Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application from Autumn 2025, and its failure to provide interim accommodation for him. We found fault by the Council for a five-week period where it should have provided such accommodation and some delay in its communication. There was no fault on other matters complained about. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact its faults caused Mr X. It also agreed to carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his request for support with homelessness since Autumn 2025. He said it:
• failed to follow housing law as it did not provide his homelessness review decision and interim accommodation decisions as promised or required.
• wrongly decided it did not owe an interim accommodation duty and based this on wrong facts. He said it held records of his homelessness and health issues;
• failed to provide him with interim accommodation under its discretionary powers and when it accepted a relief duty in late 2025;
• wrongly issued a personal housing plan which was pre-completed and he did not fully agree to, and served a warning of non-corporation; and
• ignored his reasonable adjustment request for written only contact.
2. Mr X also said it had since completed the review of its homelessness decision and found he is not in priority need, caused delay in providing its response to his information requests, and ended its relief duty early or at an incorrect date.
3. Mr X said, as a result, he experienced distress, uncertainty, and has been left homeless which has further impacted his mental and physical health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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.
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. The law 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)
9. 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

10. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application between late September 2025 to January 2026.
11. I have not investigated Mr X’s:
• concerns about the Council’s handling of his information request. This is because such issues are best considered by the Information Commissioner (ICO);
• the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness since late January 2026. This is because these matters are new or carries review rights;
• view the Council’s monitoring officer did not properly consider his concerns. This is because the Council was already considering his homelessness and review. Such matters would not be for the monitoring officer to consider in a separate process or response; and
• any concerns Mr X has about the Council’s handling of penalty charges for his vehicle as this has been considered in a separate investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

14. 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.
15. 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)
16. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
17. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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. In their interactions with applicants, housing authorities are encouraged to provide sufficient information and advice to encourage informed and realistic choices to be identified and agreed for inclusion in the plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6,11.18 and 11.20)
18. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is 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). The relief duty ends 56 days after the council accepted it owed the duty, providing the council accepts the person is in priority need and not intentionally homeless.
19. 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)

Homelessness accommodation

20. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
21. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
22. Examples of applicants in priority need are:
• People with dependent children;
• Pregnant women;
• People who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• Care leavers; and
• Victims of domestic abuse.
23. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
24. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Review rights

25. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of several council 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;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end; and
• giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate;
26. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within three weeks of either the date of the review request or the date they receive written representations:
• on the steps they are to take in the personal housing plan at the prevention or relief duty stage; or
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the prevention duty to an end.
27. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:
• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.
28. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
29. 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

30. I have set out a brief summary of the key events that occurred. This is not intended to be a detailed outline of everything which happened.
31. Mr X approached the Council for homelessness assistance in late September 2025. He said he was sofa surfing or living in his vehicle.
32. In October 2025 the Council asked Mr X for information about his homelessness and local connection to decide what support he may be entitled to. He provided some information about his local connection.
33. In late October 2025 the Council shared a homelessness questionnaire with the information it needed to decide whether it owed Mr X a duty to support him. Mr X shared a detailed statement which set out his health needs and personal circumstances and asked the Council to provide interim accommodation for him. He also said he needed a reasonable adjustment for written communication only.
34. The Council issued two housing decisions which found Mr X was not homeless. Initially this was due to an accommodation being available to him, which he shared information it was not. The second decision found he had not provided enough evidence he was homeless as his evidence related to 2023 and he had not been known to its service or other homeless service partners since. It explained it therefore did not owe him a housing duty and would not provide interim accommodation. The Council provided Mr X with his review rights.
35. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decision, which the Council acknowledged. He also served a pre-action protocol letter regarding its decision and failure to provide him with interim accommodation. He said he would share information and evidence over the following weeks.
36. In November 2025:
• Mr X corresponded with the Council on several occasions. He shared information about his previous tenancies, letters from family members, some health records, and his personal circumstances. The Council acknowledged receipt. He did not share some information as he said the Council already held some of the information, or did not agree the Council needed this.
• The Council offered to meet with Mr X. He said he needed notice of such a meeting, and it had to be at a neutral venue. It made a further offer to meet, which he declined due to his request for written communication only.
• Mr X made an information request to the Council. He said he needed this to be able to contest its decision.
• In response to Mr X’s Pre-action protocol letter, the Council explained it had considered its power to provide interim accommodation to Mr X during the review. However, it had decided not to do so based on the circumstances of his case. It explained it would provide a response to his review within the eight-week timescale, but agreed it would prioritise this. It also said it would provide written a disclosure of its interim accommodation decision by late November 2024. The Council asked Mr X to provide the information he wished for it to consider a few days before the deadline it proposed for it to decide on the review.
• Mr X provided information up to the date the Council had said it would prioritise its decision and provide its response.
• A few days later, Mr X told the Council it had failed to respond to his review by the deadline it had said it would.
37. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He said the Council had failed to provide him with interim accommodation, to follow housing law, and to adhere to his reasonable adjustment request.
38. In December 2025 Mr X chased the Council for the outcome of the review.
39. In late December 2025 the Council had considered Mr X’s case. It issued a new decision which accepted he was homeless and eligible for assistance, it therefore owed him a relief duty to support him find accommodation. It also shared a personal housing plan and a warning notice that it may end its relief duty for him. This was if he continued to deliberately and unreasonably refuse assistance by the Council to help him secure accommodation. It explained this related information sharing, his concerns about its rent and deposit scheme, and meeting with the Council.
40. Mr X chased the Council again for the outcome of his review request in late 2025 and early 2026. He again said it should provide him with interim accommodation.
41. In January 2026 the Council told Mr X its relief duty decision superseded its initial decision which had found he was not homeless. It also said it had not identified any reason to believe he was in priority need and would therefore not provide interim accommodation.
42. The Council decided to conclude Mr X’s review despite its relief duty decision. It shared a ‘minded to letter’ which set out its intention to find him not in priority need. It acknowledged he said he had some health conditions and had previously been on medication. However, it explained the evidence provided did not show he was under the care or receiving support with such health conditions and it had not been able to undertake a face-to-face assessment with him.
43. Mr X challenged the Council’s ‘minded to letter’ and provided an evidence pack for it to consider.
44. In late January 2026 the Council shared its homeless review decision for Mr X. It found its original decision was correct based on the information at the time, and it had superseded the decision with its acceptance of the relief duty in December 2025 which found he was eligible for support and homeless. However, it found he was not in priority need and therefore no interim accommodation would be provided. It told Mr X about his right of appeal.

Analysis and findings

The Council’s handling Mr X’s homelessness application

45. Mr X told the Council he was homeless in late September 2025 and asked for assistance. The Council subsequently had a duty to consider whether it had reason to believe he was homeless, and if so, what duties it may owe him.
46. The evidence shows the Council did open a case for Mr X and asked him for information in October 2025 which would enable it to make its decision. This included seeking information about his local connection to its area and information about any previous or existing accommodations which may be available to him.
47. On balance of the evidence available at the time, I have not found fault by the Council for its handling of Mr X’s request for homelessness support up to the end of October 2025. This is because:
• while the reason to believe is a low burden to prove, it was necessary for the Council to receive this information for it to properly consider whether Mr X may be homeless and eligible for its support;
• Mr X provided some information which showed he had a local connection in October 2025, but some information about where he had lived since 2023 and where he was currently staying or sleeping was not clear, or Mr X did not wish to share some information; and
• when Mr X provided information about where he had lived and why he could no longer occupy or stay in those places, the Council shared its housing decision which carried review rights.

The Council’s homeless and interim accommodation decisions

48. From late October 2025 Mr X provided a detailed statement. The Council subsequently shared two housing decisions in which it found he was not homeless. Its initial decision was based on an incorrect address. However, it issued its second unchanged decision with the correct information shortly after when it became aware. I am therefore not satisfied this error caused a significant injustice or delay.
49. I acknowledge Mr X wanted the Council to place him in interim accommodation at the time. However, as it had made its decision Mr X was not homeless and he had exercised his review rights, it was not under a duty to do so.
50. The Council had a power to provide Mr X with interim accommodation, which it considered. It decided it would not exercise its discretion in his case and informed Mr X. As I have found no fault in the process the Council followed, this was therefore a decision it was entitled to make.

The Council’s handling of the review process

51. Mr X said the Council failed to respond to his review request within the timescales it promised him in its pre-action protocol response, and within the statutory timescales for the review.
52. I found some fault by the Council. This is because it did not adhere to the timescales it had promised Mr X for its review response and sharing relevant information he had requested. In reaching my view, I was conscious:
• the statutory deadline had not expired, but the Council had promised Mr X it would prioritise his case and respond within about two weeks;
• It also told him he could provide additional information up to a few days before this deadline, which Mr X did;
• it subsequently decided not to provide its response within the given deadline and first respond by the statutory deadline. It said this was due to the amount of information Mr X had provided, including some information after the deadline the Council had set; and
• although the Council was entitled to extend the deadline it had given Mr X to provide its response as this remained within the statutory deadline, it failed to tell him and give reasons in a timely manner.
53. I found this caused Mr X some unnecessary distress and uncertainty.
54. I have not found fault by the Council for failing to meet the statutory deadline of eight weeks for Mr X’s review. This is because it shared its relief duty decision before the deadline expired. This decision superseded the decision which was being reviewed as it then accepted Mr X was homeless. It was thereafter not required to complete the review.

The Council’s actions after accepting the relief duty

55. Once the Council had accepted Mr X was homeless and eligible for support in late December 2025, it again had a duty to consider whether it had reason to believe he was in priority need based on the information available to it.
56. The evidence shows the Council made some considerations. In early January 2026 told Mr X it would not provide interim accommodation as this was dependent on further enquiries. This was also set out in its ‘minded to find’ letter.
57. I have considered the information available to the Council and Mr X’s reluctance to share information and enable contact with medical professionals. I found fault by the Council in how it applied the ‘reason to believe’ standard to Mr X’s case. This is because:
• the courts have found the ‘reason to believe’ standard is very low;
• the Council had accepted Mr X was homeless and eligible for support. The information available to it, including his personal housing plan, showed he had some health conditions which may be impacted by his housing situation;
• the Council said it needed more enquiries to confirm whether he was or was not in priority need, and it had not seen reasons to believe he would be; and
• although the Council decided it would respond to Mr X’s review, this had been superseded by the relief duty decision. It was therefore not a discretionary power to provide interim accommodation during this period.
58. I found the Council should have provided Mr X with interim accommodation from the date of its relief duty decision which accepted he was homeless and eligible for support. On balance, there was enough information available to give the Council a reason to believe Mr X may have been in priority need.
59. If the Council believed Mr X was not in priority need immediately after its relief duty decision and in early January 2026, it should have issued its non-priority decision giving him his review rights. However, until the decision was issued, it had a duty to provide him with interim accommodation.
60. I am satisfied this caused Mr X an injustice. However, I cannot say whether or not Mr X would have agreed to the interim accommodation the Council should have offered. This is because of his reported needs, requests, and reluctance to agree to some of the Council’s requests. I therefore found the Council’s fault caused Mr X distress and uncertainty due to a missed opportunity to have interim accommodation for a five-week period between late December 2025 to late January 2026.
61. Mr X also said the Council was wrong to issue a warning notice regarding his engagement with the Council and raised concerns about details in his personal housing plan. This was when it issued its relief duty letter and he had not yet had the chance to carry out the required actions of his personal housing plan.
62. I have not found fault by the Council. It was allowed to consider Mr X’s ongoing engagement and how he had worked with the Council. I also understand he had shared concerns about its rent and deposit scheme which would hinder its ability to help him find private rented accommodation. This was therefore a notice it was entitled to issue, and no further action came from it.
63. In addition, Mr X had review rights available to him if he disagreed with its warning notice, or the steps he was asked to take in his personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage. This would have been the appropriate route to challenge such concerns.

Communication with Mr X and handling of his reasonable adjustments

64. I found some fault in how the Council communicated with Mr X, as set out above. This was its failure to inform him its review response would take longer than what it had promised him and responding to his chasers for an update.
65. However, I have not found fault in how it considered or handled his requests for reasonable adjustments. I acknowledge Mr X told the Council he wanted his case to be dealt with in writing. The Council acknowledged this and this was how it responded to him. It was not fault by the Council to offer to meet with Mr X on two occasions to enable it to discuss the case and help it to more quickly assess his case and needs.

Back to top

Action

66. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr X to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused him;

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.

2. pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £400 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced as a result of the loss of opportunity to receive temporary accommodation during a five-week period and some poor communication.
2. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. review how the Council applies the low standard of proof regarding the ‘reason to believe’ for applicants who are homeless, eligible for support, and in priority need in line with the Homelessness Code of Guidance. This is to ensure it offers interim accommodation to eligible applicants without delay until its enquiries are completed, a non-priority need decision has been issued, and review rights have been shared.
3. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

69. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council, which caused Mr X some distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy injustice. It also agreed carry out a service improvement recommendation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman