Summary: We upheld part of Mr B’s complaint about how the Council handled a homelessness application. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by offering a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. We are unlikely to find fault with the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Mr B. She says the Council wrongly handled Mr B’s homelessness application. She also says it failed to provide interim accommodation for Mr B. Ms X says Mr B is a vulnerable young adult and the Council’s failings caused him to suffer without accommodation. Ms X wants the Council to increase the compensation amount, make procedural improvements and review Mr B’s priority need.

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. 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)
3. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B was made homeless in January 2025. He was seen by a caseworker who later left his role at the Council. This led to a delay in the Council processing Mr B’s application.
7. In April 2025 Ms X wrote to the Council to ask it to provide interim accommodation for Mr B. The Council said it would not house Mr B as it was still waiting for information from his doctor.
8. Ms X complained to the Council in April 2025. The Council responded to Ms X in October 2025. This is significantly outside the Councils timescale to respond to complaints. If we were to investigate this complaint, it is likely we would find fault in the Council’s complaint handling.
9. The Council agreed that it should have provided interim accommodation to Mr B because it had reason to believe he was homeless and that he had a priority need. The Council offered Mr B compensation of £700 for not providing the interim accommodation, and £100 for its delays in handling the complaint.
10. I do not consider that was an adequate remedy. I therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused because of the issues dealing with the complaint and failing to provide interim accommodation.
11. Ms X also complained about the Council’s decision that it did not have a duty to provide temporary accommodation to Mr B because he did not have a priority need. Mr B had the right to request a review of that decision within 21 days. Ms X requested a review on Mr B’s behalf in December 2025. This was outside the 21 days. The Council does not have to consider a request for a review outside of the 21 days. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council about this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. To remedy the injustice caused, within four weeks of this decision, the council has agreed to:
1. Make a payment of £1200 for the six months where the Council should have provided interim accommodation for Mr B. This is instead of the £700 already offered and any payments already made in this regard should be deducted from the total amount.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the time and trouble caused by the Council’s delay in handling the complaint. This is instead of the £100 already offered and any payments already made in this regard should be deducted from the total amount.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld part of this complaint and the Council has agreed to resolve it early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice. We will not consider Ms X’s complaint about how the Council refused to accept a late review request because we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman