A man sleeping rough waited seven weeks for Wandsworth Council to see him. A mother facing eviction was asked twice to resend papers she had already sent.
A young man with autism came home after four months in hospital with none of the day activities he had relied on for years arranged.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has upheld complaints in all three cases, and in each it found the council had not properly worked out what a vulnerable person needed. With the man and the mother, it took too long to find out. With the young man, the council and the NHS tried to settle who would pay for his care before anyone had assessed what he needed.
The ombudsman told the council to pay the man £350 and the mother £500. The third case was decided jointly with the Health Service Ombudsman, which also found NHS South West London Integrated Care Board at fault. The board must pay the young man’s mother £400 and the council £250, and both must review how they handled his care.
- Asked again for bank statements he had already sent
- Promised contact by 18 July that never came
- Asked twice to resend her documents and medical evidence
- Told to wait for a court order and a bailiff’s warrant
- Urgent review requested; not held before he was detained
- Costs divided before anyone assessed what he needed
Seven weeks to be seen
In early April 2025, a man filled in Wandsworth’s online homelessness form and wrote that he was sleeping rough with nowhere to stay. (The ombudsman anonymises everyone in its reports; he is Mr X.) The council did not see him until 20 May, seven weeks later, and when it ruled on his case the ombudsman said: “Given Mr X had explained he was rough sleeping in his application form, seven weeks was not a reasonable timeframe to assess his application.”
He had done what was asked of him. Before that first appointment he had sent in documents to support his application, including medical information and his bank statements, yet once he had been seen the council asked for the bank statements again. When he said he had already sent them, the council told him in June that his case could not move without them, and only after he sent proof did it put the documents on his file. The ombudsman found he had supplied everything without delay; the hold-up was the council’s.
All the while he was struggling to find somewhere to live. He had viewed a home the day after his appointment and liked it, but wanted to see others before committing, and the council arranged no more viewings until August. It told him it could not move forward because his documents were missing, which the ombudsman found was wrong: he had already provided them, so there was no reason his application could not progress.
When he asked why he had not been given emergency accommodation in the meantime, the council told him he did not meet the criteria. It should have asked itself that question at his first appointment, the ombudsman found, though it concluded the answer would probably have been the same.
He complained in late June, and in mid-July the council upheld his complaint, apologised, and promised his housing officer would be in touch by 18 July. That contact never came: the housing officer did not get in touch with him at all, and it was 7 August before anyone from the council’s private renting team did. Five days later he accepted a property, telling the council he felt forced to take it to end his homelessness.
In its reply to the ombudsman’s questions, the council said it had since taken on more staff in its homelessness team. The watchdog said that was not enough to put things right for him, and told the council to pay him £350 by 24 September 2026.
The same papers, again and again
In mid-March 2025, a mother of dependent children was told by her private landlord that the home was being sold and the family would have to leave by mid-May. She said she could not afford to rent privately because of her deteriorating health and recent surgery, so in late March she applied to the council as homeless and sent in a large bundle of documents.
She said she then heard nothing, despite chasing by email, by phone and in person. In May the council asked her to send her documents again, along with a large amount of medical evidence, and then asked a second time, because different officers had picked up her case. When she was finally seen, with her children, the officer had not read them.
A manager explained the next day that the service was receiving more than 100 applications a day, and that people facing a no-fault eviction were given later appointments. The manager also told her that, once her notice ran out, her landlord would need a court order and then a bailiff’s warrant before the council would offer the family temporary accommodation. That advice, the ombudsman found, “suggests it routinely delays arranging interim accommodation until a possession order is obtained”.
Interim accommodation is emergency housing, and a council must arrange it as soon as it has reason to believe someone may be homeless, eligible for help and in priority need, as any family with dependent children is. The government’s own guidance says it is unlikely to be reasonable to expect a tenant to stay on once a no-fault notice has run out, unless the council is persuading the landlord to let them stay, and there is no evidence Wandsworth contacted her landlord.
The council was also late to accept that she was homeless. It did so in early August, about three weeks after it should have, the ombudsman found, and from that point it owed the family emergency housing. It arranged none.
The first home it did offer, in early September, was withdrawn because it was too far from her children’s school, and the council did not look for another until she chased it.
In October the council admitted, in its own complaint response, that promises had been made to her that could not be kept, and offered another property the same day; but repairs took longer than expected, and in November that offer was withdrawn too. By then, she told the council, she was still living unlawfully in her old home. Only in late November did the council offer a home that was ready, and the family moved in a week later, about three months after the council first owed them somewhere to live.
The council must apologise and pay her £500. The ombudsman made no further recommendations, noting that it had already told the council to improve its handling of homelessness cases after earlier complaints, and that the council had agreed.
The no-fault notice she received, under Section 21, was abolished on 1 May 2026; her case predates the change.
We read the full joint decision on the young man’s case, so you don’t have to.
Members can read what his GP warned in 2023, what his mother asked for and was never given a clear answer on, and what happened in the months after he came home. They also get the count of rulings against Wandsworth’s housing service so far, and what the council keeps saying in reply.
Already a member? Log in
What members get from this story
- The GP’s 2023 warning, and the review his mother asked for
- What happened in the months after he came home from hospital
- How many rulings now stand against the housing service, and what the council keeps saying
Already a member? Log in
The same answer every time
These are at least the ninth and tenth rulings against Wandsworth’s homelessness and rehousing service since August 2025. Among the earlier ones, a woman sleeping on night buses was left without emergency accommodation for two months, and a mother came home from hospital with a newborn to a room with no heating. Over eight days in February and March 2026, three rulings found the council had accepted a duty to help people and then stopped.
J’s case follows two other rulings against the council’s adult social care reported this year: a young woman who waited more than seven months for a care assessment, and a man who cannot speak whose case was closed because he would not meet face to face.
Through all of it, the council’s response has barely changed. In February it said it took its responsibilities to vulnerable residents “incredibly seriously”; in August, it was residents’ wellbeing. In October 2025, and again in February, it said it was “committed to providing safe, secure housing for those that need it”.
Putney.news sent the council seven questions about the two homelessness rulings on 9 October, including whether it had paid either person and whether it still waits for a court order before offering families emergency housing. It did not respond.
If you are homeless, or about to be
If you tell the council you are homeless, it must assess your case and give you a written housing plan. If it has reason to believe you may be homeless, eligible for help and in priority need, which includes having dependent children, it must arrange emergency accommodation while it does so. That duty starts as soon as the council has reason to believe it.
If someone in your family has been detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act, they are entitled to free aftercare when they leave hospital, and the council and the NHS share the duty to provide it. Families of autistic people and people with a learning disability who are at risk of going into hospital can ask the NHS for a Care and Treatment Review.
If you are worried about someone’s mental health care, Mind’s Infoline (0300 123 3393) and its Legal Line (0300 466 6463), which gives advice on mental health law, are open from 9am to 6pm on weekdays.
If you are unhappy with how the council has treated you, complain to it first. If that does not resolve it, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is free to use: lgo.org.uk or 0300 061 0614.
Has Wandsworth asked you for the same documents more than once, or told you to wait for a court order before it would help? Get in touch.
