The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council mishandled his housing case. We find the Council at fault for a delay in processing Mr X’s medical evidence which resulted in the Council closing his case. This is fault which caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to remedy the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council mishandled his housing case. Specifically, Mr X says the Council: Delayed in processing his medical evidence by 7 weeks.
Unlawfully closed his case in March 2025 Failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities.
Handled his complaint with conflict and misrepresented staff training.
Shared his data without consent.
Mr X told us the Council’s actions have left him homeless, significantly impacted his mental health, stripped his autonomy and placed his life at risk. Mr X would like the Council to provide long term housing, complete a full investigation into maladministration and provide financial compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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)
What I have and have not investigated Mr X applied to the Council’s housing team in April 2024. This is the starting point for my investigation. Mr X was rehoused in September 2025. This is the end date for my investigation.
I have investigated the Council’s actions in handling Mr X’s housing application and complaint between April 2024 and September 2025.
I have not investigated the part of Mr X’s complaint which relates to the Council sharing his data as the information commissioner’s office is better placed to investigate this matter.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legal and administrative background Homelessness 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.
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) 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 Personalised Housing Plans 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) After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30) The prevention duty 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 195) The main housing duty If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (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) Housing allocations 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)) 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)) Councils must notify applicants in writing of the following decisions and give reasons: that the applicant is not eligible for an allocation; that the applicant is not a qualifying person; a decision not to award the applicant reasonable preference because of their unacceptable behaviour.
The Council must also notify the applicant of the right to request a review of these decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9)) Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
Section 16.1 of the Council’s allocations policy sets out its process for allocating a priority card for emergency need. The policy states this level of priority is on awarded when the applicant has an immediate, emergency or critical housing need. The policy states that applicants cannot self-refer and referrals must be made by one of the following professionals involved with the case: Any support or statutory agency Any voluntary agency A registered provider Any officer from the housing options team The applicant’s medical representatives.
What happened Mr X applied to join the Council’s housing register in April 2024. In his application, Mr X told the Council he had been asked to leave his current accommodation by the beginning of August 2024. Mr X confirmed he was not homeless and was not likely to be homeless within the next 56 days.
Mr X’s housing application also detailed he has a chronic health condition and mental health conditions.
Mr X was not considered at risk of homelessness at this time and was added to the Council’s choice based letting scheme in June 2024. The Council backdated Mr X’s allocation to the date he first submitted his application.
To support Mr X, the Council referred him to its sustainable housing partnership service (SHPS) and remained in contact with Mr X between June 2024 and November 2024.
In August 2024, a housing rights worker contacted the Council on Mr X’s behalf to request information about his banding on the housing register At the beginning of November 2024, the Council requested additional evidence from Mr X. The Council asked Mr X to provide the evidence within 14 days. Mr X responded to this email at the end of November 2024 to request to submit the required evidence via email. The Council confirmed it would accept Mr X’s evidence via email.
In the second week of November 2024, the Council took active steps to support Mr X in securing alternative private rented accommodation. The Council emailed Mr X to confirm he was happy to be referred for suitable accommodation options. There is no evidence to show Mr X responded to the Council to confirm he was happy for the referral to be completed.
The following week the Council issued a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP) for Mr X. Mr X’s PHP sets out that he should lead on the search for a suitable property and the Council will also search on his behalf. The PHP also sets out that the Council requires consistent, weekly engagement.
Mr X contacted the Council to explain he was unable to send his evidence due to ongoing internet issues. He confirmed he would send his evidence once his internet connection was restored.
At the beginning of January 2025, Mr X and the Council discussed the ongoing barriers to his weekly engagement. The Council recognised Mr X’s health posed a barrier to communication.
In the second week of January 2025 the Council emailed Mr X again to request the evidence which it had originally asked for in November. This email advised Mr X the Council would close his case if he did not provide the requested information withing 7 days.
Mr X responded to the Council’s email the following day to provide the requested evidence. The Council did not close Mr X’s case at this time, but it also did not acknowledge or assess the information Mr X had provided.
Mr X wrote to the Council again at the beginning of March to provide additional information and medical evidence. The Council’s records show it is only from this date the Council accepted the previous information provided by Mr X in January.
As the Council did not acknowledge Mr X’s evidence until March 2025, some of the information he had provided was now out of date. The Council asked Mr X to provide update information within 7 days. Mr X provided this updated information within 3 days.
At the end of March 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X to advise his case had been closed. The Council explained this was due to Mr X not providing the evidence it had requested in November 2024 and his poor engagement with the SHPS. The Council advised Mr X to make contact again if his landlord served a section 21 notice.
Mr X has provided evidence that, although his engagement with the SHPS was inconsistent, this was partly due to Mr X and partly due to the service rearranging appointments.
At the beginning of April 2025, Mr X received a Section 21 Notice from his landlord. The Notice required Mr X to leave the property by the beginning of June 2025. Mr X informed the Council, and a phone assessment took place the same week.
Two weeks later the Council issued Mr X a letter which accepted it owed Mr X a prevention duty. Mr X’s priority banding on the housing register was increased to band A.
The Council made an offer of temporary accommodation but Mr X refused the offer. As Mr X refused the offer, the Council had no further duty to provide Mr X with temporary accommodation.
In August 2025 Mr X contacted the Council to request consideration for a priority card. The Council responded to confirm it would consider whether Mr X was eligible for a priority card. The Council considered Mr X’s request within 8 working days and confirmed the priority card had been awarded.
In September 2025, Mr X successfully bid on a property and the Council offered Mr X the accommodation.
Complaint handling Mr X submitted a complaint to the Council in April 2025. Mr X’s complaint raised several issues relating to the Council’s handling of his housing application.
The Council considered Mr X’s complaint and wrote to him within 5 days to explain the complaint had been passed to its legal team to consider and respond due to the allegations raised within the complaint.
The Council’s legal team considered Mr X’s complaint and determined it was appropriate to follow its normal complaint process. The stage one complaint investigation was passed to an officer who was not named within Mr X’s stage one complaint.
The Council completed a stage one complaint investigation and issued a response at the end of May 2025.
At the end of July 2025 Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaints process. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s request and said it aimed to respond within 15 working days.
The Council contacted Mr X in the second week of August to explain it was unable to respond within the original 15 working days and provided a revised response deadline date.
The Council issued its stage two complaint response on the revised deadline date. The stage two investigation was completed by a senior Council team member who had no prior involvement in Mr X’s case.
My findings
There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s initial housing register application.
Mr X provided the Council with evidence in January 2025. The Council did not process this evidence until March 2025. This is a delay of approximately two months. On the balance of probabilities, the delay also contributed to the Council’s decision Mr X had refused to engage with its offer of support and led to the Council closing Mr X’s case. This is fault which caused Mr X distress and frustration.
There is no evidence the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in its communication with Mr X. The Council repeatedly provided extended deadlines and supported Mr X’s written communication to allow him to engage in the process.
There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s application for a priority card. The Council accepted a self-referral and considered the request. There was a one day delay in the Council providing Mr X with its decision however I do not consider this delay caused Mr X a significant injustice.
There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint.
As part of its complaint process, the Council offered Mr X a symbolic payment of £250. In line with our guidance on remedies, this is a suitable symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X. I have therefore not recommended any further financial payments.
Action
Within one month of the final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman