Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly administer a homelessness application and failed to issue a personalised housing plan. Mr X also said the Council provided unsuitable interim accommodation, delayed accepting a housing duty, and communicated poorly. We have found the Council at fault for these matters. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, provide a right of review for the suitability of Mr X’s property, and carry out officer training. We have not found the Council at fault for failing to protect the household’s belongings.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. Failed to follow correct homelessness procedures, did not properly assess the family’s housing need, and did not issue a personalised housing plan.
2. Failed to offer suitable interim accommodation that met the household’s needs or address concerns about the accommodation’s condition.
3. Failed to decide whether it owed the main housing duty in the correct timescale.
4. Failed to protect the household’s belongings.
5. Communicated poorly about this matter.
2. Mr X says because of the Council’s faults, the household has lived in unsuitable interim accommodation since May 2023. This has affected the family’s health and wellbeing, as well as causing breakdowns in the family composition. Mr X said the household has lost possessions and incurred financial hardship. He also says these faults have caused significant uncertainty, distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered information he provided.
7. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
8. Both Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Assessment and personalised housing plans

9. 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 or 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

10. 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)

The relief duty

11. 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

12. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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)

Decision letters

13. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Interim and temporary accommodation

14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. 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)
16. 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.
17. 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)
18. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
19. 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)
20. Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any change in circumstances that may affect suitability. This obligation remains until the council properly brings its accommodation duty to an end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.8)

Protection of belongings

21. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Review rights

22. Relevant to this complaint, homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• 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.

Council’s allocations scheme

23. 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))
24. The Council’s allocations scheme sets out how the Council prioritises applicants. The Council has three priority bands, Bands A, B and C. Band A is the highest priority allocated.

Council’s complaints procedure

25. The Council operates a two-stage complaints procedure:
1. At stage one of the complaints procedure, the Council will provide a written acknowledgement of the complaint within five working days. The Council will then provide a written response to the complaint within 10 working days, unless there are special circumstances.
2. At stage two of the complaints procedure, the Council will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a written response within 20 working days, unless there are special circumstances.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of key events

26. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
27. In May 2023, Ms Y approached the Council as homeless. Ms Y told the Council she was staying with Mr X’s family, but this arrangement was not suitable, as her children could not join her there. Mr X and Ms Y then approached the Council as homeless together. On 4 May 2023, the Council provided the household with interim accommodation. I refer to this accommodation as Property 1 in this statement. The Council began an assessment to decide whether it owed the household a housing duty. The Council’s records show Mr X reported some maintenance issues at Property 1 over time.
28. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2023. He said the accommodation provider (Company S) told Mr X the family would be moved to new accommodation the following week, but did not explain why. The Council told Mr X it would clarify the situation and update him.
29. Later in August 2023, Mr X visited the Council’s offices. He asked for an update on the household’s PHP, which the Council had not yet issued. Mr X also asked about the household’s housing priority, which was then Band C. The Council told Mr X it would ask his caseworker to issue the PHP on return from a period of absence. It said it would check with Company S about any proposed move, because it did not have any information about this. Mr X expressed concerns about a move at short notice, as he had to arrange his delivery of medications.
30. On 20 September 2023, Company S moved the household to a different property (Property 2). Company S told the Council the move was necessary because it had to return Property 1 to the landlord.
31. Between September 2023 and January 2024, Mr X repeatedly contacted the Council to report problems with Property 2. Summarised:
1. When the household moved into Property 2, there were signs of damp. Mr X said Company S told him this was condensation and it would address this, but this did not happen.
2. In October 2023, Mr X told the Council there were issues with the drainage. The toilet was not working, significantly impacting Mr X’s medical conditions. Despite Company S promising to have it fixed, Mr X said the household was left without a working toilet for around a week. The toilet continued to intermittently stop working throughout the time the household lived at Property 2.
3. In November 2023, Mr X said the building’s alarm system was not working. He said there was no hot water and Company S had told Mr X to fix this himself. Mr X said the electric meter consumed a lot of energy, resulting in added financial costs. He said the damp was in fact a leak, which had caused mould to grow on the children’s beds, meaning they now had to sleep in the living room with Mr X and Ms Y. Mr X said these issues were significantly affecting the family’s health and wellbeing.
4. By the end of December 2023, Mr X had contacted the Council multiple times. He highlighted the worsening impact of the leaks, saying Property 2 was overcrowded, as the bedroom could not be used. He said the wardrobes in the property were covered in mould and the family had needed to throw clothes away. Mr X said the beds were damp and the mould exacerbated the family’s health issues.
5. In January 2024, Mr X continued to outline the impact of the mould and damp on the family. He said the household could not stay in the property and the issues could not be fixed while they lived there.
32. Throughout this period, the Council routinely passed Mr X’s reports to Company S. The Council highlighted how long the problems remained unaddressed and asked Company S to complete repairs.
33. Also, during this period:
1. Mr X contacted the Council in October 2023 to make a complaint. He said the Council did not take his complaint and told him to wait a further eight weeks before complaining.
2. On 21 November 2023, Mr X made a stage one complaint to the Council. His complaint concerned the Council failing to issue a PHP and its poor communication; the issues in Property 2; and the Council failing to record his complaint.
3. On 15 January 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint:
1. The Council said it sent Ms Y the PHP on 19 December 2023. It accepted its communication may have fallen short and apologised.
2. The Council said it had reminded officers complaints could be taken over the telephone and apologised this had not happened.
3. The Council said interim accommodation was in short supply, as recent severe weather meant the Council was providing accommodation to individuals sleeping rough.
4. The Council had passed Mr X’s concerns to Company S, who would address them shortly. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
4. On 16 January 2024, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He reiterated the same issues and said they had not received the PHP. He asked the Council to send this again. Mr X repeated this request on 19 January 2024.
34. On 25 January 2024, the Council asked Company S to move the household. The household moved to different accommodation (Property 3) on 26 January 2024.
35. In the following days, Mr X reported issues with the boiler at Property 3. Mr X also highlighted other repair defects over time as he found them. In early February 2024, Mr X again asked the Council to send a copy of the PHP.
36. On 8 February 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint. Summarised:
1. The Council said the household had a three-bed need.
2. The Council said it moved the household to Property 3 when Company S failed to address the problems at Property 2. The Council said it hoped this resolved Mr X’s concerns.
3. The Council said it had sent the PHP on 19 December 2023.
4. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It accepted there was a period when his caseworker had been absent but said another caseworker unsuccessfully attempted to contact Mr X during this period.
37. On 13 February 2024, Mr X asked the Council what housing duty it owed the family. According to its records, the Council told Mr X there would be a decision made about the main housing duty within the next three weeks.
38. In April 2024, Mr X contacted the Council multiple times for an update. He also told the Council he and Ms Y were expecting another child.
39. In July 2024, the Council contacted Mr X to obtain relevant documents about the family’s circumstances. Mr X told the Council the family composition had changed, as some of the children had left Property 3 to live with other relatives. Mr X also reported repair issues with Property 3. He provided the Council with the information it sought.
40. On 5 September 2024, the Council accepted the main housing duty towards the household. It provided written notification of this decision, awarding Band B priority and a three-bed housing need. The Council later backdated the priority and registration date to 29 June 2023, 56 days after the date Mr X and Ms Y approached as homeless.
41. In October 2024, Mr X told the Ombudsman that many repairs issues persisted with Property 3 and the Council had not addressed these, affecting the health and wellbeing of the household.

Analysis

Initial approach, assessment, personal housing plan and relief duty

42. When Mr X and Ms Y approached the Council in May 2023, the Council provided interim accommodation. In doing so, the Council accepted the interim accommodation duty, though it did not confirm this in writing. The Council should then have completed its assessment and provided the household with its PHP. The Council should also have decided whether it owed Mr X and Ms Y the relief housing duty and confirmed its decision in writing, providing a right of review in the event of an adverse decision.
43. The Council did not complete its assessment and produce a PHP until 19 December 2023. The Council also did not produce a decision letter confirming it owed the relief duty until the same date. This is a significant delay.
44. Mr X said he never received the PHP, despite the Council saying it had been sent to Ms Y. Mr X queried whether the Council had sent it, or whether it had even created it. The Council provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the household’s PHP and relief duty decision letter. I am therefore satisfied the documents exist. However, I have seen no clear evidence the Council sent these documents to Ms Y in December 2023, and the Council has been unable to show that it did. In any event, Mr X clearly stated on multiple occasions they had not received a copy of the PHP and asked the Council to send it again. The Council did not do so and it is unclear why. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied Mr X and Ms Y never saw a copy of either the PHP or the relief duty decision letter.
45. I have found the Council’s delay in producing the PHP and confirming the relief housing duty is fault. I have also found its failure to provide copies to Mr X on request was fault. These faults caused Mr X and Ms Y a prolonged period of uncertainty about what steps they should take to manage their homelessness, what actions the Council would take, and what duty it owed. It also led Mr X to make avoidable effort to obtain copies, without success. This caused avoidable uncertainty and frustration. These are injustices to Mr X and Ms Y.
46. The Council’s delay in accepting the relief housing duty also contributed significantly to a delay in accepting the main housing duty. This is considered below.

Main housing duty

47. The Council went on to accept the main housing duty for the household. We can therefore say, on the balance of probabilities, it could have accepted the main housing duty around June 2023, had it not delayed accepting the relief duty following Mr X and Ms Y’s initial approach. The Council did not accept the main housing duty until 5 September 2024. This is a significant delay. I have found the Council at fault for this.
48. This fault caused Mr X and Ms Y an injustice. There was again a prolonged period of uncertainty about whether the Council owed the household a housing duty. Until the Council determined this, Mr X and Ms Y could not be certain if their priority was correct, or bid for permanent accommodation. Mr X was also put to avoidable effort in trying to obtain clarity. This was a source of avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress.
49. I recognise the family composition changed in mid-2024, meaning the Council would have had to assess the family’s circumstances again. This likely added some time to the Council’s decision-making between July and September 2024. However, had the Council accepted the main housing duty at the correct time, any subsequent delay would have been avoided.
50. The Council confirmed to the Ombudsman it backdated the household’s priority and main housing duty registration dates to 29 June 2023, around 56 days after Mr X and Ms Y’s first approach. Backdating the application and priority will ensure the household’s bids for accommodation are placed in the correct position. The Council confirmed the average waiting time for permanent accommodation in the household’s priority band is around five years. It is therefore unlikely the household missed any opportunities for permanent accommodation because of the Council’s delay in accepting the main housing duty.
51. However, the delay in accepting the main housing duty also meant Mr X and Ms Y did not have the right to request a review of the suitability of their accommodation at the correct times. I have found the Council at fault for this. The injustice is considered below.

Interim accommodation – suitability and condition

52. Mr X and Ms Y’s household lived in three properties, each of which the Council provided under the interim accommodation duty. Had the Council accepted the main housing duty in June 2023, this accommodation would have been provided as temporary accommodation, rather than interim accommodation. The difference is set out in paragraphs 14-20. There is no right to request a review of the suitability of interim accommodation.
53. Mr X and Ms Y would have been able to ask the Council to review the suitability of each of the properties the Council provided for them, if the Council accepted the main housing duty at the correct time. That they could not is an injustice.
54. While there is no right to a review of the suitability of interim accommodation, the Council must still ensure any interim accommodation it provides is suitable for applicants. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says factors that inform suitability include:
• Whether a property is in reasonable physical condition.
• Whether a property is overcrowded.
• Whether the property is free of Category 1 hazards, as set out in the Household Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) legislation.
• Whether the accommodation is affordable.
• The property’s location, accounting for the needs of the household.
• Whether the property meets the medical and physical needs of members of the household.
55. The Council said it implemented a new system in October 2023 to ensure interim accommodation met the Council’s requirements. The Council said it was in the process of signing up all its providers to this system as of October 2024. In the meantime, its providers should inspect their properties and provide a report to the Council to demonstrate their condition. The Council told the Ombudsman it was satisfied each property Mr X and Ms Y stayed in was compliant at the point of allocation. It said any issues were then passed back to Company S, who was responsible for addressing them.
56. I note the Council’s position, However, Company S provided the accommodation on the Council’s behalf, to allow the Council to fulfil its statutory duties. The Council retains overall responsibility for the ongoing suitability of any accommodation provided in the discharge of its homelessness duties.
57. I have considered whether the Council can show it considered suitability when it allocated each property, having regard for the factors in paragraph 54, and whether it kept this suitability under review. If not, I have considered whether the accommodation offered was suitable, on the balance of probabilities.

Property 1 – May 2023 to September 2023

58. The Council provided evidence it considered Property 1’s suitability at the point of allocation. The Council’s paperwork showed it considered the household’s medical conditions, their bed need, the property’s location, and its cost. Based on these factors, the Council decided Property 1 was suitable for the household.
59. The Council’s assessment does not show any consideration for the condition of the property. I have found the Council at fault for this.
60. However, I have not found this caused an injustice. The Council provided copies of inspection reports submitted by Company S around the time it allocated Property 1 to Mr X and Ms Y. The inspection found cosmetic defects, mould in a cupboard, and a slight boiler leak. These issues appeared relatively minor and could likely be resolved with the family living in the property. On the balance of probabilities, I find if the Council had considered Property 1’s condition as part of its assessment, it would still have decided it was suitable.

Property 2 – September 2023 to January 2024

61. The Council provided evidence it assessed Property 2’s suitability when Mr X and Ms Y moved into it. The Council assessed Property 2 using the same factors it used to assess Property 1. Again, the Council did not consider whether the property was in good condition as part of its assessment.
62. The Council provided an inspection report from Company S. However, this report was dated October 2024, a year after Mr X and Mrs Y moved in. The Council therefore appeared to have no information about Property 2’s condition before allocating it in September 2023.
63. As set out in paragraph 31, Mr X said there was damp in Property 2 when he moved in. He said he was told this was condensation, but it became apparent this was a leak. The sequence of events that followed led the Council to move the family to Property 3, showing the Council also agreed Property 2 was not suitable, due to its poor condition. On the balance of probabilities, I find that Property 2 was allocated with a leak and other repair defects. This had a significant impact on the household’s wellbeing over time, with parts of Property 2 becoming unusable and overcrowded, with inconsistent provision of utilities.
64. The evidence suggests the Council did not account for the condition of the property when it allocated it. It then failed to swiftly decide the property was unsuitable when provided with new information, repeatedly referring concerns to Company S, which failed to resolve them within a reasonable timeframe. I have found the Council at fault for this.
65. On the balance of probabilities, I consider that Property 2 was unsuitable for Mr X and Ms Y’s household from the outset, meaning the household resided in unsuitable interim accommodation for around four-and-a-half months. This is an injustice.

Property 3 – From January 2024

66. Mr X reported problems with Property 3 to the Council when he moved in. Mr X told the Ombudsman the Council had not addressed these problems, which posed risks to members of the household. Mr X also said Property 3’s condition was a factor that led the children to decide to stay with other family members.
67. When the Council accepted the main housing duty in September 2024, Mr X was afforded the right to ask for a review of Property 3’s suitability. I would not therefore take an on-balance view of the suitability now. To do so would potentially infringe on decisions for which there exists a relevant right of review Mr X could have exercised.
68. While I would not take a view on Property 3’s suitability, I again note the Council did not consider its condition as a factor as part of its assessment. It is also not clear the Council fully addressed Mr X’s subsequent and evolving concerns about the overall condition of Property 3 and the additional costs he incurred. I have therefore found the Council at fault for how it assessed the suitability of Property 3 and for how it has kept that suitability under review.
69. This causes uncertainty as to whether the Council would still have decided Property 3 was suitable, had it had full regard for the guidance in the Code. This uncertainty is an injustice to Mr X and Ms Y. I have recommended the Council act to remedy this injustice.

Protection of belongings

70. The Council’s duty to protect belongings is set out in paragraph 21. This duty arises when the Council accepts certain housing duties, including the interim accommodation duty. The Council has a duty to protect an applicant’s possessions where it has reason to believe these will become lost or damaged, unless the Council makes storage arrangements.
71. The Council completed a risk assessment on 4 May 2023, when Mr X and Ms Y first approached as homeless. I have seen a copy of this assessment. As part of this assessment, the Council considered whether Mr X and Ms Y needed any assistance with storage. This form says they did not. This is consistent with Mr X’s description of events. He told the Ombudsman storage was not an issue at first, as he was able to make his own arrangements. I am therefore satisfied the Council did not have any reason to believe the household’s belongings were at risk on initial approach. The Council’s duty to protect belongings was therefore not engaged. I have not found the Council at fault for its initial decision.
72. Mr X said his storage arrangements came to an end in summer 2023 and he approached the Council for help. He said the Council did not respond to his requests, leading to lost and damaged belongings over time. Mr X said he tried to raise this issue by telephone, but did not receive a response.
73. The Council told me it had no record of this contact. I have reviewed the Council’s contact records with Mr X for this period, but have not identified any mention of it. This is also not an issue mentioned in Mr X’s complaint to the Council. As the information available does not evidence Mr X’s assertions, I have not found the Council at fault.
74. Mr X also told the Ombudsman the Council’s lack of response meant the household had no choice but to rehome their pets.
75. The Council’s initial risk assessment states pets cannot be accommodated in interim accommodation. It encourages discussion around applicants making alternative arrangements. The Council documented the household had two pets, one of which still needed to be placed elsewhere at the time of the assessment. On the balance of probabilities and based on the entries recorded, I am satisfied the Council discussed this matter with Mr X at the time.
76. This was not a matter mentioned in Mr X’s complaints to the Council. I have not identified any reference to this in any correspondence between Mr X and the Council that I have seen, or any other evidence that mentions this matter. I have not therefore found the Council at fault.

Communication and complaint handling

77. The Council’s records show Mr X had to make a disproportionate effort to obtain updates on his housing application, the family’s PHP, and any housing duty owed. This extended to making multiple telephone calls, sending several emails, and visiting the Council’s offices in person, over a prolonged period. Mr X also had to repeatedly ask the Council for updates about the condition of the household’s interim accommodation. The Council’s complaint response does not adequately reflect this. I have found the Council at fault for its response and for its consistently poor communication with Mr X.
78. This caused Mr X an injustice in the form of avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress. I have recommended the Council act to remedy this injustice.
79. Mr X also highlighted that he had tried to make a complaint in October 2023 by telephone, but this was not logged. The Council accepted this happened and apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
80. The Council failing to correctly take Mr X’s complaint was fault. I note the Council accepted this and consider its apology provides a partial remedy to the injustice caused. However, I am of the view this does not fully address the avoidable time and trouble Mr X incurred when trying to make his complaint. Further, the Council’s stage one complaint response was overdue by around six weeks.
81. I have recommended the Council take further action to remedy the remaining injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Agreed action

82. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X and Ms Y for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Mr X and Ms Y £1350 in recognition of time spent in unsuitable accommodation in Property 2. This is a figure of £300 per month, for around four-and-a-half months. I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation.
3. Pay a further £500, broken down as follows:
1. £350 in recognition of the avoidable distress experienced because of the Council’s faults. I have again considered the Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation, which defines distress as stress, uncertainty, frustration, and loss of opportunity.
2. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble incurred as a result of the faults in the Council’s complaints handling.
4. Provide Mr X and Ms Y with a further right of review of the suitability of Property 3. If Mr X opts to exercise this right, the Council should ensure it provides a written decision and any relevant right of appeal that comes with an adverse decision.
83. Within three months of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide training for relevant officers on the following:
1. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 11: Assessments and personalised plans. This sets out the procedure and timing for completing assessments and issuing PHPs.
2. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 14: Ending the prevention and relief duties. This addresses the circumstances in which an authority can end the relief duty, including relevant timescales.
3. Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 17: Suitability of accommodation. This addresses the factors an authority should consider when deciding if accommodation is suitable.
84. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

85. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman