The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not properly manage her housing and homelessness applications and failed to rehouse her. She says this distressed her and put her family at risk. The Council was at fault. It delayed processing Miss X’s housing and homelessness applications and delayed issuing the main housing duty decision. The Council has agreed to apologise and issue guidance to its staff.
The complaint
Miss X says the Council did not properly manage her housing and homelessness applications. She says this stopped her family being rehoused and risked their safety.
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 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) 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) We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Background Information 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)) The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application/ a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
The Council’s allocations scheme The Council’s allocations scheme operates in partnership with other neighbouring local councils and has the following priority bandings in descending order: Gold Plus (6 month time limit - including homeless duty cases) Gold Plus (12 month time limit) Silver Plus (6 month time limit – including homeless duty cases accepted by another council in the partnership) Silver Plus (12 month time limit) Reduced banding The scheme says the council aims to process all eligible applications within 10 working days (when full information is available) with some applications taking up to four weeks.
The scheme says a household containing parent(s) and two children of different sexes is entitled to a three bedroom property when the oldest child reaches ten years old.
The scheme says the Council will only add an adult to an application if it is satisfied the adult either is, has in the past or will be in future reasonably expected to reside as a member of the household.
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.
If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5) Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions (Housing Act 1996 section 202) Relief Duty The relief duty means 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 relief duty ends after 56 days when the Council is satisfied the applicant has priority need and is homeless. The Council should notify the applicant of its decision on or around day 57 unless further investigations are required in which case the Council should issue its decision within a maximum of 15 working days after the 56 days have passed. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 14.16) 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).
Interim and temporary accommodation There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is 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) What happened This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
Miss X asked the Council for housing in March 2025. She lived in a different area and said police advised her to move because of harassment. She sent a housing allocations scheme application to the Council saying she lived in a four bedroom home with her ex-partner, Mr Y, and two adult children, a son and a daughter. Miss X said she was homeless or threatened with homelessness.
At the start of April 2025 Miss X told the Council she was not planning to move until a home became available in its area. Miss X declined the Council’s offer of interim accommodation and asked it to progress her housing application. Later that month Miss X asked the Council for an update on her application and again said she did not need interim accommodation.
In May 2025, Miss X again asked the Council for an update and said she was staying with family and friends. The Council’s homelessness service spoke to Miss X and then contacted the police for further information.
Later that month the Council processed Miss X’s housing application and contacted her for further information. She provided the information the following day.
The Police replied to the Council at the end of May 2025.
At the start of June 2025 the Council began a homeless application for Miss X. One week later the Council accepted a homeless relief duty to Miss X. It offered her interim accommodation. Miss X declined saying she wanted to stay at her home address but would contact the Council if she changed her mind.
In July 2025 the Council accepted Miss X’s housing application. It awarded her gold plus priority banding for properties in the Council’s area and silver plus priority banding for properties in two neighbouring areas. The scheme classified Miss X’s household as being a family with non-dependent children.
In September 2025 Miss X told the Council she could not bid for advertised four bedroom properties. The Council responded saying these were often prioritised for families with dependent children. It also said planning restrictions meant it could only offer some vacancies to people with a local connection to the area. Miss X asked the Council to review her application.
Later in September 2025 Miss X complained to the Council saying she was homeless due to harassment and had not been able to bid on four bedroom properties.
In mid-October 2025 the Council reviewed Miss X’s housing application and said it had assessed it correctly. It said many four bedroom properties were prioritised for families with dependent children or subject to planning restrictions. It advised Miss X to also consider bidding on larger three bedroom properties. The following day Miss X told the council there had been a further incident with her family. The Council asked Miss X if she needed interim accommodation. Miss X said she did not.
Later in October 2025 the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint saying it had responded to Miss X’s review within eight weeks as required by its allocation scheme. It did not uphold her complaint.
One week later, the Council removed Mr Y from Miss X’s housing application. It told Miss X it had evidence Mr Y was not part of her household. It also said it had re-classified Miss X’s family as needing ground floor accommodation due to Miss X and one of her children having mobility issues. It said Miss X was currently eligible for three bedroom flats, maisonettes and bungalows.
Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint the following day. She complained the Council had removed Mr Y from her application, not properly considered the family’s mobility issues and blocked her from bidding on four bedroom properties.
In December 2025 Miss X wrote to the Council saying it had not yet made a decision on the end of homelessness relief duty, had not updated her priority banding and was stopping her bidding on four-bedroom properties. The Council replied it would contact her about her homeless application and respond to her stage two complaint. It said it would assess any evidence Miss X provided of Mr Y living with her family.
In early January 2026 Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She said she wanted the Council to move her family to a suitable and safe four bedroom property.
Three days later the Council issued its stage two complaint response to Miss X. It apologised for the delay in processing Miss X’s housing application. It said it had assessed her application correctly and awarded the scheme’s highest priority. It also said it was not satisfied Mr Y was part of Miss X’s household following checks.
In March 2026 the Council wrote to Miss X saying it was ending its homeless relief duty and had accepted a main housing duty.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had proof Mr Y had a tenancy elsewhere and it was not satisfied Miss X needed a four-bedroom property. It said she could bid for three bedroom properties.
My findings
Delay in processing housing allocations scheme application The Council policy, referenced in paragraph 13 says the Council should take up to four weeks to process a scheme application when it has full information available. Miss X made her application in March 2025 and provided full information in May 2025. The Council issued its decision in July 2025. This was eight weeks after Miss X’s provided full information. This four week delay is fault. This caused uncertainty for Miss X.
I cannot say this delay impacted Miss X’s chances of being rehoused. After the Council accepted Miss X’s application in July 2025 and awarded it the highest priority, she did not secure a move due to the lack of suitable vacancies she could bid on because she wanted a four bedroom property.
Assessment of bedroom need Paragraph 15 says the Council can assess whether it is satisfied an adult should be classed as a member of an applicant’s household. Based on the evidence the Council saw, it decided not to include Mr Y in Miss X’s application. The Council is entitled to make this decision and I cannot question its merits. The Council was not at fault.
Paragraph 14 says a household containing a parent and two children of different sexes (at least one of whom is aged over 10) is entitled to a three bedroom property under the housing allocations scheme. Miss X’s household consists of herself and her adult son and daughter. The Council assessed she was entitled to a three-bedroom property in accordance with its scheme. The Council was not at fault.
Homelessness Application Paragraph 17 says the Council should have made enquiries into what duty it owed Miss X when it had reason to believe she may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days. Miss X told the Council in March 2025 she was suffering harassment and was homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Council began enquiries with the police in May 2025 but did not start Miss X’s homeless application until June 2025. This three month delay is fault. This caused Miss X uncertainty.
Paragraph 20 says the Council should have issued Miss X’s main housing duty decision on or around day 57 after accepting the homelessness relief duty. The Council accepted a homelessness relief duty to Miss X in June 2025. The Council issued its main housing duty decision letter to her 266 days later, in March 2026. This 210 day delay is fault. This caused frustration and uncertainty for Miss X.
The delay denied Miss X the statutory review rights that apply to the main housing duty. This includes the right to review the Council’s decision and suitability of accommodation offered by the Council. However, I do not consider this delayed right of review caused a significant personal injustice to Miss X. The Council had decided to accept a full housing duty for Miss X so she would not have needed to ask for a review of this decision.
The delay in the Council starting Miss X’s homelessness application and then issuing its main duty decision did not place Miss X and her family at increased risk. The Council repeatedly offered Miss X interim accommodation from April 2025 onwards. Miss X told the Council she did not want to move to interim accommodation.
The Council’s delay issuing the main housing duty decision did not impact Miss X’s priority for rehousing via the Council’s housing allocations scheme. From June 2025 the Council awarded Miss X’s housing application the highest priority banding based on its homelessness duty. Therefore, Miss X already had the highest priority for rehousing throughout the homelessness relief duty period before the Council accepted the main housing duty.
Action
To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision: Apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in processing her housing allocations scheme application and homelessness application and issuing its main housing duty decision. 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.
Issue guidance to staff to ensure they understand main housing duty decision letters should be issued in accordance with the timescales detailed in the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I have completed my investigation. On the evidence seen, I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Miss X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman