Summary: We found fault on Mrs Y’s homeless complaint about the Council’s decision to end the housing duty it owed her. It delayed identifying she had not been evicted from her property, failed to realise the significance of the tenancy agreement when she first sent it, failed to tell her she had review rights against its decision she was not homeless, and failed to act on her request for a statutory review of her accommodation’s suitability. It delayed responding to her complaint. The Council agreed to send her a written apology; reissue the decision and set out her review rights; back date any increased priority and carry out a suitability review should the review find in her favour; review why it failed to decide it owed her no main housing duty sooner; review why there was a delay responding to her complaint. It also agreed to pay her £100 for the delays with her complaint. These actions remedy the injustice caused. There was no fault on her complaint about it reducing her banding or about it failing to find her alternative suitable accommodation.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council:
1. removing her from its temporary accommodation transfer list as it no longer owed her a housing duty because she had signed an assured shorthold tenancy in 2018;
2. lowering her from Band B to Band C under its housing allocation scheme;
3. failing to deal with her request for a statutory review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation and instead dealt with it as a formal complaint; and
4. failing to find her alternative temporary accommodation because her accommodation was unsuitable.
2. As a result, she and her family continue to live in accommodation that does not meet their needs, and is in an area of high crime, which affects their quality of life.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I investigated this complaint from September 2023 only. This was because the law says 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) Mrs Y complained to us in September 2024. I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate the Council’s actions before September 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mrs Y and the Council. I considered the Council’s response.

Back to top

What I found

Homeless law and guidance

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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)
9. The Homeless Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (February 2018) at paragraph 15.41 states a housing authority will cease to owe the main housing duty under section 193 (2) where an applicant accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer. This includes an offer of an assured shorthold tenancy of at least 12 months made by a private landlord (section 193 (7AC) Housing Act 1996).
10. An applicant needs to be told in writing of the possible consequences of refusing or accepting the offer, their right to request a review of its suitability, and the duties owed to them should they re-apply if they became unintentionally homeless from the accommodation within two years of accepting the offer (section 193 (7AA) Housing Act 1996).

Council Housing Allocation Scheme (January 2023)

11. The scheme sets out who can apply to join the housing register for consideration of social housing and how the Council prioritises applications so those with the highest need have the chance to get housed.
12. Properties are advertised under its choice based lettings approach though its online IT system. Applicants bid for properties in their assessed bedroom size according to their priority banding and priority date (the date accepted on to the housing register or when awarded a higher priority).
13. It has three priority bands:

• Band A: Emergency and Top Priority: This includes those where the applicant/household member has a life-threatening condition which is seriously affected by their current housing or has a terminal illness.
• Band B: Urgent need to move: This includes the statutory homeless who have been accepted for 5 years or more. It also includes those: who are statutorily homeless under Part X of the Housing Act 1985; whose housing circumstances are not suitable and has a major adverse impact on their condition which can be alleviated by rehousing, supported by clinical evidence
• Band C: Identified Housing need: This includes the statutory homeless. It also includes other cases of overcrowding when assessed against its Bedroom Size eligibility table.

14. There is a right to ask for a review of certain decisions under the scheme which includes any decision about the facts of the case, which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account when considering whether to allocate housing accommodation.

What happened

15. In 2018, Mrs Y presented to the Council as homeless. The Council accepted it owed her the main housing duty and placed her in her current accommodation. This is a two bedroom flat rented from a housing association.
16. Mrs Y signed an assured shorthold tenancy agreement for six months. This type of tenancy agreement sets out a fixed period the tenancy will run which is usually between 6-12 months. At the end of the tenancy period, the landlord can gain possession by giving 2 months’ notice to quit. After the 2 months, the landlord must apply to court for an order for eviction if the tenants remain.
17. The following year, the Council placed her on the temporary accommodation transfer list when the landlord served a notice to evict her. The landlord did not pursue the eviction.
18. Mrs Y complained she, her husband, two sons, and a baby have lived in this temporary accommodation for more than five years. She said it was unsuitable for them because of the level of crime in the area and one of her son’s disabilities which means he needs his own bedroom.
19. The Council told her to bid only for properties up to the first floor because of her son’s needs. Mrs Y complained this limited her choice.
20. In May 2024, Mrs Y complained to the Council. She said the accommodation it provided under the main duty must be suitable. She explained her accommodation was overcrowded, the area was dangerous, and the Council had taken too long to grant her more suitable accommodation. She wanted an offer of accommodation which was suitable.
21. The Council treated her request as a complaint and sent her its stage 1 response. This said she was overcrowded because of the baby and so it placed her on the temporary accommodation transfer list as she needed larger accommodation.
22. In July, Mrs Y replied arguing the accommodation was unsuitable because of overcrowding, drug abuse, and noise outside, which affected her disabled son. She asked the Council to consider her arguments about needing to move to suitable accommodation. She also referred to making her complaint ‘in parallel’ with her request for a statutory review of her case. She also sent the Council a copy of her tenancy agreement.
23. In its response to our enquiries, the Council explained it had no record of her asking for a statutory review of the suitability of her accommodation.
24. In November, the Council partially upheld her stage 2 complaint. It explained she was in Band B because she was homeless for more than five years. It partially upheld it because it accepted there was criminal activity around her property. It decided she was not statutorily overcrowded after the baby.
25. In May 2025, the Council told Mrs Y it re-assessed her case and decided it had previously been based on incorrect and outdated information, for which it apologised. This was because in 2018, it nominated her for her current accommodation, and she signed an assured shorthold tenancy with a housing association. This meant it was no longer temporary accommodation. The Council should have removed her from the list when the landlord stopped the eviction in 2019 but, it was not told at the time that this process had ended.
26. It went on to explain because of this, she no longer needed its help, and it no longer owed her the main housing duty. Despite her sending a copy of the tenancy agreement in 2024, the Council failed to realise earlier. As it no longer owed her the housing duty, it would review her housing register application.
27. Mrs Y asked for a review of its decision to discharge its homeless duty to her.
28. The Council reviewed her banding and decided she was in Band C (overcrowding). She needed a 3 bedroom property with a priority date of 16 August 2023. The property was not to be above first floor, lifted or unlifted, with a self-contained garden access or near to a park.
29. The Council apologised for the delay sending her its stage 1 response which was because it wrongly calculated the response date.

Complaint a): removal from transfer list because discharged homeless duty

My findings

30. I found fault on this complaint because:
1. As Mrs Y has been in contact with the Council since 2019 about her housing position on many occasions, I am satisfied it was aware she remained in the property. This meant it would have known the landlord had not evicted her from it. On balance, I am satisfied, therefore, that while it was not directly told about the landlord ending eviction proceedings, the information it had from her should have alerted it to this fact.
2. When it decided to discharge the housing duty, the Council referred to her tenancy agreement. This had been provided one year earlier but, it had failed to realise its significance at that point.
3. In 2025, the Council realised the significance of both the tenancy agreement and the fact she had not been evicted from the property in 2019. At this point the Council discharged the main housing duty owed.
4. The Council argued Mrs Y had no review rights for this decision. I consider the Council was incorrect on this point. The Council accepted it owed Mrs Y the main housing duty in 2018. It provided no evidence she was told in 2018 that signing the tenancy agreement would bring an end to the main housing duty it owed. The only time it told her this was in 2025. For it to bring the main housing duty to an end meant it accepted it had owed it her. Ending the main housing duty gave her review rights as it was a decision that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness.
5. I am satisfied the Council failed to tell her about her review rights under section 202(1) of the Housing Act 1996.
6. I am also satisfied the identified fault caused Mrs Y some injustice. She lost the opportunity for the Council to have reviewed its decision to discharge the main housing duty when it made it. She also lost the opportunity to have it reviewed earlier in 2024 when she sent it a copy of the tenancy agreement.

Complaint b): reduction in banding

My findings

31. I found no fault with the Council’s decision to review her banding in 2025 as a result of its decision to end the main housing duty to her.
32. While not within the timescale of this investigation, I have seen evidence of the Council taking account of the medical information Mrs Y sent in 2021. This decided she was not entitled to medical priority because she lived in accommodation with access to normal facilities and had three rooms to use. It identified housing need to a maximum of first floor (with our without a lift), self-contained, with garden access or nearby park. It referred to a decision in 2017 which found no medical priority.

Complaint c): request for review

My findings

33. Although the Council said it had no request from Mrs Y for a statutory review of the suitability of her accommodation, I am satisfied her letter of 4 July 2024 amounted to such a request. This was because she had repeatedly said the accommodation was unsuitable and wanted suitable accommodation. While Mrs Y did not specifically say she wanted a suitability review, on balance, I am satisfied this letter should have been considered as such a request. At the very least, the Council should have contacted her about it and explored whether this was what she wanted to happen. I am satisfied the failure to do either amounted to fault.
34. I consider this caused her some injustice as she lost the opportunity to have its suitability reviewed.

Complaint d): failing to find alternative suitable accommodation

My findings

35. I found no fault on this complaint because Mrs Y had to bid for properties under the choice based lettings scheme. There was no evidence to show the Council had decided it was unsuitable for her.
36. I found the Council failed to follow the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. Its policy gives the following response times for each stage of the complaint process:

• Stage 1: a response is sent within 20 working days of receipt; and
• Stage 2: a response is also sent within 20 working days of receipt.

37. There was a 20 week delay between Mrs Y sending her stage 2 request in June 2024 and the Council responding to it in November. This was fault.

Back to top

Action

38. I considered our guidance on remedies.
39. I also took account, when considering the injustice caused as a result of the failings on complaint a), that Mrs Y had the benefit, over several years, of having the opportunity to bid for properties with a higher banding.
40. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mrs Y a written apology for the injustice caused by failing to: identify she had remained in the property despite the taking of eviction proceedings; realise the significance of her tenancy agreement when she initially provided it; explain she had review rights against the decision that she was not homeless; carry out a statutory review of the suitability of her accommodation.
2. Reissue the decision that it does not owe her the main housing duty setting out reasons and explaining her right of review of that decision.
3. If the outcome of any review/appeal finds in Mrs Y’s favour, it agrees to:

• backdate any increased priority banding to the date it reduced it; and
• carry out a suitability review of her accommodation.
4. Review its processes to identify why it failed to make the decision that it did not owe her the main housing duty sooner and take steps to ensure this failure cannot be repeated in the future.
5. Remind officers of the need to explore, clarify, and act on contact from applicants which raises issues of suitability to establish whether they wish for a suitability review outside of the complaints process.
6. Review why there was a delay responding to her complaint and act to ensure it cannot be repeated on future cases.
7. Pay £100 to Mrs Y for the delay with the complaint procedure.

41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I found the following on Mrs Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint b): no fault;
• Complaint c): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint d): no fault.

43. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman