The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was no fault causing Mr X significant personal injustice in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness. There was some fault in the Council’s recording and communication of its homelessness decision. The Council apologised to Mr X which was an appropriate remedy for the frustration caused.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homelessness. In particular he complained the Council: placed him in unsuitable accommodation; officers dealt with sensitive circumstances unprofessionally; falsified records of his homelessness; and, ignored his complaints and restricted ways in which he could communicate with it.
Mr X said as a result of being placed in unsuitable accommodation, he was evicted from this accommodation which left him street homeless and worsened his mental health. He also said the Council’s handling of his homelessness was discriminatory and defamatory.
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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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) 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.
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 The law requires complainants to complain to us within 12 months of becoming aware of the matters they want to complain about unless there are good reasons they could not. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended). Mr X complained to us in October 2025 about matters related to the Council’s handling of his homelessness since 2018.
I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his homelessness prior to his 2024 homelessness application because these complaints are late and there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us within 12 months.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6).
The scope of my investigation therefore covers the period starting October 2024 (when Mr X was offered an accommodation which he complained was unsuitable) and ends in August 2025 when the Council issued a stage two complaint response to the concerns he had raised and the Council has considered until then.
I have not investigated further complaints Mr X has raised since the Council’s stage two complaint response about its subsequent handling of his homelessness and housing situation, and other concerns. These complaints are new and did not feature in the complaint Mr X made to us in October 2025. It is open to Mr X to complain to us again if he remains unhappy after the Council has considered and responded to any new and not previously investigated concerns first.
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mr X about his 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
Relevant law and guidance Part seven 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) The interim accommodation duty Councils must arrange interim accommodation as soon as it has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) The “reason to believe threshold” is a low threshold. The interim accommodation duty is an absolute duty and it arises before the Council makes its full enquiries.
Examples of applicants in priority need are: people with dependent children; people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age, or due to service in the armed forces; care leavers; and The relief duty The relief duty applies when a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. 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 applicant, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18) When a council decides the relief duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) Councils can end the relief duty by making a final accommodation offer (section 189B(9)(a)) or a final Part six (of the Housing Act) offer.
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 for their occupation. This is called 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 The Homelessness Code of Guidance says homeless applicants may request a review of homelessness decisions, including a decision to end relief duty and a review of the offer of any accommodation to end a homelessness duty within 21 days of being notified of that decision.
Councils do not have to accept a late request by law but they may make an exception if the applicant provides a valid reason for missing the 21-day deadline.
The Council’s policy on unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complainants The Council has adopted the Ombudsman’s definition for unreasonable behaviour and unreasonably persistent complainants: people who, because of the nature or frequency of their contact with the Council hinder its consideration of complaints.
When the Council decides a complainant is unreasonable or unreasonably persistent, it will write to them to explain why their behaviour falls into that category and what action is being taken.
What happened This section sets out the key events of this complaint in relation to Mr X’s homelessness and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
Mr X is an armed forces veteran and has mental health conditions. He made a homelessness application in 2024.
The Council accepted the relief duty. A copy of the relief duty acceptance letter stated that Mr X was eligible for assistance and homeless because he could no longer stay with his relative following an assault. The Council’s letter also stated that it had reason to believe Mr X may have a priority need. The Council secured interim accommodation for Mr X. The Council also carried out a further assessment of Mr X’s needs and any risks soon after.
Mr X said information about the assault mentioned in the Council’s relief duty letter was not true. The Council told us its officer had written over an existing letter template and had accidentally left in information about an incident related to another client. The Council said it had apologised to Mr X for this. It told us it had provided training to relevant officers to ensure the same error did not happen again.
In October 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X with a final offer of a property (Property A, a supported accommodation) made by its supported accommodation provider, under part six of the Housing Act 1996. It said this offer discharged its duty to secure accommodation for Mr X under part seven of the Act.
The Council ended the relief duty and said it considered Property A to be a suitable, affordable and a reasonable offer for Mr X’s needs. It told Mr X about his right to request a review of its homelessness decision within 21 days of the decision.
A few days later, in mid- October 2024 Mr X emailed the Council housing officer and said he was stressed about dealing with the different types of people in the accommodation.
In November 2024 the Council said Mr X made contact to say he could not stay in Property A due to situations involving other residents. The Council told us that these concerns were raised after the 21-day review request period had lapsed. The Council said it had ended its homelessness duties with its offer of Property A and had no legal obligation to keep the suitability of Property A under review.
The Council said it did not consider Mr X’s previous email in October 2024 (sent within the 21-day period) to be a complaint about the suitability of Property A. And Mr X’s November 2024 email was a complaint about the personal circumstances of residents in other rooms of Property A which the Council said Mr X decided to become personally involved in. The Council did not consider this a reason to accept a late review request.
The Council decided to pass on Mr X’s concerns about Property A to its Supported Accommodation Review Team (SART) which was part of a pilot programme looking at the quality and standards of supported accommodations at the time, to enable a further audit of the accommodation on a general level. The SART team carried out a general audit of Property A and made recommendations for general improvements.
In January 2025 Mr X was evicted from Property A. The Council recorded Mr X was evicted due to concerns about his conduct. Mr X said the Council placed him in an unsuitable property which caused his behaviours and eviction. He also emailed the Council about “slander” in the eviction letter from Property A.
Mr X approached the Council for homelessness support after his eviction. The Council said it had no reason to believe Mr X was in priority need and so it did not offer him an interim accommodation.
The Council said Mr X sent multiple emails soon after to say his mental health was worsening.
Soon after the Council completed a vulnerability assessment with Mr X. The Council said its officer (Officer A) felt there was a reason to believe Mr X had a priority need due to his mental health.
The Council wrote to Mr X accepting the relief duty in late January 2025. The Council said Mr X was eligible for assistance and homeless because he had been asked to leave his previous accommodation. The Council also said it had reason to believe Mr X was in priority need due to his mental health and other health issues. It secured interim accommodation for Mr X at Property B. Mr X remained in Property B until April 2025.
The Council completed referrals to a mental health-based accommodation and accommodation for veterans in the following months. It also supported Mr X to bid for social housing on his housing register application.
Mr X attended the Council as he was concerned it would find him intentionally homeless following his eviction from Property A. The Council said Officer A reassured Mr X that this would not happen due to Property A not being suitable for him.
Between March and April 2025, the Council said it asked Mr X to leave its offices due to aggressive behaviour on various occasions. It said it also issued a behaviour warning letter.
In April 2025 the Council moved Mr X to another interim accommodation (Property C) after Mr X was asked to leave Property B. Mr X said the Council had discriminated against him on medical grounds by asking him to leave Property B due to use of his prescribed medicinal drug.
In June 2025 the Council accepted the main housing duty and the Council continued to accommodate Mr X in Property C under this duty until November 2025.
The Council’s complaint responses Mr X complained to the Council about its handling of his homelessness since 2018. In particular he complained it: placed him in Property A which was not suitable for his needs and worsened his mental health. Mr X said he sent many emails to his housing officer about his concerns regarding Property A. He said instead of moving him somewhere safe, he was evicted from Property A.
falsified his records (he said he was never assaulted by a relative), deleted CCTV footage of an incident and fabricated lies about his behaviours. Mr X told us he had complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office about the Council’s data handling.
poorly treated him and other vulnerable clients, and that Council officers had provided him with interim accommodation because Mr X had observed them laughing at another client.
had restricted his contact to the online complaint portal.
In its stage one complaint response the Council said: Property A was a shared accommodation especially for applicants experiencing some mental health difficulties. The Council discharged its homeless duty with the offer of this accommodation.
It was unable to clarify where the information about assault noted on its relief duty acceptance came from and couldn’t investigate because staff had left. The Council apologised for the error but said it had not affected its offer of interim accommodation.
Property A had appeared to be suitable. And the officer was unaware of the issues Mr X subsequently raised about Property A which its SART team was investigating. Officer A then decided the offer was not suitable for Mr X.
It told Mr X to seek legal advice to bring a case against the Council for slander and defamation and its legal team would respond to Mr X starting legal action.
It said Mr X was moved out of Property B at the request of the accommodation. It said it was unable to enforce booking with providers who felt unable to offer accommodation. The Council said it had a duty to secure interim accommodation for Mr X and it did this by moving Mr X to Property C without delay, which was better suited to his needs.
It had a duty to safeguard its staff from aggressive interactions with Mr X. It offered Mr X an alternative means to communicate with the Council.
In its stage two complaint response the Council: Apologised for not responding sooner to Mr X’s complaint in part due to the sheer volume of evidence received and reviewed.
Said there was no evidence of its officer behaving unprofessionally with vulnerable clients.
Explained Property A was not temporary accommodation; it was an offer of suitable accommodation and ended the Council’s homelessness duty to Mr X. It had reviewed the evidence since and decided it was suitable for Mr X.
Explained concerns Mr X had raised about Property A were typical for shared accommodation. It had tried to tackle some of the issues raised. But they did not make Property A unsuitable for Mr X Said Mr X was incorrectly advised that he would not be found intentionally homeless because of the suitability of Property A. The Council said the reason for Mr X’s eviction would have typically resulted in an intentionally homeless decision. The Council said its error resulted in a favourable outcome for Mr X.
Explained it was unable to consider additional concerns Mr X had raised about Property A and his experience at Property B and wider systemic concerns because these points were too extensive to detail individually and fell outside the remit of the complaint made.
The Council’s response to our enquiries In response to our enquiries, the Council said: It considered Property A to be suitable for Mr X as explained in its stage two complaint response. The Council said the SART team referred to “suitability” in a different context; the officer (Officer A) at the time misunderstood that to mean that Property A had not been suitable as an offer for Mr X.
It said the Council had checked and found no complaints from Mr X about Property A received within the 21-day review request period.
It was unable to respond to every email or complaint Mr X had made individually due to the sheer volume of correspondence from him. The Council said it had addressed concerns Mr X had raised but it did not have capacity to respond to repetitive emails from him containing the same enquiries.
Due to excessive communication from Mr X and his behaviour towards staff, it had limited the ways he could access the service. This was to support staff welfare and safety, and the restriction was not discriminatory towards Mr X as the Council was satisfied he is able contact its service online without facing any barriers.
Findings
As a publicly funded body, we carry out proportionate investigations and make decisions on the balance of probabilities based on available evidence. We look at whether administrative fault likely caused a significant injustice.
We cannot say the Council’s actions were unlawful concerning discrimination or information management/data handling.
Property A We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) Mr X was made aware that he had 21 days from being notified of the Council’s homelessness decision to request a statutory review of that decision. The Council said it did not carry out a statutory review of its homelessness decision to offer Property A to Mr X and end its homelessness duty because Mr X raised concerns about Property A in November 2024, outside the 21-day statutory deadline. It also said it did not consider Mr X’s email of October as a complaint about Property A and that it had received no other complaints from Mr X about Property A within the 21-day period. Mr X said he contacted his housing officer many times to complain about Property A after he moved in.
It would not be proportionate for us to investigate this matter further to understand what exactly happened because we are unlikely to find fault causing Mr X a significant injustice. Mr X was evicted from Property A soon after in January 2025 so I do not consider that he suffered a significant injustice to warrant further investigation.
Recordkeeping The Council accepted that it made an error in the relief duty acceptance letter it sent to Mr X on his 2024 homelessness application. It did not correctly amend the letter template which contained information (about an assault) not relevant to Mr X. The Council should have ensured its written communication with Mr X was accurate before sending it out. Its failure to do so was fault. It apologised to Mr X for this and provided training to staff to prevent recurrence of the same error. The Council’s apology was an appropriate remedy for the avoidable confusion and frustration Mr X was caused from this fault.
Mr X’s 2024 and 2025 homelessness applications There was no fault causing Mr X a significant personal injustice in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness on the below matters: The Council secured interim accommodation because it had “reason to believe” at the time that Mr X may be in priority need for housing. The “reason to believe” threshold is a low threshold and the Council considered Mr X met this threshold and therefore it secured interim accommodation for him.
Regarding interim accommodation at Property B, the Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation to Mr X and it did so by moving Mr X to Property C without delay when Property B was no longer able to accommodate him.
Complaint handling and communication The Council replied to the main concerns Mr X had raised with it. The Council also explained it was not proportionate for it to address all points Mr X continued to raise individually and in detail due to the extensive volume of correspondence it received from him. From the evidence seen, I am satisfied that the Council addressed the main themes of Mr X’s complaint and was not at fault.
The Council decided to restrict Mr X’s communication to a single point of contact email address and online attendance for pre-arranged meetings or calls to manage excessive correspondence and to protect its staff. The Council made this decision in line with its published complaints policy and was not at fault.
Councils have to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles for disabled people accessing their services. There is no evidence that the Council’s decision to restrict Mr X’s communication to online contact only created a barrier in Mr X being able to access its service or communicate with it regarding his concerns. There was no fault by the Council.
Decision I found fault causing injustice and the Council’s apology remedied that injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman