Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to act or offer interim accommodation when he reported domestic abuse and homelessness. We have ended our investigation. This is because it was reasonable for Mr F to ask for a statutory review of the Council’s decision that he was homeless but not in priority need.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained the Council failed to act or offer interim accommodation when he reported domestic abuse and homelessness. This has caused him significant distress and he has been left sleeping in his car.

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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have ended the investigation. I explain why in the rest of this statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr F 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

9. If someone contacts a council seeking 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
10. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Relief duty and interim accommodation

11. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
12. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found.
13. 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)
14. Applicants in priority need include people who are homeless as a result of domestic abuse.
15. If the council decides the person is in priority need and not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends automatically after 56 days, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. There is no discretion to extend it. Where inquiries are not completed before the end of the relief duty, the Code advises the decision should be made within 15 working days from when the relief duty ends. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Main housing duty and temporary accommodation

16. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
17. The Code of Guidance states that people owed the main housing duty should be notified the day after the relief duty ends. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Review Rights

18. The law says the council must give the applicant some decisions in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 184) Decisions that must be given in writing include:
• Whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and homeless so the relief duty is owed.
• Whether the applicant is in priority need.
• That the relief duty period has ended and what duty, if any, is owed to the applicant after the relief duty ends (i.e. whether the Council owes the main housing duty).
19. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. Applicants may request a review of the decision within 21 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
20. The council must also 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)
21. Normally the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints about decisions where these review and appeal rights apply, provided we are satisfied the council told the complainant about their right to ask for a review and then appeal. 

Housing Allocations

22. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing and how it prioritises applicants. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))

What happened

23. I have summarised the key events. This is not meant to describe everything that happened.
24. Mr F was living with his wife and disabled son in a council tenancy. There was a breakdown in the relationship. Mr F contacted the Council about seven times in June and July 2025. He said he was separating from his wife and reported harassment and abuse by her. He applied to join the Council’s housing register on 1 July.
25. On 1 August the Council conducted a homelessness initial assessment with Mr F. Mr F described the harassment his wife had perpetrated against him and that she had applied to the Court for a non-molestation order against him.
26. Mr F’s relative complained to the Council on 6 August that it had failed to find safe accommodation for him. Mr F told the Council on 8 August that the court had put a non-molestation order in place. Mr F moved out of the house and was sofa surfing. He was admitted to hospital twice following self-harm.
27. The Council’s housing allocations team replied to Mr F’s relative on 19 August. It apologised it had not met its service standards but the letter does not explain which standards had not been met or what had happened. The Council said it would assess Mr F’s housing register application.
28. The Council wrote to Mr F on 22 August. It accepted the relief duty, found Mr F was homeless and eligible for assistance, but he was not in priority need. This meant the Council had no duty to place him in interim accommodation. The Council said Mr F had a statutory right to ask for a review of its decision. It issued a personalised housing plan which said Mr F should look for private rented accommodation.
29. The Council suspended dealing with Mr F’s housing register application until the conclusion of the court process.
30. Mr F’s relative asked to escalate the complaint on 11 September, asking the Council to house Mr F.
31. There was a court hearing on 29 September at which the court ordered the tenancy should be in Mr F’s wife’s name only. Mr F told the Council this on 3 October.
32. The relief duty automatically came to an end on 17 October, after 56 days, but the Council did not issue a decision as to whether it owed Mr F the main housing duty.
33. In November, the Council said it could not progress the housing register application due to some missing information and because Mr F was still listed as a joint tenant with arrears.
34. The Council housing allocations team spoke to Mr F in December. It made his housing register application live but said he was not eligible to bid on a two-bedroom property as his son was already housed and the court had not ordered joint custody.
35. The Council issued a new decision to accept the relief duty on 16 December. It again found Mr F was not in priority need and gave Mr F his review rights.
36. Mr F came to the Ombudsman, he said he was now sleeping in his car.
37. The Council’s final complaint response was sent on 5 February 2026. The Council said there had been a delay in issuing a not in priority need decision. It apologised and offered to pay Mr F £200 to remedy the distress caused by this delay. It also said it had not initially considered domestic abuse issues. It would therefore re-assess Mr F’s case.
38. The Council ended the relief duty on 10 February (56 days after 16 December). It found Mr F to be homeless but not in priority need, so no main housing duty was owed. The Council said Mr F had a right to ask for a review of this decision.

My findings

39. I have ended my investigation.
40. Mr F complained the Council did not act on his disclosure of domestic abuse. It was for the Council to decide whether Mr F was homeless due to domestic abuse and therefore in priority need.
41. The Council issued a decision on 22 August 2025 that Mr F was not in priority need. Homeless applicants have a legal right to ask for a review of a homelessness decision, and then to appeal to the county court on a point of law. Decisions with a statutory right of review and appeal include whether an applicant is in priority need. Normally we would not investigate complaints about decisions where these review and appeal rights apply, provided we are satisfied the council told the complainant about their right to ask for a review.
42. I accept that Mr F was vulnerable in August 2025 as he had made suicide attempts. So it may not have been reasonable for him to pursue a review at this stage.
43. The homeless assessment of 1 August includes Mr F’s reports of harassment and abuse. I can see no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision that Mr F was not in priority need. In line with paragraph 2 above, therefore, I am exercising discretion not to investigate this further as there is not enough evidence of fault.
44. The Council did not issue a letter ending the relief duty on 17 October 2025 or giving a decision whether it owed Mr F a main housing duty. The Council’s final complaint response accepted there had been a delay in issuing this decision and offered Mr F £200 to remedy the uncertainty that caused. I am satisfied this is an appropriate and proportionate remedy in line with our guidance. As set out in paragraph 2, I am therefore exercising my discretion to not investigate as I can achieve nothing further and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
45. The Council issued a new decision to accept the relief duty on 16 December. It again found Mr F was not in priority need and gave Mr F his review rights. Since coming to us, the Council made a third, fresh decision in February 2026. It again decided Mr F was not in priority need.
46. My view is it was reasonable for Mr F to use his legal right for a review of these decisions. As set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 21, I am exercising my discretion not to investigate as Mr F could have asked for a review.
47. The Council’s first complaint response of 19 August is vague and its second response was delayed. But we will not usually investigate complaint handling when the complaint itself is not a matter we can consider. I am therefore exercising my discretion, as set out in paragraph 2, not to investigate this further.

Back to top

Decision

48. I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman