Summary: The Council properly assessed Mr X’s homelessness application and considered all the evidence before deciding he was not in priority need. It also awarded Mr X a housing priority in line with its housing allocations policy. The Council was not at fault. The wording in the Council’s allocations policy is not in line with the current legislation. This was fault. The Council has agreed to review the wording and ensure staff use wording that reflects an applicants’ correct homelessness status.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness and housing applications. He says the Council failed to properly consider his medical information and provide him with accommodation. Mr X says he is now sleeping in his car. He says he recently suffered a mental health crisis, and this has caused him further severe distress. He wants the Council to review his housing priority, arrange accommodation for him and compensate him for its failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law, policies and procedures

Homelessness duties

7. 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.
8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
9. When carrying out the prevention duty 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)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called 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)

Homelessness accommodation

11. 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)
12. 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.

13. If, having made enquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.

Review rights

14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• 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 prevention duty to an end;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

15. 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)

Housing allocations

16. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
17. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

18. The Council prioritises applicants by placing them in priority bands, depending on their circumstances. For homeless applicants the bands are:
• Band one – applicants who are eligible for assistance, homeless, in priority need and have a local connection.
• Band two – where the Council has accepted a relief duty and the applicant is in priority need and unintentionally homeless.
• Band three – applicants where the Council “accepts a full homeless duty, the applicant is not intentionally homeless but is not priority need”.

Homeless applicants with no priority need where the Council has not accepted a main housing duty and who have no other factors of need such as overcrowding or urgent medical needs, are placed in band five.

What happened

19. Mr X approached the Council for homeless support in July 2025. He said he was currently sleeping on his sister’s sofa and suffering a mental health crisis. The Council asked Mr X to provide several documents to start his application. In August 2025 the Council asked Mr X for these documents again and said it would have to close his application if he did not provide them. Mr X provided the documents in late August.
20. At the same time Mr X completed an application to join the Council’s housing register, along with a medical information form for medical priority on the register. The Council placed Mr X in priority band five.
21. The Council accepted a prevention duty to Mr X on 21 August 2025 and created a personalised housing plan for Mr X. Over the coming weeks the Council made enquiries to decide if Mr X was potentially vulnerable and in priority need of homelessness accommodation. At the same time, it signposted Mr X to potential private accommodation which Mr X rejected.
22. In early October 2025 the Council received medical advice from its independent medical advisors. The advisors had considered information from Mr X and his GP. They accepted Mr X suffered from anxiety and depression but decided there was no evidence Mr X’s medical issues were more severe than a person experiencing similar issues.
23. The Council wrote to Mr X accepting a relief duty to support Mr X to find somewhere to live but said Mr X was not in priority need for accommodation. The Council said Mr X could carry out essential daily tasks and was able to look for accommodation. Mr X immediately asked for a review of the Council’s decision.
24. The Council carried out the review and responded the next day. It reviewed Mr X’s records and upheld the original decision. It said Mr X was able to support himself and seek accommodation. Mr X complained to the Council.
25. Around the same time Mr X’s sister told the Council she was going to ask him to leave her property. The Council’s outreach service spoke to Mr X who said he was only willing to accept a council property.
26. In late October, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure. It said it had followed the proper process and did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said it was open to Mr X to provide further information to support his request for priority need.
27. The Council ended its relief duty to Mr X in early December 2025. It re-iterated that Mr X was not in priority need. It confirmed Mr X could bid for properties on its housing register and was now in priority band three. The Council’s case notes at the time refer to the Council accepting a “full housing duty” to Mr X.
28. Mr X asked the Council for an update in February 2026. The Council told Mr X it had accepted his application with a “full duty” but without priority need. It said Mr X could make a new homelessness application if his circumstances had changed.
29. Mr X’s sister emailed the Council in early March to say she was going to ask Mr X to leave the property. Later in March Mr X’s GP emailed the Council to say Mr X was in crisis. Mr X made a new homelessness application and said he had additional medical evidence. At the end of March Mr X said he had been asked to leave his sister’s home and was sleeping in his car.
30. The Council’s medical advisors carried out a new assessment of Mr X’s medical evidence in early April 2026. It considered the new information from Mr X’s GP and decided this did not change its original recommendation.
31. Mr X continued to contact the Council to say he was sleeping in his car. He said he had joint custody of his children and was unable to provide them with a home. The Council asked Mr X to provide information to support his custody arrangements. There is no record of Mr X responding to this request.
32. The Council’s medical advisors reviewed further information from the mental health and crisis intervention team in mid-April 2026. It said this did not change its original decision, and the Council again said Mr X was not in priority need.
33. Mr X’s sister asked for a review of the Council’s decision and it responded several days later. It upheld the decision that Mr X was not in priority need. It said Mr X could carry out daily tasks and was capable of accessing services and seeking accommodation. The Council said Mr X stood a better chance of securing accommodation if he widened his search area. It said it could support Mr X with a deposit for private rented accommodation. It said a homelessness charity had carried out welfare checks on Mr X and would continue to do so.
34. Mr X continued to challenge the Council’s decision. In May 2026 the Council said its decision was final and Mr X was not in priority need. Mr X’s GP queried Mr X’s priority banding. In mid-May 2026 Mr X made a new complaint to the Council which it handled as a stage two of his original complaint. The Council responded in early June 2026. It said its medical advisors had considered information from Mr X, his GP and a mental health team working with Mr X. It had decided Mr X was not in priority need.
35. A doctor working with Mr X sent the Council a report on Mr X’s mental health in mid-June 2026. The Council’s medical advisors considered the new information and decided it did not alter their recommendation. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Mr X’s homelessness application

36. The Council accepted a prevention duty to Mr X when it received all the documents to support his application. It created a personalised housing plan and offered to assist Mr X in moving into the private rented sector. When this was not possible the Council accepted a relief duty to Mr X. The Council accepted Mr X’s application, acted to prevent Mr X’s homelessness and supported him to find alternative accommodation. The Council was not at fault.
37. The Council was under a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X if it had reason to believe he was in priority need. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with the decision the Council made.
38. I have considered the steps the Council took, and the information it took account of when deciding Mr X was not in priority need. The Council carried out enquiries and considered medical advice from its independent advisors. When Mr X presented new information, its advisors considered this but did not change their recommendation. There is no fault in how the Council took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong. The Council was not at fault.

Mr X’s housing application

39. When Mr X approached the Council, it registered him on its housing register and awarded him priority band five while it determined his homelessness application. This was in line with its housing allocations scheme. The Council was not at fault.
40. When the Council ended its relief duty to Mr X it changed him to priority band three, which accepted that Mr X was homeless but not in priority need. This was again in line with its housing allocations scheme. The Council was not at fault.

The Council’s allocations scheme and references to “full housing duty”

41. The Council’s allocations scheme refers to homelessness applicants where it has accepted a full duty to the applicants, but they are not in priority need. Throughout the Council’s correspondence with Mr X, it referred to accepting a “full housing duty” to Mr X but him not being in priority need.
42. The Housing Act and the Homelessness Code of Guidance are clear. A main housing duty is only owed to applicants who have a priority need. It is not possible for someone to be owed a main housing duty and not be in priority need.
43. The Council does not owe Mr X a main housing duty, and I am satisfied with how it handled Mr X’s homelessness application and his priority banding. However, its allocations policy and references to the main housing without priority need do not reflect the legislation and guidance in place. This is fault. While it has not caused Mr X an injustice it has the potential to lead to confusion for others.

Back to top

Action

44. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Review the wording in its allocations scheme so it properly reflects the requirements of the Housing Act and Homelessness Code of Guidance when referring to a main housing duty.
2. Ensure housing staff are aware of the difference between the main housing duty and priority need when corresponding with applicants.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault not causing injustice, the Council has agreed actions to prevent injustice to others in the future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman