Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed dealing with his homeless application. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in dealing with Mr X’s homeless application. This caused him frustration, upset and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mr X to reflect his injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed dealing with his homeless application. This caused significant distress and upset, and he spent time living on the street.

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 the future we may recommend 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. My investigation covers matters from April to 15 August 2025 (when the Council issued its stage two response to Mr X’s complaint).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X 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 received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

7. 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. This is called the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
8. 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)
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

What happened

10. Mr X completed an online homelessness form in early April 2025. He said he was rough sleeping and had nowhere to stay.
11. The Council assessed Mr X’s case and invited him to attend an appointment on 20 May. Mr X confirmed he would attend. He provided the Council with some documents to support his application before his appointment, including medical information and bank statements.
12. The Council awarded Mr X the relief duty and referred him to its private sector team. Mr X viewed a property on 21 May.
13. Mr X emailed the Council in late May. He said he was waiting for it to provide him with some documents. He said he had viewed a property, and while he liked it, he wanted to view other properties.
14. The Council responded and asked Mr X to provide the outstanding documents, such as his bank statements and his Universal Credit information, so it could progress his application. Mr X replied and said he had already provided his bank statements. He said he had just applied for Universal Credit and so he did not have any other information he could share.
15. Mr X provided the Council with information about his Universal Credit the following day.
16. Mr X emailed the Council in early June and said it had failed to progress his case. The Council responded the following week and said Mr X had not provided the documents it had requested. Mr X responded and provided evidence he had previously provided the documents.
17. The Council responded and said it had uploaded the documents to Mr X’s file. It provided a list of available properties and asked Mr X if he wanted it to arrange a viewing. It also provided Mr X with a copy of his personalised housing plan.
18. Mr X replied and asked the Council some further information about the properties, including whether the property he had previously viewed was still available. He also asked why it had not provided him with interim accommodation. The Council responded and said based on the information Mr X provided he did not meet the criteria for interim accommodation. It explained the private sector team would complete a financial assessment to confirm whether he could afford to rent the properties.
19. Mr X complained to the Council in late June. He said it asked him to provide documents he had already supplied. He also said it had failed to provide him with an update on the properties he had expressed an interest in.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in mid-July. It upheld his complaint and accepted it had asked him for information he had already provided. It also said its private sector team had not been in touch with him. It apologised to Mr X for the injustice caused. It said it would ask Mr X’s housing officer to contact him to discuss the progress of his case. It would also ask the housing officer to contact the private sector team. It would complete these actions by 18 July. It said as learning, it would remind caseworkers to upload documents to the file in a timely manner and check the information before making further requests for information.
21. Mr X referred his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint process. He said it had continued to ask him for information he had already provided and it had continued to delay dealing with his application.
22. The Council spoke to Mr X in early August and explained it would arrange viewings for some properties. It also provided Mr X with some information to help him to search for private sector accommodation.
23. Mr X viewed a property and accepted it on 12 August. He emailed the Council and said he felt forced to take it to relieve his homelessness.
24. The Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint a few days later. It said it failed to contact Mr X by 18 July as it said it would. This lack of contact caused Mr X frustration and upset. It apologised for this. However, it had now been in touch with him to arrange house viewings.

Back to top

Analysis

25. We expect councils to conduct homelessness assessments in a reasonable timeframe. In Mr X’s case, it was seven weeks before it had an appointment with him. Given Mr X had explained he was rough sleeping in his application form, seven weeks was not a reasonable timeframe to assess his application.
26. Mr X provided the Council with the information it had asked for without delay. Despite this, the Council delayed uploading the information onto Mr X’s file and it then repeatedly asked for him information he had already provided. This is fault.
27. The Council delayed providing Mr X with a copy of his personal housing plan. It did not send it until 18 June, one month after its appointment with him.
28. The Council said Mr X’s housing officer would contact him by 18 July to discuss the progress of his case. It also said it would ask the housing officer to contact the private sector team by the same date. This did not happen. Mr X’s housing officer did not contact him at all. The officer from the private sector team did not contact Mr X until 7 August.
29. Mr X told the Council he liked the property he had viewed in May, but he wanted to view other properties so he could make an informed decision. The Council did not arrange for Mr X to view any other properties until August. This is a significant delay. The Council told Mr X it could not progress with any property offers because Mr X had not provided the relevant documents. However, as I have explained above, Mr X had already provided the documents. Therefore, there was no reason why the Council could not have progressed the application.
30. The section 188 duty to arrange interim accommodation is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. The Council should have considered whether Mr X met the threshold for interim accommodation at his appointment on 20 May. Its failure to do so was fault. However, I can see after Mr X raised the issue, the Council explained he did not meet the threshold for interim accommodation. Therefore, the Council’s fault did not cause Mr X a significant injustice as the outcome would have likely been the same.
31. The Council’s faults outlined in paragraph 25 to 29 have caused Mr X frustration and upset at an already difficult time. He also has uncertainty that if the Council had acted without fault, he may have been housed sooner. This is a significant injustice, especially as Mr X explained he was struggling to find somewhere to live and he was rough sleeping.
32. The Council apologised to Mr X when it responded to his complaint and confirmed it would put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault. When it responded to my enquiries, it explained it has increased staff levels in its homelessness department which will prevent some of the delays that Mr X experienced. However, I do not consider this is sufficient to remedy Mr X’s injustice. I make a further recommendation.

Back to top

Action

33. By 24 September 2026 the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £350 to reflect his significant frustration, uncertainty and upset.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

35. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman