the status of the application should be confirmed clearly;
• alternative methods of completing the assessment should be considered and recorded.

Analysis

30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
31. In line with the homelessness code of guidance, councils are required to complete an initial interview for homeless applicants which is usually at least one face-to-face interview. However, where that is not possible or does not meet the applicant’s needs, assessments could be completed on the telephone or internet or with the assistance of a partner agency.
32. While I note Ms X’s requested reasonable adjustment for her homelessness assessment to be completed via email, I find the Council considered her request and it explained it could not complete a homelessness assessment solely by email. The Council offered her other options to complete her assessment on different occasions which included sending Ms X an assessment template in advance to support her. The Council also explained to Ms X why it needed to properly assess her homelessness situation and to discuss available housing options with her. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make, and we cannot question the outcome. This was not fault.
33. Because the Council could not complete its assessment, it did not have enough information to decide what, if any, further duty it owed to Ms X. It could not, therefore, identify any actions for a personalised housing plan or take steps to help Ms X.
34. In any event, as Ms X secured accommodation before she needed to leave her private tenancy, any injustice to her from any faults in the homelessness process is limited.
35. I note the Council already accepted it issued the section 184 decision letter to Ms X in error on 8 July 2025 and its lack of clarity in its subsequent communication about the homelessness assessment process. The Council apologised and stated it would put in place some service improvements as a result. This is welcome and I find the remedies are proportionate in line with our guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault by the Council in how it dealt with Ms X’s request for reasonable adjustments to complete her homelessness assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman