The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application including delay in providing interim accommodation and deciding her homelessness application. It also failed to review the suitability of the accommodation it provided to her. We found fault by the Council on all matters. The Council agreed to apologise, reimburse Miss X for the costs she incurred during the period it did not provide her with interim accommodation and make her a symbolic payment.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness case. She complained it: delayed providing her with interim accommodation when she became homeless; delayed progressing her homelessness application; failed to maintain communication over extended periods; did not properly assess whether her temporary accommodation was suitable; failed to keep the suitability of that accommodation under review; and moved her to accommodation of a lower standard which she says is unsuitable.
Miss X stated the Council’s actions have resulted in her and her child living in unsuitable accommodation which has negatively impacted their health and wellbeing.
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).
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 Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Miss 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
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.
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) 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) 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) The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) Reviews 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.
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) Key events Miss X and her teenage child, Y, lived in privately rented accommodation. Y has a medical condition which causes extreme tiredness, breathing issues and migraines.
In March 2024 Miss X’s landlord evicted them from their home without notice. She approached the Council as homeless on the day she was evicted.
The Council provided Miss X with interim accommodation 18 days after she was made homeless. In the intervening period Miss X paid for £989.29 for hotel accommodation for her and Y.
Shortly after moving into her interim accommodation Miss X told the Council the accommodation was not suitable for Y’s medical needs.
In November the Council assessed Miss X’s interim accommodation and found it was unsuitable for Y’s medical needs.
In December Miss X complained to the Council. She complained: her and her daughter have been living in unsuitable temporary accommodation since March; her caseworker did not contact her about her case for 9 months despite her requesting updates; her caseworker discussed personal matters with her while she was at her place of work and threatened to terminate her temporary accommodation if she did not provide information; and her caseworker did not act on the requested information and did not escalate her case to a manager.
Miss X explained Y needed medical treatment and so a resolution to her concerns was very important.
The Council replied later that month. The reply said: it apologised for the delays in progressing Miss X’s homelessness application and for the lack of response from her caseworker.
Miss X’s caseworker had contacted her to complete a Personal Housing Plan (PHP) and that she would decide her homelessness application by mid-January 2025.
the temporary accommodation team are aware her current accommodation is unsuitable, and it is looking for suitable alternative accommodation.
The reply acknowledged the inconvenience and distress caused to Miss X and offered her a symbolic payment of £100.
The Council said that following receipt of its stage one reply Miss X said she was happy to stay in her temporary accommodation during the winter. However, Miss X disputes that she did so.
In February 2025 Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. She complained about the same matters but also include delay by her caseworker in providing her with a decision on her homelessness application and continued delay in moving her to suitable temporary accommodation.
The Council replied in March. It said: Miss X’s caseworker issued a decision on her homelessness application in late February.
it will continue to look for suitable alternative temporary accommodation for Miss X.
In May Miss X was offered alternative temporary accommodation. This was self-contained accommodation but the bathroom facilities are separate and accessed via a corridor shared with other households.
Miss X accepted the new temporary accommodation but later that month she asked for a review of the suitability of the accommodation. She said the accommodation was unsuitable because: it had a bathroom accessed via a shared corridor which was not suitable for her and Y’s medical needs; of safeguarding risks associated with the bathroom being accessed via a shared corridor, harassment and security risks; other residents smoke which is health risk for Y and a fire risk; noise pollution is exacerbating Y’s migraines; and environmental pollution has caused Y to develop allergies.
In July Miss X told the Council about further security issues at her temporary accommodation and fire safety concerns.
The Council said it would raise the matters with the manging agent for the property. However, these matters were not resolved and Miss X continued to report problems to the Council.
In April 2026 Miss X repeated her request for a suitability review of her current accommodation.
The Council completed a suitability review in April and found Miss X’s current accommodation was not suitable for her and Y.
Meanwhile Miss X complained to the Ombudsman. She complained about the same matters as in her stage one and two complaints to the Council. She explained her current temporary accommodation is negatively impacting her and Y’s health and wellbeing.
We made enquiries of the Council. It told us it does not have any records explaining: why it did not offer Miss X interim accommodation sooner when she was made homeless.
what, if any, efforts it made to find Miss X suitable accommodation once it had concluded the accommodation initially provided to her was unsuitable.
what, if any, communication Miss X received from her caseworker during the period March 2024-February 2025.
Finding
Homelessness application When Miss X presented as homeless in March 2024 the law required the Council to consider whether it owed her the interim accommodation duty. The law requires the Council to secure him accommodation where it had “reason to believe” he may homeless, eligible for assistance for priority need. The threshold for tiggering this duty is described in the Code as ‘low’. Case law confirmed ‘reason to believe’ meant whether there was an ‘apparent’ priority need at that point (R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 917). The burden of proof was on the Council to decide whether the duty was owed, not for Miss X to provide her case.
Therefore, the key issue was whether the Council properly considered if it owed Miss X a duty to provide interim accommodation because it had reason to believe she may have priority need. The Council was aware Miss X had a dependent child however it did not offer her interim accommodation for 18 days. In the absence of any records explaining why it did not offer her interim accommodation immediately, I consider it should have done so. This means Miss X lost the opportunity to have interim accommodation for 18 days and had to pay £989.29 to secure hotel accommodation for her and Y. This is injustice.
Miss X made her homelessness application in March 2024. It should therefore have decided if it owed Miss X the Relief Duty and if it did so, decide if it owed her the Main Housing Duty within 56 days of accepting the Relief Duty. The Council did not tell Miss X about its decisions on either matter until February 2025. This is a significant delay of nearly one year and amounts to fault by the Council. Miss X was caused frustration and uncertainty as a result. It also frustrated Miss X’s right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation initially provided to her. This is injustice.
Suitability of interim accommodation Miss X raised concerns about the suitability of the interim accommodation provided to her when she moved into it in March 2024. The Council did not act on her concerns until November 2024 when it reviewed the suitability and found it was unsuitable. I am not aware of any significant changes in the either the condition of the accommodation or the needs of Miss X and Y from the date they moved in. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I consider the accommodation was likely unsuitable for Miss X and Y from the date they moved in. This means Miss X and Y lived in unsuitable interim accommodation until it became temporary accommodation in February 2025. This is injustice.
I note the Council says Miss X agreed not to move from her interim accommodation during the winter of 2024. Miss X disputes this. I would expect the Council to have recorded details of this matter however it has been unable to provide any evidence supporting its view. I therefore cannot conclude Miss X asked not to move during the winter of 2024.
Suitability of temporary accommodation Once the Council accepted the main housing duty to Miss X in February 2025, her accommodation became temporary accommodation. The Council had already accepted it was unsuitable for Miss X’s needs. Once the Council accepts temporary accommodation is unsuitable it owes an immediate and non-deferable duty to provide suitable accommodation. Miss X remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation until May 2025. This is injustice.
Miss X moved to alternative temporary accommodation in May 2025 and immediately requested a suitability review. The Council did not complete the review until April 2026. The Council should consider suitability review requests within eight weeks. The significant delay by the Council is fault. This caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. This is injustice.
The suitability review by the Council found Miss X’s current accommodation is unsuitable for her needs. This means Miss X and Y have been living in unsuitable accommodation for 14 months and continue to do so. This is injustice.
Communication The Council’s complaint replies to Miss X acknowledged poor and delayed communication when replying to her concerns and enquiries. This is fault which caused Miss X frustration and put her to avoidable time and trouble. This is injustice. I consider the Council’s symbolic payment of £100 suitably remedies the injustice caused to Miss X by this part of her complaint.
Agreed Action
Within in one month of my final decision the Council will: Apologise to Miss X in writing for the identified fault. 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.
Reimburse Miss X for the £989.29 she spent on hotel accommodation in the period prior to the Council offering her interim accommodation.
Make a symbolic payment of £4200 to Miss X to acknowledge that she and Y have lived in unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation for 28 months. This comprises of £150 for each month she has been in unsuitable accommodation and is in keeping with our guidance on remedies.
Make an additional payment of £150 per month for each month Miss X continues to live in unsuitable accommodation (up to a maximum of six months).
As part of recent investigation into similar complaints we have made service improvement recommendations. Therefore, I do not consider it is necessary to make further service improvement recommendations as part of my investigation.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision There was fault by the Council. I have completed my investigation as the Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman