Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness and housing register applications. The Council acted in line with relevant law and guidance.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her housing situation. She said the Council did not offer her social housing and refused to review the suitability of the shared accommodation she lived in with her young child.

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. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
4. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. 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.
8. 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)

The prevention duty

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

10. 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

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

12. Homeless applicants may request a review of the suitability of accommodation offered to them within 21 days of the Council accepting the homelessness duty (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.

Suitability of accommodation

13. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the 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)
15. 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)

Council’s Housing Allocations Policy

16. Applicants within Bands one, three, four and five are prioritised in order of the date they applied to the Housing Register. If an applicant’s band is changed, the date of the new banding award is used to determine priority.
17. Allocations from Band Two are not made in date order. Instead, the Council set and review the priority between the different groups within this band on a quarterly basis and publish a position statement.
18. Band Two includes homelessness applicants who are owed a duty and Council care leavers in housing need.

What happened

Background

19. Miss X is a care leaver. She has a young child who is subject to a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) and does not live with Miss X. Miss X approached the Council as homeless, and the Council accepted the relief duty and placed Miss X in interim accommodation.

Accommodation offer

20. In October 2024, the Council offered Miss X a room in all-female privately rented shared accommodation, out of area. Miss X said she would prefer a 1-bedroom property rather than shared accommodation for when her child came to stay. The Council advised Miss X to accept the accommodation and then request a suitability review.
21. The following week, Miss X moved into the shared accommodation. The Council removed Miss X from the housing register and ended its relief duty as she had accepted a final accommodation offer.
22. The Council supported Miss X with benefit applications and settling into the accommodation. The Council said that Miss X said she was happy with the accommodation and no longer wished to pursue a review.

Suitability review request

23. In late November 2024, Miss X contacted the Council. She requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation due to the antisocial behaviour from the other tenants. She also requested to be reinstated on the housing register.
24. The Council explained that Miss X’s review request was outside the 21-day timeframe so it would not proceed with a review. The Council also told Miss X that her housing register application has been closed as she was living in privately rented accommodation, out of area.
25. Miss X said that her original review request had been made in time (the day after the Council offered the property). The Council said that Miss X had withdrawn this review request and her latest request was outside of the timeframe.
26. Miss X raised concerns that the Council had not properly handled her initial request for a review. She said the Council should not have closed it before acknowledging her suitability concerns. Miss X believed the Council had failed to log her initial request and had then taken the conversation about withdrawing the request out of context.

Housing register application

27. The Council considered Miss X’s request for her housing application to be reinstated. It agreed to exercise its discretion and reinstate her position on the register. The Council said, although Miss X was not homeless, she would benefit from living back in the area to be closer to her child.
28. The Council placed Miss X in Band 4 priority. The Council later reassessed Miss X’s application and placed her in Band 2. The Council’s allocations policy gives priority to care leavers.
29. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025.

Update

30. In August 2025, Miss X’s landlord served both a Section 8 and Section 21 notice. Miss X was due to be evicted in October 2025.
31. The Council completed a new homelessness assessment as Miss X was threatened with homelessness within 56 days.

My findings

32. The Council recognised that written confirmation of Miss X’s review request and subsequent withdrawal would have been clearer than relying on verbal agreements. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that it had improved its communications processes.
33. I have fallen short of finding the Council at fault here and support the Council’s action to improve the process for applicants.
34. The Council exercised its discretion when it agreed to reinstate Miss X’s housing register application. It took account of her personal circumstances and care leaver status when reaching its decision. There was no fault here.
35. The Council referred to Miss X’s child being subject to an SGO and therefore did not include them on her housing register application. The Council recognised the benefit of Miss X moving back into the area to be closer to her child when it decided to reinstate her housing register application. There was no fault here.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman