The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application. We found fault by the Council due to delay in dealing with his homeless application and review request which delayed his right to request a review and meant he was deprived of suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mr X and make service improvements.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his homeless application. Mr X says the Council at first accepted he was homeless but then decided he was not homeless and delayed providing a response to his review request about this decision. Mr X also complained about the Council’s subsequent decision he was intentionally homeless and refusal to accept a late review request about this decision.
Mr X says his mental health and family relationships have suffered because of the Council’s actions.
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) 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)
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
Background and legislation 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 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) Duty to arrange interim accommodation (section 188) 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) Priority need 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.
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 relief duty Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) 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) Review rights 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; the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage; giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end; the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage; giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end; giving notice in cases of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate; to notify their case to another authority when the Council considers the conditions for referral are met; whether the conditions are met for the referral of their case to another housing authority; the conditions for referral to another authority are not met so the notifying housing authority owes the main housing duty; the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
Review procedure 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) Review timescale and right of appeal Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request: eligibility for assistance; not in priority need; intentionally homeless; suitability of accommodation; notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.
These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
The council must 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) Accommodation pending review Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5)) What happened Mr X applied to the Council as homeless on 7 March 2025. Mr X explained he was sofa surfing at his mother’s home following a relationship breakdown. The Council accepted a relief duty to Mr X the same day while it made further enquiries into his circumstances and whether he was in priority need.
The Council issued a ‘not homeless’ decision to Mr X on 13 June 2025. This noted Mr X had not approached the Council’s service to secure private rented accommodation via support with its Homelessness Prevention Fund or any private rental property searches since his application on 7 March 2025. The Council had also spoken with his family who had confirmed they were willing to continue to accommodate him until he found alternative accommodation. Therefore, the Council determined Mr X had accommodation available to him and that it was reasonable for him to carry on living there.
Mr X sought a review of this decision on 16 June 2025. Mr X explained he had been homeless for over a year without help and he had evidence of trying to obtain accommodation both through the Council’s housing register and private properties including with the help of the probation service.
The Council acknowledged this review request on 17 June 2025 and advised any additional information should be provided by 30 June 2025 with an expected date for completion of the review as 11 August 2025.
Mr X provided additional information on 22 June 2025 although this related to his claim of lack of previous support from the Council. The Council acknowledged receipt of this information on 23 June 2025.
Mr X asked for an update on his review on 7 July 2025 and was advised the current review deadline was 11 August 2025.
The Council sent the outcome of its review to Mr X on 9 October 2025. This overturned the original decision and concluded Mr X was homeless. Mr X had also provided medical evidence about his health which meant the Council considered he was in priority need and so offered temporary accommodation.
Mr X moved into temporary accommodation on 21 October 2025.
The Council wrote to Mr X on 6 November 2025 with a reminder for details of the events that led to an Occupation Order being enforced which prohibited him from living at the property he had shared with his former partner.
The Council issued a decision that Mr X was intentionally homeless on 4 December 2025. This noted that the courts had enforced an Occupation Order in September 2024 which prohibited Mr X from living at the family home. The Council was satisfied Mr X’s actions directly resulted in the loss of his accommodation and so determined he was intentionally homeless. The decision letter set out that the Council would issue notice for Mr X to leave the temporary accommodation and provided his right to seek a review of the decision.
Mr X contacted the Council in December 2025 about its decision as he was waiting for supporting evidence in the form of court transcripts. Mr X says he provided these to the Council as soon as he received them but the Council refused his review request as it was late.
The Council issued notice to Mr X on 9 January 2026 at his temporary accommodation. Mr X left the temporary accommodation and returned to sofa surfing between friends and family.
Analysis Mr X applied to the Council as homeless on 7 March 2025 and the Council accepted he was homeless at that time and the relief duty. The Council did not issue its decision that Mr X was not homeless until 13 June 2025. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council says delay in the initial decision-making was due to the need to complete enquiries.
The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. Councils should be able to decide whether they owe the main housing duty on day 57 on almost all cases after accepting relief. If a council needs to make more inquiries, the Code says it should take no more than a further 15 working days. The Council has not provided evidence of the additional enquiries it made that required more time. I consider there was avoidable delay in the Council issuing a decision it did not owe the main housing duty to Mr X which will have delayed his right to request a review of the decision.
The statutory deadline for the Council to provide an outcome to Mr X’s review request of 16 June 2025 was 11 August 2025. The Council did not provide an outcome until 9 October 2025. This is fault. The Council says this was due to service pressures and noted it extended the review timeframe and kept Mr X informed on each occasion. I have seen no evidence this was agreed in writing with Mr X.
The outcome of the review was to overturn the Council’s earlier not homeless decision of 13 June 2025. Interim accommodation was provided to Mr X from 21 October 2025. It is not clear from the information provided why the original decision was overturned and I have seen no evidence that Mr X provided new and material information to support this change which calls into question the original decision making process.
The review outcome should have been provided to Mr X by 11 Augst 2025 and I am satisfied, on balance, that if this had happened, Mr X would have been provided with interim accommodation from that date. The failure to do so has caused Mr X a significant injustice as he was sofa surfing between family and friends including spending some nights in a van during this period.
In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council has acknowledged that the delays in investigating Mr X’s homelessness and resulting decisions being shared with him had a negative impact on him and apologised.
The Council also acknowledged that there was a missed opportunity to treat correspondence Mr X sent to the Council in December 2025 as a review request. Where a person asks for a review, the Council has no discretion about whether to carry one out. The Council has not provided evidence it properly considered whether this contact was a review request at the time it was made. This is fault.
Action
The Council will take the following action to provide a suitable remedy to Mr X: write to Mr X within one month of my final decision to apologise for the delay in dealing with his homeless application and review request; pay Mr X within one month of my final decision £750 for the period August to October 2025 to acknowledge he was deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in his life; complete a review of its decision made on 4 December 2025 that Mr X was intentionally homeless within two months of my final decision including reviewing any additional information Mr X provided; if the outcome of this review identifies further injustice the Council should remedy this in line with our guidance on remedies once the review is complete; and remind officers within one month of my final decision of the expected timescales for homelessness decision-making and that review requests should be completed within the statutory timeframe and they should seek to clarify whether a person is asking for a review if their communication is not clear.
We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
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