Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed in providing interim accommodation when she became homeless, then did not properly consider the suitability of accommodation it provided. There was fault by the Council which caused Ms X and her children the avoidable distress of eviction, and then to remain in unsuitable accommodation once rehoused. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a financial remedy. We did not recommend actions for the Council to address the failings in its homeless service. It has already recently updated us on progress against its Housing Needs Service Improvement Plan following fault identified in other cases.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council handled her homelessness application when she asked it for help in mid-2022. She says the Council:
• did not properly assess her housing needs in mid-2022 when she made a homelessness application, and then failed to keep the application updated with her circumstances;
• did not provide interim accommodation until the day she was evicted by enforcement agents; and
• provided unsuitable accommodation from late October 2022 to early April 2023, and failed to consider a request for review of the suitability of the accommodation.
2. Because of this, Ms X says:
• the accommodation the Council provided was outside its area away from her job and her children’s school. This meant significant time and expense spent in getting the children to school, and some time spent living apart so the children could more easily get to school. Ms X had to leave her job; and
• stress caused by the unsuitable accommodation caused a breakdown of family relationships. Ms X experienced mental health issues and there was a negative impact on her children’s health and education.
3. Ms X wants the Council to:
• complete an updated assessment of her housing needs;
• provide a financial payment to recognise the distress caused to the family; and
• train its staff to stop the same faults recurring.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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.
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. 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

9. Ms X used a representative, Ms Y, to make her complaint. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
10. I considered:
• information provided by Ms Y. This included her written response to my queries about the complaint, and copies of documents Ms X got from the Council about her housing file;
• relevant law and guidance; and
• the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction and Guidance on Remedies.
11. Ms Y, Ms X, and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

12. 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.
13. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:
• 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)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

15. 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 relief duty and interim accommodation

16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. A council must secure accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need (for example, if they have dependent children). This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or, failing this, if 56 days have passed.

The main housing duty and temporary accommodation

19. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
20. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it.

Suitability of accommodation

21. 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 (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
22. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, authorities must have regard to
• the space and arrangement of the accommodation;
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation;
• location, including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care; and
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability.
23. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

24. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)
25. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable has a statutory right to ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of being notified of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202). There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.
26. Councils must complete reviews of suitability of temporary accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
27. If a council’s review decides temporary accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

My findings

Relief duty and interim accommodation offer

28. In mid-2021, Ms X’s landlord served her family with notice to leave their privately rented property. In May 2022, the courts issued an order for possession telling the family to give possession of the property to the landlord by 6 June 2022. The family could not find alternative private accommodation and approached the Council for assistance.
29. The Council carried out an assessment of Ms X’s housing needs in mid-June 2022. Ten weeks later, in late-August 2022, the Council:
• sent Ms X a Personalised Housing Plan following her assessment; and
• spoke to Ms X’s landlord, who confirmed their intent to apply for a warrant to enforce possession of the property.
30. In October 2022, Ms X received notice of eviction in three weeks. She provided this to the Council which said it would find her alternative accommodation. The Council says it tried to find Ms X private rental accommodation but was unsuccessful. Ms X continued to chase the Council leading up to the eviction date, including the day before. Ms X’s family was then evicted by enforcement agents. On the eviction day around midday the Council gave her the address of an interim accommodation outside the Council’s area, which the family then moved into.
31. The Homelessness Code of Guidance (paragraphs 6.34 to 6.38) says:
• where an applicant remains in their home while the landlord pursues possession, the Council should keep contact with them. It should keep under regular review whether it is reasonable for them to continue to occupy the property;
• it is “highly unlikely” to be reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy beyond the date on which the court has ordered them to give possession to the landlord;
• councils should not consider it reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation until the court issues a warrant to enforce an order for possession; and
• councils should ensure homeless families owed an interim accommodation duty are not evicted through enforcement action because the Council has failed to make suitable accommodation available.
32. Councils must ‘have regard’ to statutory guidance when carrying out their duties. This means councils can depart from statutory guidance, but if they do, they must have a good reason for doing so. I found the Council did not follow the legislation and did not have due regard to the statutory guidance. The Council was at fault because:
• it did not properly consider whether it was reasonable for the family to remain in occupation past the date of 6 June 2022 given in the possession order, and to remain in occupation until issued an eviction notice. It did not consider whether there was good reason for departing from the statutory guidance which says this is highly unlikely to be reasonable;
• after the eviction notice, the Council told Ms X it would find her alternative accommodation, so must have accepted it owed her the relief duty and interim accommodation duty. However, at this stage the evidence suggests it did not properly record this decision or notify Ms X of it in writing; and
• the Council failed to ensure it found interim accommodation for the family before they were evicted by enforcement agents. It did not have due regard to the statutory guidance which says it should ensure this does not happen. It did not record any reason for departing from this guidance.

Suitability of accommodation

33. Four days after Ms X moved into the interim accommodation, she told the Council she did not consider it to be suitable. She said it was out of the Council’s area and too far away from her job, and her children’s school, causing unaffordable travel costs. The Council told her it would contact her as soon as an alternative property became available.
34. Two weeks later, after chasing by Ms X, the Council told Ms X there was no statutory right to seek a suitability review for interim accommodation. However, it said it would use its discretion to consider this. Internally, it recorded on 21 November 2022 it had placed Ms X on its transfer list to move accommodation. Therefore, my view is the Council agreed from at least this point the accommodation was not suitable, even though it did not communicate this to Ms X.
35. In February 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty to Ms X. This meant the accommodation changed from interim to temporary, and she had the right to seek a statutory review of its suitability, which she did. In early-April, while the eight-week review period was ongoing, the Council moved Ms X to alternative temporary accommodation within its area. She was satisfied this was suitable and remains there at the time of this decision, still owed the main housing duty.
36. All accommodation provided by the Council to homeless applicants must be suitable for the needs of the specific household.
37. We will not usually investigate complaints about temporary accommodation where the complainant has a statutory right of review and then appeal to court on a point of law. We may decide to investigate if there was a good reason the complainant could not appeal to court. The Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable before the statutory review right arose, and moved Ms X before the review period was complete and the right to appeal to court arose. Because of this, I decided I could investigate the suitability of the accommodation for the whole period the family lived there.
38. The Council accepted from at least 21 November 2022 the accommodation was unsuitable but failed to find an alternative until April 2023. This was fault; the duty to find a suitable alternative is immediate.
39. When the Council first offered Ms X the accommodation it had not properly considered whether it was suitable for the family. It did not consider the factors described at paragraphs 22 and 23. This was fault. Had it considered this properly before it made the offer, my view is it would have found the property was not suitable from the start.

Complaint handling

40. After Ms X left the unsuitable accommodation and sought help from a representative (Ms Y), she made her complaint to the Council in October 2023. The Council responded at Stage 1 a month later. Ms X then escalated her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure in December 2023.
41. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will respond to complaints at Stage 2 within 25 working days. However, in April 2024, four months had passed at Stage 2 without response, so Ms Y brought Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council to issue its final response to the complaint, but it failed to respond to our requests, so we began our investigation in August 2024.
42. The Council’s complaint handling delays, and failure to issue its final response to the complaint, was fault.

Injustice caused

43. Fault by the Council caused the family the avoidable distress of eviction by enforcement agents. There remains uncertainty about whether the Council would have found suitable interim accommodation from the start, if it had acted promptly before the eviction date and had time to properly consider suitability. This uncertainty about how events may have been different also caused Ms X distress. The Council should remedy the injustice caused.
44. The Council’s failure to properly consider suitability or to immediately find alternative suitable accommodation, meant the family lived in unsuitable accommodation for just over five months. Our guidance on remedies says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we are likely to recommend a monthly payment of between £150 and £350. Taking into account Ms X’s circumstances, that her children also experienced injustice, and the impact this had on her family, I consider the financial remedy should be £350 per month.
45. Delays in complaint handling also caused Ms X time and trouble in bringing her complaint.

Time period investigated

46. The law says we cannot investigate events which happened more than 12 months before somebody complained to us, unless we decide there are good reasons to. Ms Y brought Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2024, so we would usually only look at what happened from April 2023.
47. However, I decided there were good reasons to investigate what happened from the point the Council assessed Ms X’s housing needs in mid-2022, because:
• Ms X has language and communication needs which mean she needed to seek help from a representative (Ms Y) to make her complaint. This meant it took her longer to complain; and
• as I have explained, the Council delayed in responding to Ms X’s complaint which in turn delayed her in coming to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. Within one month of our final decision the Council will:
1. apologise to Ms X for the impact of the faults we have identified. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this in making its apology; and
2. pay Ms X a total of £2,350, comprising of:
1. £1,750 to recognise the five months Ms X and her children spent living in unsuitable temporary accommodation;
2. £500 to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused to Ms X and her children because the Council did not act to meet its homelessness duties before their eviction date; and
3. £100 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble caused to Ms X by the Council’s delays in complaint handling.
49. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
50. In March 2023 we published a public interest report 22007276 which found systemic failings in the Council’s homelessness service. The Council agreed to commission an independent external review of its homelessness service and produce an action plan setting out how it will ensure it meets its statutory duties to homeless applicants. It agreed its relevant scrutiny committee or Cabinet member would oversee progress in delivering the action plan.
51. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government completed an independent review of the service. It made several recommendations which the Council incorporated into a Housing Needs Service Improvement Plan. 
52. The Council set up a Housing Improvement Board which the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Housing and Homelessness attend. The board reflects on and responds to key concerns and reports issued by the Ombudsman to drive service improvement.
53. In October 2024, the Council agreed to our recommendations for another case 23017860, to update us on its progress against its Housing Needs Service Improvement Plan. The Council provided this update in January 2025, and we will continue to monitor this through our casework. Therefore, I have not made further recommendations at this stage.
54. Also in October 2024, the Council agreed to our recommendations for case 23011920, to review its complaint handling process and make an action plan to address failures to meet timescales. The deadline for this recommendation has not yet passed and we are still corresponding with the Council about it. Therefore, I have not made further recommendations to address complaint handling delays at this stage.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council which caused Ms X and her children the avoidable distress of eviction, and then to remain in unsuitable accommodation once rehoused. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice. I did not recommend actions for the Council to address the failings in its homeless service. It has already recently updated us on progress against its Housing Needs Service Improvement Plan following fault identified in other cases.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman