Summary: There is no fault in how the Council handled a section 202 review. However, the Council delayed dealing with the homeless application after withdrawing the original decision, failed to record the reasoning for its decision Mr X did not have priority need, failed to respond to his emails and wrongly refused to respond to the complaint. That caused Mr X distress and left him with some uncertainty. The Council will apologise, make a payment to Mr X and provide guidance to officers.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council:
• failed to carry out a section 202 review;
• failed to issue a revised decision after withdrawing the original decision;
• failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he had provided evidence to show he had a priority need;
• ignored his emails; and
• wrongly refused to consider his complaint.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions had a serious impact on his health as he had to sleep rough.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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.
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Mr X and the organisation 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

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)
11. 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)
12. The threshold for triggering the section 188(1) duty is low as the housing authority only has to have a reason to believe (rather than being satisfied) that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.5)
13. Applicants have the right to request the housing authority review their decisions on homelessness cases in some circumstances. If the request is made in accordance with section 202 of the Housing Act the housing authority, or housing authorities, concerned must review the relevant decision. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 19.2)

What happened

14. Mr X approached the Council as homeless in November 2024. Mr X said he had slept rough for some time. The Council asked Mr X for supporting documentation, which he provided.
15. Mr X asked the Council to provide him with accommodation. The Council told Mr X he did not meet the threshold as without a full medical summary the Council was not satisfied he had a priority need. Mr X provided the Council with a medical summary from his GP later in November. The Council referred that to an occupational therapist who did not consider Mr X had a priority need. The Council told Mr X that and provided him with details of shelters which provided accommodation.
16. The Council made further enquiries with other local authorities on Mr X’s homeless application in December. The Council identified a potential address for Mr X. The Council told Mr X it had not verified he was homeless as it had not been able to verify the details of the friend Mr X said he had stayed with. The Council asked Mr X about what it considered conflicting information he had provided in support of his homeless application.
17. In January 2025 the outreach team told the Council an officer had spoken to Mr X on Christmas Eve. The outreach team said Mr X had presented as well dressed and without any belongings. The team told the Council the way Mr X presented did not suggest rough sleeping. The team told the Council they had offered to refer Mr X for the ‘no second night out scheme’ so he would have a bed space but he refused as the space was in Hackney and he wanted to remain in Camden. The team also told the Council they had also asked Mr X to return that day for accommodation and he had not done so.
18. The Council contacted Mr X to provide details of shelters available. Mr X said he did not want a shelter and instead wanted a decision on his homeless application. Mr X chased the Council for that decision in February.
19. On 4 March 2025 the Council sent Mr X a decision on his homeless application. The Council explained it had found Mr X not homeless as it believed he had accommodation available elsewhere. The letter also went through the conflicting information the Council said Mr X had provided. Mr X asked for a review of that decision.
20. The Council completed the review on 28 May and withdrew the decision that Mr X was not homeless. The Council told Mr X it would carry out new enquiries.
21. Mr X chased the Council in May, July, August and September. When he did not receive a response Mr X put in a complaint. The Council said it would not put that complaint through its complaints procedure as Mr X could use the review process.
22. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman contacted the Council. That prompted the Council to allocate an officer to deal with Mr X’s homeless application. That officer contacted Mr X on 21 November. Mr X told the Council he remained homeless and was rough sleeping. Mr X said his health status and vulnerability made rough sleeping dangerous for his physical and mental well-being. Mr X provided updated medical information from his GP.
23. The Council provided Mr X with temporary accommodation in December. The Council cancelled that temporary accommodation in January 2026 when it closed Mr X’s homeless application again due to issues which fall outside the scope of my investigation.

Analysis

24. Mr X says the Council failed to carry out a section 202 review when he asked for it. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council carried out a section 202 review as it cancelled the original not homeless decision and referred the case back to the homeless team. I therefore could not say the Council failed to carry out the review.
25. I am, however, concerned about what happened after that. The Council told Mr X in June 2025 it would refer the complaint back to the team to consider his homeless application. However, there is no evidence the Council took any action on the application until November 2025. The Council says the delay occurred because of changes to the way its homeless team operated. The Council also says it needed further information from Mr X before it could make a decision on his application. I cannot criticise the Council for asking Mr X for more information. However, failure to ask for that information until November 2025 is fault.
26. Mr X says the Council ignored his medical evidence when considering whether to provide him with interim accommodation in 2024. I am satisfied the Council provided its occupational therapist with a copy of the medical summary from Mr X’s GP in November 2024. I am satisfied that occupational therapist told the Council they did not consider Mr X had a priority need based on that medical summary.
27. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. I could not say the Council failed to consider the medical evidence Mr X provided because it referred the evidence to an occupational therapist for a view. However, although the occupational therapist noted they had considered the GP summary there is no explanation as to why they did not consider Mr X had a priority need. In this case I consider that fault because the GP summary provided detail about the impact on Mr X’s venous insufficiency of not having access to accommodation and having to walk throughout the day and night.
28. It is not for me to say whether the Council should have treated Mr X as in priority need. However, as there is no explanation for the occupational therapist’s view I am not satisfied Mr X’s medical conditions were properly considered when deciding he did not have priority need in 2024. I consider Mr X is therefore left with some uncertainty about whether the Council would have reached a different decision had it properly considered his medical evidence.
29. I am also concerned when Mr X initially asked for temporary accommodation when he made his homeless application the Council told him it could not consider that until it had a GP summary. I am concerned that is potentially gatekeeping because the bar is low for deciding whether a homeless applicant has priority need. The Council does not need to be satisfied the applicant has a priority need. The Council only needs reason to believe the applicant has a priority need. I therefore consider the approach of requiring applicants to provide a GP summary before the Council will consider priority need, fault.
30. Mr X says the Council failed to respond to his emails and telephone calls after it agreed to withdraw the original homeless decision in May 2025. In response the Council says Mr X did not contact it after February 2025 except when he emailed a manager that had already left the Council’s employment. The Council’s view is not supported by the documentary evidence.
31. The documentary evidence shows Mr X repeatedly contacted the Council between July and September 2025 chasing what was happening with his homeless application. I am satisfied those emails were sent to Council email addresses other than the email address for the officer that had left. Failure to respond to those communications is fault. I am particularly concerned about that because if the Council had dealt with those emails properly it would have identified the need to consider Mr X’s homeless application earlier.
32. Mr X says the Council should not have closed his complaint in September 2025 when it had not sorted out the underlying issues. The evidence I have seen satisfies me when Mr X put in a complaint in September 2025 he was complaining about the following matters:
• the Council's failure to issue a new decision after withdrawing the previous homeless decision;
• the Council's failure to provide him with interim accommodation;
• the Council's failure to respond to his correspondence.
33. The evidence shows the Council declined to accept that as a complaint because Mr X had access to an internal review procedure to allow him to challenge the Council's decisions on housing register applications.
34. I am concerned about the Council's approach here. First, the Council's response refers to a housing register application when the matters concerned a homeless application. The Council is right to say the complaint process cannot be used to challenge decisions where there is a right of review. However, in this case Mr X did not have a right of review because the Council had withdrawn the original homeless decision following Mr X asking for a review. Mr X therefore did not have any review rights at that point. In those circumstances the Council should have accepted Mr X's complaint and responded to it. Failure to do that is fault.
35. I am also concerned the Council failed at this stage to identify it had not issued Mr X with a further decision on his homeless application. This was a missed opportunity and is fault.
36. I am satisfied the delays processing Mr X’s homeless application between June and November 2025 also delayed the Council asking Mr X for further supporting information. That is significant in this case because Mr X provided the Council with updated medical information in November 2025. I consider it likely that medical information convinced the Council to provide Mr X with temporary accommodation in December 2025. I therefore consider it likely, on the balance of probability, if the Council had not delayed it would have asked Mr X for further evidence in June 2025 and Mr X would likely have provided that information promptly. As the Council then provided Mr X with temporary accommodation in December 2025 I consider it likely, again on the balance of probability, the Council would have provided Mr X with temporary accommodation in or around June 2025 had it not delayed.
37. However, I am also aware there have been developments with Mr X’s homeless application since I began my investigation. I cannot comment on those developments as they fall outside the scope of my investigation. However, the new developments are relevant when considering what injustice Mr X has experienced because of fault by the Council. The evidence I have is that the Council has again closed Mr X’s homeless application and withdrawn the temporary accommodation. Using the same test of balance of probability I consider it likely Mr X would have been in the same situation, but earlier, if the Council had not delayed. So, I could not say fault by the Council left Mr X without accommodation between May and November 2025.
38. I am satisfied though Mr X has suffered distress and some uncertainty about whether things would have gone differently had the Council not acted with fault. Mr X has also experienced distress because he had to chase the Council between June and November 2025. I consider a suitable remedy for the distress and uncertainty would be for the Council to apologise to Mr X and pay him £600. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
39. I also recommended the Council provide guidance to officers dealing with homeless applications about how to assess priority need and the fact there is a low bar to reach at initial application stage. That guidance should make clear requiring applicants to provide a GP summary before the Council considers priority need is not acceptable. The Council should also provide the complaints team with guidance about the circumstances in which the Council can refuse to consider a complaint. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Action

40. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr X £600;
• provide guidance to officers dealing with homeless applications about how to how to assess priority need and the fact there is a low bar to reach at initial application stage. That guidance should make clear requiring applicants to provide a GP summary before the Council considers priority need is not acceptable.
• provide guidance to the complaints team about the circumstances in which the Council can refuse to consider a complaint.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman