Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her homeless application. We found the Council’s delay in progressing Ms X’s application and in reaching a decision is fault. This fault did not cause Ms X an injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her homeless application. Specifically that the Council:
• failed to provide her with temporary accommodation when she presented as homeless in December 2023.
• Failed to deal with her application in a trauma informed manner; and
• Wrongly closed her application in June 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law also says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. Ms X complains about events since she presented as homeless in December 2023, however we will not investigate events going back that far. We expect people to come to us within 12 months of them thinking the Council has done something wrong. As Ms X contacted the Ombudsman in October 2025, we will only consider events since October 2024. It was open to Ms X to come to us sooner and I do not consider it appropriate to exercise discretion to consider earlier events
7. I have not investigated the Council’s decision of 24 June 2025 that it did not owe Ms X a homelessness duty. Ms X had a right of review in relation to this decision, which we would have expected her to use. Following which she could have appealed to the county court if necessary.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

10. 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.
11. 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)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is known as the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions, including:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate.
14. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
15. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened here

16. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to our consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened. I have referred to events prior to October 2024 for context only.
17. Ms X presented as homeless in December 2023 and asked for emergency accommodation. The Council accepted a relief duty in January 2024 and asked Ms X to provide additional information. The Council’s records show Ms X declined to provide her bank statements and was unhappy the Council had not provided temporary accommodation.
18. There is no record of any further communication between Ms X and the Council until November 2024 when a new case officer told Ms X they had been allocated to her case. There was then a further period of inactivity until May 2025 when the officer attempted to speak with Ms X.
19. The officer then sent Ms X an email advising that if they were unable to make contact with her, after three attempts they may close the case and the Council would owe Ms X no further duty.
20. Ms X responded expressing surprise at the contact and asked whether the Council was now able to offer her emergency accommodation. She also challenged the suggestion the Council could close her case if she was unable to answer unscheduled phone calls.
21. The officer attempted to call Ms X again the following day and Ms X responded to say she did not answer unscheduled phone calls where that was no caller ID.
22. On 24 June 2025 the Council wrote to Ms X advising it had decided the Council did not owe Ms X a duty. The Council said it had been unable to complete its enquiries despite attempts to contact Ms X and had reached the conclusion she was no longer homeless or threatened with homelessness. It also advised Ms X she could request a review of this decision.
23. Ms X contacted the Council on 10 July 2025 and attached copies of her emails in May 2025. She also reiterated that she had asked the Council not to call her at unscheduled times from an unidentified number. Ms X did not request a review.
24. Ms X was admitted to hospital in mid-July 2025 for five weeks. She says her housing insecurity was a primary factor which led to this life threatening and life changing event.
25. In October 2025 Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about the way it had handled her homelessness application. She complained the Council had ignored her correspondence and wrongly closed her case. Ms X also considered the homeless assessment in January 2024 was invasive, insensitive and useless.
26. The Council responded on 23 October 2025 and told Ms X the issues she had raised were outside the scope of its complaints process. It said matters dating back to January 2024 were outside the 12 month timeframe for submitting a complaint.
27. The Council also said the case officer had not received the emails from Ms X. And that in any event the decision letter informed Ms X she should request a review of the decision within 21 days. The Council had no record of Ms X requesting a review. It suggested that if Ms X still required homelessness assistance she should complete a homelessness referral and it would look into it.
28. Ms X was not satisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns. Ms X says she had to borrow thousands of pounds to fund her own accommodation and experienced avoidable stress and psychological harm.
29. Since complaining to us Ms X has approached the Council again for homelessness assistance. She is unhappy with the way the Council has dealt with this new homeless application and with the temporary accommodation it has provided. These recent concerns do not form part of my investigation. It is open to Ms X to make a further complaint to the Council about her latest homeless application.

Analysis

30. The Council’s records show it took very little action on Ms X’s case between October 2024 and when it closed the case in June 2025. We would have expected the Council to be much more proactive in its enquiries and in reaching a decision. The delays in doing so are fault.
31. However, I do not consider this fault had caused Ms X an injustice. According to the Council’s records Ms X was abroad from October 2024 to January 2025. She returned to the UK for about a month and was then abroad again from February to June 2025. Ms X would not have needed homelessness support from the Council while she was out of the country. Ms X says she was out of the country because the Council refused to provide temporary accommodation. She says she relocated to Europe as accommodation was more affordable. There is no record that Ms X asked for or chased the Council for support or assistance during this period. And she expressed surprise when the Council contacted her in May 2025. Miss X says she had lost faith in the Council.
32. Ms X had a right of review in relation to the decision to close her application and we would expect her to use it.
33. Although Ms X contacted the Council in July 2025, she did not request a review of the decision to close her case. Following her admission to hospital and a recovery period, Ms X again went abroad. Ms X did not seek further homelessness support until she returned to the UK in April 2026.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman