Summary: The Council was at fault in how it responded to Miss X’s homelessness. It delayed acting until Miss X was evicted and failed to consider what it should to do to protect her belongings. The faults caused Miss X avoidable upset, distress and uncertainty. To remedy Miss X’s injustice, the Council should apologise and make a symbolic payment. It should also take action to prevent similar fault in future. The Council was not at fault in how it decided what care and support Miss X needed.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about what the Council did when she was threatened with eviction and after she was made homeless. Miss X was also unhappy about how the Council has met her care and support needs. Miss X said this had a significant impact on her health and wellbeing and meant she had to pay for services when she should not have done.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint when someone has taken the matter to court. The same restriction applies to matters which are too closely linked to a matter that went to court to be separated and investigated by the Ombudsman.(Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. The law also 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)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask or have asked for a council review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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.
7. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance: housing

Homelessness

11. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Assessment and Personalised Housing Plans

12. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention and relief duties

13. 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.
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. The relief duty can last for up to 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
15. 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)

Interim accommodation and priority need

16. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for them. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
17. A council may decide an applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.
18. The threshold for triggering the interim accommodation duty is low as the council only has to have a reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.5)

The main housing duty

19. 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. The accommodation councils provide after they accept a main housing duty is called temporary accommodation, rather than interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Accommodation suitability

20. 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)
21. Applicants do not have a statutory right of review regarding the suitability of their interim accommodation. They do, however, have a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation. If they do not agree with the Council’s review decision, they can appeal to the county court on a point of law.
22. One of the factors councils needs to take into account when deciding if a property is suitable for a homeless applicant is its state of repair and condition. The Code says accommodation which may be suitable for a short period of time can become unsuitable when used for a longer period.

Evictions

23. Where a tenant has an assured shorthold tenancy, the landlord can issue an eviction notice asking the tenant to leave.
24. If the tenant does not leave, the landlord can move forward with the eviction process. In some cases, the landlord can evict without a court hearing – this is called “accelerated possession”. They do need to apply to the court and the tenant can challenge the application. The court will look at the papers and either:
• Issue a “possession order” – this sets a date by which the tenant has to leave; or
• Set a date for a possession hearing; or
• Dismiss the case.
25. The Code says it is unlikely to be reasonable for a tenant to stay beyond the expiry of a notice if the landlord intends to recover possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order (6.35);
26. It says it might be reasonable for a tenant to remain after the notice expires if a council is taking steps to persuade the landlord to let the tenant stay for a “reasonable period” to give the council and tenant time to find alternative accommodation (6.35);
27. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy a property beyond the date on which the court (through a possession order) has directed them to leave the property and give possession to the landlord.
28. If the tenant does not leave the property after receiving the possession order, the landlord can ask the court to issue a warrant to enforce possession. The Code says it is not reasonable for an applicant to remain in occupation of a property until a court issues a warrant. It says applicants should not be evicted by bailiffs because of a failure by a council to provide accommodation (6.37, 6.38).
29. Our March 2023 focus report, “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act”, expressed our concern at the number of councils that still take a “wait for bailiffs” approach in homelessness cases. We highlighted that this approach is, “contrary to the law and guidance and causes significant and avoidable distress for people at an already difficult time in their lives”.

Protection of belongings

30. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Discretionary local crisis payments

31. This Council can choose to provide people with lump sums if they are vulnerable, to help them maintain their independence in the community. This includes when a household is facing exceptional pressure.

Discretionary housing payments

32. The discretionary housing payments (DHPs) guidance manual issued by the Department for Work and Pensions says a DHP may be awarded where a person’s council considers they need financial assistance towards housing costs, providing they are entitled to either Housing Benefit or the housing cost element of Universal Credit. The payments can cover housing related costs including removals, but not the purchase of furniture.

Relevant law and guidance: adult social care

Social care needs assessments and care plans

33. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The care and support statutory guidance sets out more information on what needs assessments must cover. The purpose is to identify if the person has any ‘eligible needs’. A person has eligible needs if:
• First- the person’s needs were the result of physical or mental impairment or illness;
• Second- those needs mean the person is unable to achieve two or more of 10 outcomes set out in the guidance. These are:
1. Managing and maintaining nutrition;
2. Maintaining personal hygiene;
3. Managing toilet needs;
4. Being appropriately clothed;
5. Being able to make use of the home safely;
6. Maintaining a habitable home environment;
7. Developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships;
8. Accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering;
9. Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community; and
10. Carrying out any caring responsibilities the adult has for a child.
• Third- not being able to achieve two or more of the outcomes is, or is likely to, significantly affect the person’s wellbeing.
34. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer) following a needs assessment.
35. If the person has eligible needs and has capital below £23,250 the council must meet those needs. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a needs assessment. Where the council decides to charge, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what the person can afford to pay.

What happened

36. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.

What happened: care needs

37. Miss X has social care needs, which were initially met by her family and friends. She later applied to the Council for support. The Council carried out an assessment which recorded she had several health conditions which affected her day-to-day life. The assessment stated Miss X’s needs meant she was unable to meet several of the outcomes listed in paragraph 33. These were to:
• Manage and maintain good nutrition;
• Maintain her personal hygiene, which included helping Miss X have a strip wash;
• Dress herself appropriately;
• Use her home safely;
• Keep her home clean and tidy; and
• Develop and maintain relationships with other people.
38. The Council decided that not meeting those outcomes was having a significant impact on Miss X’s wellbeing. It had therefore decided they were eligible needs.
39. The Council created a care plan in March 2025, which stated Miss X would have a care package at home. The package was for 45 minutes every morning, 30 minutes every lunchtime, 30 minutes every dinnertime and an additional 90 minutes on Fridays to support Miss X with laundry and domestic tasks. The Council assessed Miss X’s finances and decided she needed to make a contribution towards her care.
40. Miss X did not agree with the Council’s assessment of her needs. She felt she also needed overnight stays three times per week, to allow her to have a bath, which she felt meant she needed a two-bed property.

Findings: care needs

41. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if there was no fault in how it came to that decision. The Council assessed Miss X’s needs in accordance with the law and statutory guidance. It spoke to Miss X and applied the three-part test set out in paragraph 33 appropriately. It was not at fault. I therefore cannot question its decision that Miss X only required three visits daily, plus one additional visit for domestic tasks.

What happened: eviction and protection of belongings

42. In spring 2024, Miss X’s landlord issued an eviction notice. She applied to the Council, which accepted it owed her the prevention duty. By September 2024, the notice had expired and there was no evidence Miss X’s landlord planned to proceed with the eviction. As a result, the Council ended the prevention duty and closed Miss X’s case.
43. In mid-October 2024, Miss X received a notice that her landlord had applied to court for a possession order. Miss told the Council, which said she might want to defend her right to stay in the property. It said if the court upheld the claim (by issuing a possession order), Miss X should tell the Council at that time.
44. In mid-March 2025, Miss X reapplied to the Council for help. Two weeks later, the court issued a possession order so her landlord could take possession of her home.
45. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the relief duty and issued a PHP. The PHP said Miss X needed a one-bed property.
46. In early April, Miss X asked the Council’s adult social care team if she could have help packing ready for when she would be evicted. The Council sent Miss X the details of a company which could help her. Miss X said she was aware some charities could help her, if the social worker made a referral to them. The Council said it would consider a referral if Miss X sent details of the charities. Miss X did not do this.
47. Miss X asked if she could have a DHP to cover the costs of packing and moving. The Council’s adult social team confirmed that was not possible, as it said DHPs are not for that purpose. Miss X also asked the Council to agree to increase her care package by 20 hours to allow her care workers to pack her belongings. The Council said that was not possible either. Following contact from Miss X’s MP, the Council’s housing service confirmed Miss X could speak to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau for support or ask her family to help.
48. Miss X sent the Council evidence of her needs, including a report from her physiotherapist which included a ‘strong’ recommendation for Miss X to be housed in a property which allowed her to keep her dog with her, to help manage her mental health needs.
49. In late April, Miss X’s landlord obtained a writ of possession to evict her. The court process meant Miss X incurred over £2300 in costs, to pay to her landlord.
50. In early May, the Council asked one of its medical advisors if Miss X’s dog was essential to her wellbeing and whether it should be housed with her as a result. The advisor said the Council should send some evidence on Miss X’s need for the dog, which they would consider. The Council did not send any information.
51. Miss X was evicted by bailiffs on 16 May. She went to stay with family. On the same day, the Council booked her a room at a hotel, as interim accommodation (accommodation A). It sent Miss X two letters which said:
• The Council was offering her temporary accommodation;
• This accommodation was offered under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 (the duty to provide interim accommodation);
• “I am writing to offer you a room in temporary accommodation”; and
• “if you refuse the offer… we have discharged our duty to offer you interim accommodation”.
52. Miss X told the Ombudsman she had three Zimmer frames, walking sticks, a walker, a special chair and a hospital bed on loan. She said she had to return them because she was unable to take them with her. Miss X later obtained replacement walking aids. There is no evidence the Council was aware that Miss X was without her home mobility aids until early August. I have addressed the Council’s response to that issue below.
53. Miss X left her furniture behind but was able to put some belongings into storage. At some point before the end of July, the Council told Miss X about its discretionary local crisis payments, which resulted in her receiving a maximum annual award of £100. It also told Miss X she could apply to the DWP for a budgeting loan to cover the cost of removals. Miss X received £280 but says it was insufficient.

Findings: eviction

54. As set out in paragraph five, the Ombudsman does not investigate a matter when a person had a right to request an organisation review its decision, providing it was reasonable for them to have used the right of review. The Council ended the prevention duty it owed to Miss X after the eviction notice expired. If Miss X felt the Council’s decision to end the duty was wrong, it was reasonable for her to have asked for a review. Therefore, I have not investigated this matter.
55. Once the Council found out Miss X had received the notice of possession in October 2024, it should have reopened her case and considered whether it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy her home; thereby deciding what homelessness duties it owed her. Instead, it told her to reapply to it when the court had considered her landlord’s application for possession. This was fault. I cannot say what the Council would have decided had it properly considered the matter. At that time the property was affordable and otherwise suitable for Miss X. It might, therefore, have been reasonable for her to stay beyond the notice at least for a short period. However, the Council’s failure leaves Miss X with avoidable uncertainty.
56. Once the Council reopened Miss X’s case in March 2025, it accepted it owed her the relief duty. This was because the Council had decided that the possession order Miss X received at the end of the month showed it was unreasonable for her to continue to remain in her home, and that she was, as a result, homeless. This was appropriate.
57. However, when Miss X reapplied to the Council it should have also considered, straight away, if it had reason to believe she may be homeless, eligible and in priority need. In that case, it would have owed her the duty to arrange interim accommodation immediately. There is no evidence the Council did this, which was fault.
58. The threshold for interim accommodation is low. It is likely that had the Council acted without fault, it would have provided interim accommodation from mid-March 2025. The fault caused Miss X avoidable distress and meant she accrued debt from the court and the bailiffs.
59. When the Council did arrange interim accommodation for Miss X, on the day of her eviction, it sent her a letter that repeatedly referred to temporary accommodation as well as interim accommodation. Interim accommodation is not the same as temporary accommodation, and they are provided under different duties. Homelessness legislation is complicated and applicants are reliant on councils to provide accurate and clear information about the duties their council owes them. The Council did not do this, which was fault. It caused Miss X uncertainty as she did not know what duties the Council owed her.

Findings: protection of belongings

60. There is no record of how the Council decided it did not owe Miss X the duty to protect her belongings when she prepared to move into accommodation A or her subsequent accommodation, as set out below. This was fault and caused Miss X frustration.
61. However, I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council not been at fault, it would have accepted it owed Miss X the duty. This is because the duty only applies when the person’s belongings are at risk of damage or loss. When Miss X asked about what support was available before moving into accommodation A, the Council advised her of several options she could pursue to have belongings packed and removed. It also noted Miss X’s support network, which helped throughout the week, could help her pack and move out of her home. There was no evidence to suggest to the Council that Miss X could not pursue some or all of those avenues at that time, or when she moved to accommodation B or C (detailed below).
62. The Council also acted appropriately by advising Miss X of the possibility of a local crisis payment and budgeting loan. However, it was at fault for telling Miss X she could not have a DHP to cover the cost of packing and removals. That is one of the purposes of DHPs. I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council not been at fault, it would have agreed Miss X could have a DHP or what the amount would have been for. That is a decision for the Council to make. The fault therefore caused Miss X unnecessary upset and leaves her with uncertainty.
63. The Council was not at fault for refusing to increase Miss X’s care package by 20 hours to allow care workers to pack for her. That is not one of the purposes of social care.

What happened: accommodation A

64. Because accommodation A did not accept dogs, Miss X arranged for her dog to stay elsewhere.
65. Accommodation A was a one-bed flat, which Miss X was unhappy about. She also thought it was too far away from her support network. Two days after being offered the property, and before she had fully moved in, Miss X was taken to hospital after she became unwell. On discharge, Miss X did not return to accommodation A. She stayed with friends and family instead.
66. In early June, the Council accepted it owed Miss X the main housing duty. This meant accommodation A became temporary accommodation and Miss X had a right to ask for a review of the Council’s decision that it was suitable for her needs. The Council sent Miss X a letter which said:
• It accepted it owed her the main housing duty;
• Under the section titled ‘Housing Register’, the Council said “Your priority date in band 2 is 16/05/2025. This is the date you moved into temporary accommodation”. The housing register is the Council’s register of social housing, which homeless people have priority on;
• Accommodation which may be offered to Miss X could be temporary accommodation, private sector rental accommodation or social housing; and
• “You may be offered a temporary accommodation property on more than one occasion while we have a duty to house you. Each time you are offered temporary accommodation you will only get one offer as you do not have a choice about the accommodation offered to you. You can request a review of the suitability of any temporary accommodation offered to you or that you are residing in”.
67. In mid-June 2025, Miss X began court action against the Council, to challenge its decision that accommodation A was suitable. She said she needed accommodation which had two bedrooms, was a reasonable distance from her support network in the Council’s area, within 10 minutes of public transport and which allowed her dog. A few days later, the Council settled the court action by agreeing to find Miss X other accommodation. It updated Miss X’s PHP to state Miss X needed two bedrooms and to live within a reasonable distance of a particular location in the Council’s area (area D). It did not specify what bathing facilities a property would need.
68. Shortly after settling Miss X’s court claim, the Council offered her new accommodation, accommodation B.

Findings: housing

69. The Council was at fault for failing to issue Miss X with a suitable decision notice clearly setting out its offer of accommodation A under the main housing duty (making it temporary accommodation) and with information on her right of review. There was no explicit reference to accommodation A and the letter said Miss X ‘could’ be offered temporary accommodation, which implied her current housing was not that. It was also not reasonable to expect Miss X to infer, from the section about the Council’s housing register and the later reference to a right of review, that she could ask for a review of accommodation A’s suitability. This meant Miss X was unaware of her right to challenge the suitability of accommodation A without the need to pursue legal action. This caused her frustration.
70. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters which have been subject to court action. Therefore, I cannot consider the suitability of accommodation A. This applies from the date the Council made the offer of accommodation A in mid-May 2025, to the date the Council settled the case, in mid-June 2025.
71. Miss X is unhappy the Council moved her into accommodation A when the accommodation provider did not allow her dog to live with her. Miss X feels she needs her dog to maintain her wellbeing. Therefore, her concerns that the dog was not allowed into accommodation A are effectively another reason why she felt accommodation A was unsuitable. As set out above, I cannot investigate the accommodation’s suitability.

Findings: adult social care

72. Miss X did not receive adult social care at accommodation A because she was in hospital and stayed with friends. I cannot consider whether the Council was at fault for the loss of care provision between the date the Council offered accommodation A and the date it settled Miss X’s court case. This is because the loss of provision occurred as a consequence of the Council’s decision to offer accommodation A as suitable. The matter is too closely linked to Miss X’s court case so I cannot investigate it.

What happened: accommodation B

73. Accommodation was a Council-owned ground floor flat, which is located nine miles away from area D (20 minutes’ drive), and which had a shower. Miss X says the accommodation was still too far away to allow her friends and family to come and provide care overnight. Shortly after the Council offered Miss X accommodation B, her solicitor asked the Council to review its suitability. Miss X mostly stayed with family and friends, who met her needs for care and support.
74. Miss X reported the external lock was broken, there were no cooking facilities and no hot water or heating. She later told the Ombudsman she did not have a fridge either. However, records show the Council arranged for a cooker and fridge to be delivered to accommodation B from the date the tenancy started.
75. Before Miss X’s tenancy began in mid-June, the Council had the gas supply capped, which was why there was no hot water or heating did not work. This is standard practice. Before the tenancy began, the Council told Miss X she needed to register for a utility account. Until she did so, the gas supply could not be uncapped.
76. By late June, Miss X told the Council that she had set up a utility account and needed the cooker installed. It arranged for a contractor to install the cooker the next day. An engineer came to uncap the gas, but this was not possible because of an issue with the lock on the gas meter cupboard.
77. Two weeks later, by mid-July, the lock was replaced and the gas uncapped. This meant the hot water and heating was working.
78. In mid-July, the Council made a final offer of accommodation (accommodation C), which was a property managed by a housing association. Miss X is unhappy the housing association told her she had to attend a viewing at the property on her own, despite her medical needs.
79. Around the same time, Miss X asked the Council to reassess her needs. She said she wanted help dealing with correspondence, packing and moving, errands, shopping, laundry, going to the hospital and overnight care. The Council said:
• Care workers do not support people with correspondence. It referred Miss X to a Council run service which could help her;
• Care workers would not help Miss X pack, run errands or go to hospital with her either;
• Miss X needed to confirm if she wanted care workers to use her debit card instead of cash to go shopping, as this was not something they could do. It explained she could order shopping to be delivered in any event. Miss X did not respond to the Council about the shopping; and
• It had spoken to the care provider which had confirmed that while Miss X was moving more slowly following her hospitalisation, it was still able to complete the care tasks within the timescale allocated. This included laundry.

Findings: housing

80. I have chosen to investigate the suitability of accommodation B. This is because Miss X moved to accommodation C before the Council completed the review on accommodation B’s suitability. At that point Miss X’s right for a review of accommodation B ended so it is not reasonable to expect her to have completed the review process.
81. In terms of the number of bedrooms and location, accommodation B was suitable for Miss X. Miss X feels it was too far away to allow for overnight care, but she was not assessed as needing that support. The care provider was still able to deliver Miss X’s care package to that location. The courts have held that accommodation which is unsuitable in the long-term can be suitable in the short-term. Miss X only had the tenancy at accommodation B for around five weeks. The accommodation was not an unreasonable distance for her friends and family to travel to provide Miss X with support occasionally and in the short-term. While Miss X would prefer a bath, she had not been assessed by the Council as needing one. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the property was suitable in respect of those factors.
82. However, the Council failed to consider if accommodation B was unsuitable because Miss X was not able to have her dog with her. Despite asking its medical advisor if Miss X had a medical need for her dog, the Council failed to send the information the advisor asked for. There is also no evidence it considered the physiotherapy report which recommended Miss X be housed with her dog. This was fault. I cannot say, even on balance, that but for the fault, the Council would have accepted Miss X would have needed a home that allowed dogs. This is because the Council might have concluded that while having her dog would help Miss X, it was not essential to her wellbeing. The fault therefore caused Miss X upset and uncertainty.
83. Miss X raised concerns about the broken exterior door lock and boiler. The broken lock was a minor issue and was repaired promptly. There was a fridge and cooker available from the start of Miss X’s tenancy, which was appropriate. Once Miss X told the Council she had registered for a utility account and was ready for the cooker to be installed, over a week after the tenancy began, it acted promptly to arrange the installation and gas uncapping.
84. However, the gas was not uncapped for around a further two weeks, because of an issue with the gas meter cupboard. This meant the property was unheated and had no hot water in that period, which was fault. Miss X did not fully move into the property, so she did not receive her entire care package at that time. The fault caused her frustration but her need for care and support was still met, as she was able to receive support from her friends and family.
85. The housing association that managed accommodation C was responsible for deciding whether to agree any support for Miss X to attend the viewing. If Miss X felt she needed help going to the viewing, she should have raised this with the housing association. The Council was not at fault.

Findings: adult social care

86. The Council was not at fault in how it responded to Miss X’s request for a reassessment of her needs. It spoke to the care provider to confirm if it was still able to meet Miss X’s eligible needs and considered whether the new issues Miss X wanted support for were something her care workers should help with. It acted appropriately by referring Miss X to a service that could help with correspondence. It decided the support to go to hospital and pack and run errands were not for adult social care, which was correct. If Miss X wanted help going to hospital appointments, that was something she could speak to the NHS about. The Council highlighted Miss X could have shopping delivered but nonetheless asked her to clarify if she wanted care workers to use a debit card. It was not at fault for not pursuing that matter when Miss X did not respond.

What happened: accommodation C

87. Although Miss X’s tenancy began in late July, Council records show she did not fully move into the property for some time, because she felt it was unsuitable. Her concerns included that the property does not have a bath, is too far from her friends and family to allow overnight care and is in an unsafe area.
88. Around the time Miss X’s tenancy began, she asked the Council to give her direct payments instead of commissioning her care. With direct payments, the person receiving care gets a lump sum which covers the cost of their care package over a set period. They are able to use that money to commission their care themselves, which gives more flexibility in how and when the person receives their support.
89. In early August, the care provider told the Council Miss X did not have her hospital bed. By mid-August, the Council’s adult social care team had referred Miss X for an OT assessment from a NHS service, to decide what home aids she needed.
90. In mid-August, the Council’s adult social care team began a review to decide if Miss X could have direct payments. It met Miss X at accommodation C and noted she said she did not have any furniture. The Council agreed to send Miss X details of some charities she could contact to obtain furniture. There is no evidence it did so.
91. In early September the Council concluded that Miss X could not have direct payments because she had not been paying her contributions towards her care.
92. The adult social care team’s referral for an OT assessment was refused because the NHS service decided Miss X was not eligible. As a result, the team contacted the Council’s housing service for an OT assessment, which confirmed Miss X could self-refer herself. The Council told Miss X this in mid-September.
93. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to end the main housing duty, on the basis that she felt accommodation C was unsuitable for her. In late September, the Council completed the review and decided accommodation C was suitable. It said Miss X had the right to appeal to county court if she disagreed with its review decision. Miss X did not appeal.
94. Miss X says she:
• Was unaware she needed to make contributions towards her care;
• Is unhappy with what she is being charged; and
• Wants the Council to give her direct payments.
95. As a result, in mid-October, Miss X reduced the care package to three visits per week. Two of the visits are for 45 minutes, to support Miss X with personal care. The third is for 90 minutes for domestic tasks. Miss X has not complained to the Council about her contributions or its decision to refuse direct payments.

Findings: housing

96. Miss X feels accommodation is unsuitable for her needs. However, as set out in paragraph four, the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that should have been considered by the courts. The Council’s September 2025 review decision was clear it did not uphold Miss X’s review request and that she had the right to appeal to county court if she disagreed with its decision. I have seen no good reasons why it was unreasonable for Miss X to appeal so I cannot investigate the suitability of accommodation C.
97. I have addressed Miss X’s complaint about not having help packing and moving her belongings into accommodation C in paragraphs 60-63 so have not repeated my conclusions here.
98. When the Council heard Miss X did not have any furniture in accommodation C, it agreed to send her the details of charities that could help, which was appropriate. However, it failed to do so, which was fault and caused Miss X avoidable upset.

Findings: adult social care

99. I cannot consider whether the Council was at fault for Miss X not receiving her care package between the date the tenancy started and the date she moved in. The complaint about not receiving care in that period is too closely linked to whether the accommodation was suitable, which Miss X should have appealed to court.
100. At the time Miss X moved into accommodation C, she reduced the care package. It was Miss X’s decision to do that, so while she did not receive the full package of care set out in her care and support plan, the Council was not at fault.
101. The reason Miss X reduced her care package was because she is unhappy with how much she is being charged. She is also unhappy the Council decided not to give her direct payments. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
102. Miss X has not complained to the Council about how much it is charging her or its direct payments decision. I have seen no good reason why it would be unreasonable for Miss X to complain so I have not investigated this part of her complaint.
103. Once the Council became aware Miss X did not have the necessary home aids and adaptations, it acted promptly to refer her for an assessment to determine what she needed. When the NHS service rejected the referral, the Council acted without delay to confirm how Miss X could self-refer for a Council assessment. It was not at fault. It is open to Miss X to refer herself if she feels she needs new aids in order to live safely at accommodation C.

What happened: complaints handling

104. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will not consider complaints about the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation because the person should use the statutory review procedure.
105. Miss X complained to the Council in spring 2025. She said the Council:
1. Did not help her move when she was evicted;
2. Failed to find her accommodation before she was evicted;
3. Placed her in accommodation A when it was unsuitable, in part because it only had one bedroom; and
4. Did not communicate with her well.
106. The Council responded in late May 2025. It said:
• Because Miss X’s landlord had applied for an expedited eviction, it had less time than normal to find her temporary accommodation. It nonetheless was able to house Miss X on the day she was evicted; and
• The complaints service did not consider the suitability of homelessness accommodation.
107. Miss X asked for a stage two response to her complaint. The Council responded in late June, after it had settled Miss X’s court action by agreeing she needed a two-bed property. Its response included:
• It had assessed Miss X as needing a one-bed property, which was set out in her PHP. Miss X had a right to ask for a review of the PHP’s contents but had not used them; and
• Miss X could ask for a review of accommodation A’s suitability.

Findings

108. The Council’s stage one response to Miss X’s complaint was flawed. It did not respond to elements a or d. Councils should respond to all substantive points in a complaint.
109. The response also wrongly said it would not consider element c, which was fault. At the time of Miss X’s complaint, accommodation A was interim accommodation, not temporary. There is no right of review on interim accommodation so councils should respond to complaints about them through their complaints procedure.
110. It is likely the Council made the error because its complaints procedure incorrectly says there is a statutory right for review of the suitability of interim accommodation. The flawed policy was also fault.
111. The Council was at fault for issues with its stage two response. It wrongly said Miss X had not used her right to ask for a review of the contents of her PHP. However, Miss X was unhappy her PHP said she needed one bedroom. Homeless applicants can ask a council carry out a review of their PHP, but only on the steps the council has said it will take to help the applicant. There is no right of review to challenge what type of housing and number of bedrooms a council has decided a person needs. The response also wrongly directed Miss X to ask for a review of accommodation A’s suitability despite the fact it had already agreed to move her to a two-bed property as a result of her court action.
112. The flaws in the Council’s complaint responses caused Miss X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Action

113. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Miss X for the frustration, distress and uncertainty she experienced because of the faults set out in this decision. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Send Miss X the details of charities that could help her obtain furniture, if she has not been able to do so herself since the end of the period I have investigated; October 2025.
3. Amend its complaints policy to reflect that there is no right of review on the suitability of interim accommodation, and therefore, it should consider complaints about it through its complaints procedure. The Council will inform staff of the change.
4. Highlight the Ombudsman’s focus report “More Home Truths – learning lessons from complaints about the Homelessness Reduction Act” with staff, and particularly the section titled “Failings in prevention and relief duties” which addresses the issues with a ‘wait for bailiffs’ approach.
5. Remind staff that when a homeless applicant expresses a need or wish for support to protect their belongings, the Council must keep suitable records of its rationale for deciding whether it owes the applicant the duty to protect their belongings.
114. Within six weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Pay Miss X £500 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty she experienced because of the Council’s fault.
2. Refund Miss X the eviction costs she incurred by remaining in her home after the March 2025 possession order. This is subject to Miss X providing evidence she paid the costs.
115. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

116. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman