Summary: Miss D says the Council failed to progress her housing and homelessness case. I have found the Council at fault. It delayed progressing the case at times, failed to notify Miss D when key officers changed and failed to take forward a housing review request for ten months. The Council has agreed to pay Miss D redress for distress and to make a service improvement regarding the process for reallocating officers on a housing case.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council has failed to progress her housing case and provide updates. Miss D says the Council should rehouse her.

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 future we may suggest 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. I have investigated events from January 2025 to 30 September when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. If Miss D is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions after that, including how it dealt with a referral to Environmental Health, she would need to make a new complaint to the Council. Once she completes that process she can bring those more recent issues to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

7. In December 2024 Miss D asked the Council for homelessness assistance. She had received a Notice to Quit her rental property by February 2025. The Council carried out a homelessness assessment and the Housing Officer (Officer A) advised they would speak to the landlord to see if Miss D could remain at the property.

Events I have investigated

8. On 3 January 2025 Officer A spoke to the landlord who maintained they wanted to sell the property. At the end of January Officer A advised Miss D they had told the landlord they would need to obtain a possession order and Miss D could remain until that point. The Council says Officer A accepted a prevention duty towards Miss D on 30 January, however I cannot see any notification was sent. On 10 February the Council received a copy of the eviction notice from Miss D. It requested additional documents from Miss D to decide if she was eligible for homelessness assistance.
9. On 4 March the Council notified Ms D that it had accepted a prevention duty towards her and sent her a personalised housing plan (PHP) which recorded the health conditions of the household and the family needed a ground floor wheelchair accessible home. The PHP stated that Officer A’s referral to a housing organisation, which helps secure permanent and affordable housing for homeless families, (Housing Solutions) should also state Miss D needed to remain near family members. That should be done within 56 days. At some point after 4 March Officer A left the case, I do not have a clear date from the Council.
10. On 19 June the Council booked a housing assessment meeting with Miss D for 26 June. The Council says that in June the ‘case was referred to’ the Lettings Team and the Housing Solutions ‘to assist with finding alternative accommodation and viewings’. On 26 June Officer B was asked to assist with the case. The Council says this was due to staff shortages so an Officer ‘from the general team’ was asked to progress the case. On the same day Officer B met Miss D for the assessment. They recorded the Notice to Quit had expired and no possession order had been obtained by the landlord. Miss D’s case was with the Lettings Team, and she had attended one property viewing which had been unsuccessful. They noted the case was also with Housing Solutions. The Officer said they would contact Housing Solutions and the Lettings Team to chase up the referrals and for Miss D to be ‘sent to any suitable and affordable viewings’. The same day Officer B recorded they had sent emails to Housing Solutions and the Lettings Team.
11. On 4 August Miss D complained to the Council. She had not received contact from Officer B since June. She asked the Council to assign her a new Housing Officer. Miss D said she was overcrowded and facing homelessness. She had been advised to use medical equipment but there was no room to accommodate it in her property. She wanted the Council to review her housing priority (banding) and needed assistance from a Housing Officer. On 22 August the Council replied to the complaint. It said Miss D was in band B (homelessness relief scheme). Miss D told the Council she had received an eviction notice, but she was not considered homeless at present and could stay at the property until the landlord obtained a possession order. The Council said the Officer B had taken actions in the case; however it also apologised for a lack of communications by that Officer since June. It had escalated the matter to a Manager to ensure service improvements were made in respect of Officer B.
12. On 26 August Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She said Officer B had minimal involvement and most actions on her case had been carried out by Officer A. She understood Officer B had chased up the Lettings Team and the Housing Solutions referral once, but she had heard nothing back. Miss D said she was not informed when Officer A left the Council. She had not heard from the Lettings Team since April. She repeated her request for a new Housing Officer. She also said the initial complaint response had not addressed her concerns about overcrowding and being unable to store mobility equipment. The Council should rehouse her. On 25 September the Council noted a new appointment had been booked with a Housing Officer (Officer C) on 24 October ‘to progress her case’.
13. On 30 September the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It accepted there had been a delay allocating Officer B to the case. It said Officer B had interviewed Miss D on 26 June and followed up on referrals made by Officer A. However there was no further contact or casework noted on the case file. The Council said Officer B had not formally assigned the case to her workload when it was allocated, as a result the case did not appear on her weekly reports to be managed. A Housing Manager would oversee the case and had spoken to Miss D. Miss D had reiterated she wanted a new Housing Officer. The Council set out the performance improvement measures now in place for Officer B and they would attend training. The Council also said it would carry out an assessment for the suitability of any new accommodation when it was in a position to place Miss D in alternative accommodation. It accepted the case had not been correctly managed and apologised for frustration and delay.

Events outside my investigation timeframe

14. In October a new Housing Officer was formally allocated to Miss D’s case (Officer C). They met Miss D and recorded the Notice to Quit had expired and was invalid, Miss D was no longer threatened with homelessness. Miss D said she was overcrowded and could not accommodate mobility equipment at her home. Miss D said there was disrepair in the property also making it unsuitable. Officer C emailed Environmental Health and the Private Sector Enforcement Team to consider if Miss D was overcrowded and in unsuitable accommodation.

What should have happened

Threatened with homelessness

15. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

16. 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)

Duty to provide Advisory Services

17. Councils must provide to anyone in their district information and advice free of charge on:
    preventing homelessness;

• securing accommodation when homeless;
• the rights of people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the duties of the authority;
• any help that is available from the authority or anyone else, for people in the council’s district who are homeless or may become homeless (whether or not they are threatened with homelessness); and
• how to access that help.

The prevention duty

18. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

19. 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 (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

20. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Allocation of housing officers

21. I asked the Council about the process when a case is reallocated to a new officer. It says where an applicant requests a reallocation a Manager will review the case to see if the existing officer has acted correctly. The case may then be reassigned, and the Council should notify the applicant.

Review

22. A housing register applicant can ask the Council to review its banding decision. The Council should direct the applicant to complete a change of circumstances form. If there is a medical housing need the applicant should also fill out a medical assessment form and supply medical evidence. The Council will then review the information to determine if the banding is correct. A decision is issued to the applicant usually within eight weeks.

Was there fault by the Council

23. Miss D says the Council failed to notify her when Officers left and her case was reassigned. The evidence does not show the Council notified Miss D when Officers left her case. I consider the Council at fault for failing to tell Miss D about the changes to Officers at the time. In its response to me the Council says it notes it should review its processes ‘and consider a procedure for how cases are allocated to a new officer’.
24. Miss D says Officers failed to progress her case. The Council has already accepted there was fault in its complaint responses, and the case was not properly managed at times. I have found periods of delay progressing the case. The Council says a prevention duty was accepted on 30 January 2025, but the notification and PHP were not sent to Miss D until 5 March, a delay of over four weeks. I also have no evidence to show how the Lettings Team and Housing Solutions referrals were progressed between March and June or in August and September.
25. On 4 August Miss D asked the Council, as part of her complaint, to review her banding. The Council failed to do so. I asked the Council about this and it stated Miss D’s concerns about overcrowding and disrepair had been referred to the appropriate teams at the Council. I have seen no evidence that Miss D’s request for a review of her housing band was considered or taken forward in August. I asked the Council in June 2026 to consider the review request, and I understand it then sent Miss D a change of circumstances form to complete alongside a medical assessment form. I see no reason why that action was not taken in August 2025. There was a delay of 10 months by the Council.
26. Miss D says the complaint responses from the Council were incorrect about actions taken by Officers. My summary of the key events, above, shows what took place and which Officers were responsible for actions on the case. The Council also dealt with this matter in its final stage complaint response and gave a correct explanation of events regarding Officer A and Officer B. I do not see there is fault by the Council in this matter.

Did the fault cause an injustice

27. The faults identified in this case caused Miss D avoidable distress due to the delays and lack of communication from the Council.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss D the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Miss D £200 for distress
• Issue Miss D a letter of apology
29. In addition, if the Council increases Miss D’s banding/ housing priority after considering her review request, it should assess whether the delay in progressing the review request caused Miss D an injustice. If there was an injustice the Council should take account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on redress when considering if a remedy is required.
30. The Council should also notify us about what service improvement it will make in respect of issuing procedural guidance for staff on how to reallocate officers to a case.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman