Summary: Mr X and Miss Y complained the Council failed to facilitate a social priority move when they had to leave their property due to threats made against their family from their neighbour. They also say the Council placed them in unsuitable interim accommodation and it delayed dealing with their homeless application. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled the social priority process. It was also at fault for failing to complete a suitability assessment, for its delay in offering suitable alternative accommodation and for its delay in dealing with the homeless application. These faults caused Mr X and Miss Y uncertainty, distress and upset and they had to live in accommodation unsuitable for their needs. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Miss Y, make payments to them and contact them further about the medical assessment process.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Miss Y complained the Council failed to facilitate a social priority move when they had to leave their property due to threats made against their family from their neighbour. They say the Council told them to submit a homeless application, and then later advised they could not proceed with a social priority move alongside a homeless application. They also say the Council placed them in unsuitable interim accommodation, its communication was poor, and it delayed dealing with their homeless application. Finally, they say the Council delayed dealing with their medical documentation.
2. Mr X and Miss Y say the Council’s failures have caused severe distress and upset to the whole family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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 Mr X and Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X, Miss Y 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

Homelessness

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 homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
9. 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)
10. 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). This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Interim and temporary accommodation

11. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. 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.
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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Housing allocations

15. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
16. The Council’s housing allocations policy states if an existing social tenant and their household need to move because they have been threatened or assaulted, they may qualify for consideration for inclusion on the housing register as a social priority. This will apply where there is a threat to life to the tenant or someone in their household and there is no alternative effective remedy other than moving them from the accommodation. Such moves happen within the borough unless this will not remove or substantially reduce the threat.

Internal moves

17. Appendix five of the Council’s housing allocations policy details the Council’s process of dealing with internal moves.
18. Before April 2025, the appendix said:

• The purpose of a social priority move is to remove a tenant from the immediate risk to life and limb if they were to remain in their home.
• Where it has been established the tenant can remain residing in the borough an offer of accommodation will be one direct offer of a similar property (same number of bedrooms).
• Where a resident requires temporary accommodation housing managers will identify and source a property.

19. The Council amended the appendix after April 2025. This says social priority will be considered when it appears:

• A move is necessary to manage significant risk to ‘life and limb’ and
• The tenant can remain in their home pending the move and
• There are areas within the borough that appears to be safe for the family to move to in the longer term.

20. Such cases will be managed in accordance with the housing allocations policy and the Council’s high risk move procedure. Temporary accommodation may be offered to eligible tenants as part of a homeless application.

The Council’s high risk move procedure

21. This procedure should be used in conjunction with the Council’s housing allocations policy. It sets out how the Council responds to tenants who are at risk of serious harm. Where the person can remain in their main home while they wait for a move, the housing officer should advise them to apply for re-housing via the social priority process. The housing officer should manage the resident’s expectations about the length of time they could wait for rehousing via social priority.
22. If the person cannot remain in their home while they wait for a move, their case must be assessed in line with homelessness legislation. In some cases, the tenant may already have an active social priority application. In these cases, the housing officer must advise the tenant that if they need temporary accommodation due to the risk, their case will be dealt with under homelessness legislation and their social priority application will be closed.

What happened

23. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
24. Mr X, Miss Y and their children were living in a Council property. Mr X is the tenancy holder.
25. Mr X and Miss Y contacted the Council in July 2024. They said their neighbour had threatened their family and they wanted to move. The officer said there was limited temporary accommodation. The notes state Mr X and Miss Y said they did not want temporary accommodation, and they were going to contact the police about an injunction.
26. Miss Y called the Council the following week. She said there was another incident with the neighbour. The neighbour had received an injunction and could not return to the property until after the court date. She asked for temporary accommodation. The housing officer (Officer A) told her to go back to the Council’s contact centre and ask for a temporary accommodation until a social priority case could be raised.
27. Mr X contacted the Council in early September. He asked for emergency accommodation because he was concerned the neighbour’s friends could return to the property. The officers he spoke to said they would send his request to the temporary accommodation team.
28. Officer A met with Mr X and Miss Y and completed a high risk moves assessment form. Officer A decided that a homeless application would be an appropriate way to address the risk to the family.
29. Miss Y provided Officer A with medical information about her and Mr X’s son’s needs.
30. Mr X completed a homeless application. The Council provided the family with interim accommodation in a hostel (one bedroom with the living room converted to a second bedroom) in mid-September.
31. Mr X completed a social priority application form the following week. The manager reviewed the form and decided not to approve the application.
32. The Council accepted the relief duty for Mr X at the end of September.
33. Miss Y complained to the Council in mid-November. She said Officer A failed to offer support for a priority move and wrongly told her and Mr X to pursue a homeless application. She also said Officer A missed phone calls and failed to honour appointments. She said the Council had delayed dealing with the homeless application. Finally, she said the Council provided unsuitable interim accommodation and it had not dealt with the family’s medical information.
34. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of November. It said Mr X and Miss Y asked for alternative accommodation in early September. Officer A decided they should make a homeless application. Before this, Officer A discussed a social priority move but explained such a move would only result in a like-for-like property and was limited to residents who could remain at home. Despite this, Mr X and Miss Y requested to proceed with the social priority process. Officer A progressed a social priority application. This progression was inappropriate. Officer A should have closed the social priority move application and explained family did not qualify under that procedure.
35. The Council also said Officer A failed to complete the additional needs form, which may have formed decisions on the interim accommodation the family received. It said Mr X and Miss Y could not ask for a review, as it was interim rather than temporary accommodation. It had advised them to complete an online health questionnaire which the medical assessment team would assess. It would ask an officer to contact them and guide them through the process. Finally, it said Officer A’s communication did not meet its service standards and he failed to reply to calls. It apologised for its failures. It said Officer A would undergo additional training.
36. Mr X and Miss Y referred their complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process in early December. They said they remained unhappy with the Council’s handling of the matter.
37. The Council accepted the main housing duty for Mr X on 19 December.
38. Mr X’s and Miss Y’s solicitor asked for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The solicitor said the property was too small as Mr X’s and Miss Y’s son needed a separate bedroom due to his special educational needs. The solicitor also said the family had limited access to the washing machine.
39. The Council issued its final response to the complaint in early February 2025. It said Officer A correctly advised Mr X and Miss Y to make a homeless application. This was in line with its high risk move procedure. However, Officer A did not tell them until after they had submitted the social priority application they could not have a homeless application and a social priority application at the same time. It apologised for the misinformation and distress caused. It offered £225 for Mr X’s and Miss Y’s injustice.
40. The Council sent a letter to Mr X’s and Miss Y’s solicitor in early March with its decision on the suitability review request. It said the temporary accommodation was suitable for the family and reasonable for them to occupy.
41. The solicitor sent further representations to the Council. The Council reviewed the representations and decided in mid-March the property was unsuitable. It recommended a move to a self-contained property with an extra bedroom.
42. Mr X’s and Miss Y’s solicitor sent a letter to the Council in early April. They said the Council’s policy inferred a tenant could apply for a social priority and receive temporary accommodation.
43. The Council responded to the solicitor’s letter in late April and said it would reactivate the social priority application.
44. In early June, the Council moved the family to alternative temporary accommodation.

Back to top

Analysis

Social priority application

45. Mr X and Miss Y say the Council should have accepted a social priority application from them when they first approached it in July 2024. They also say the Council was wrong to say they could not have a homeless application and a social priority application. The Council’s policy does not prevent them from being in temporary accommodation and pursuing a social priority application.
46. The Council’s high risk procedure states if someone can stay in their home while they wait for a move, then they should apply for social priority. If the person cannot remain in their home and needs immediate accommodation, then their case should be pursued in line with homelessness legislation, and their social priority application will be closed.
47. The confusion in this case comes from appendix five. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it had not amended appendix five in line with its high risk move procedure. The old version of appendix five indicated someone could have temporary accommodation while applying for social priority. This temporary accommodation was not under homelessness legislation but paid for by tenancy services. The Council amended its high risk procedure in April 2024 but then failed to amend appendix five at the same time. The Council has since amended appendix five, which I welcome. It has allowed Mr X and Miss Y to have a social priority application while being in temporary accommodation because of the confusion caused.
48. The Council says the homeless application was the correct route for Mr X and Miss Y to pursue because they could not continue living in the property. When Mr X and Miss Y first approached the Council for advice in July 2024, they said their neighbour had an injunction and could not return to the property until after the court date (two months later). Therefore, there was a short window where they could stay living in the property. The Council’s records are not clear about why it did not pursue a social priority application at that stage and it is at fault for this. However, it is highly unlikely this would have been resulted in alternative accommodation for Mr X and Miss Y given the long waiting times for social housing. The Council’s high risk moves procedure makes this clear.
49. The Council was not at fault for telling Mr X to make a homeless application in September 2024 as this is line with its high risk move procedure. Mr X and Miss Y could not continue living in the property and needed immediate accommodation. The only way to achieve this was through interim accommodation and a homeless application. However, the Council was at fault for progressing a social priority application after it had accepted a homeless application. This caused Mr X and Miss Y confusion. The Council accepted this when it responded to the complaint.

Unsuitable accommodation

50. The Council has a duty to provide suitable accommodation. This duty applies to both interim and temporary accommodation. The Council failed to complete a suitability assessment and the additional needs form before it offered the interim accommodation in September 2024. This is fault, which leaves Mr X and Miss Y with uncertainty about what the outcome may have been if the Council had taken proper steps to assess the suitability of the accommodation before it made its offer.
51. In mid-March 2025 the Council accepted the accommodation was unsuitable. It did not provide alternative accommodation until early June 2025. This delay is fault. This fault has caused Mr X and Miss Y a significant injustice as they had to continuing living in accommodation that was unsuitable for their needs.

Delay dealing with homeless application

52. The relief duty usually lasts for 56 days. Councils should be able to decide whether they owe the main housing duty on day 57 after accepting the relief duty.
53. In this case, the Council’s awarded the relief duty in September 2024, but it did not decide it owed the main housing duty until 19 December 2024. This delay is fault, which caused Mr X and Miss Y frustration. It also meant they were delayed in accessing their right to request a review of the temporary accommodation.

Delay dealing with medical documentation

54. The Council said in its response to the complaint in November 2024 it would ask an officer to contact Mr X and Miss Y to discuss the medical assessment process. I cannot see anyone contacted them at the time to discuss it further. This is fault, which has caused Mr X and Miss Y further frustration.
55. I am aware since June 2025 (after my investigation ends) there was some internal correspondence about whether Mr X and Miss Y had completed the medical assessment forms. If the Council has not resolved this matter, it should now do so.

Communication

56. The Council accepted it was at fault for its communication with Mr X and Miss Y. It said it missed phone calls and appointments. I agree the Council was at fault. This caused Mr X and Miss Y distress and upset.

Remedy

57. The Council apologised to Mr X and Miss Y and offered them £225. It also said Officer A would undergo training to prevent a recurrence of the fault. I welcome the steps the Council has taken, but I do not consider it sufficiently addresses the injustice caused by fault in this case. I make further financial recommendations which is in line with our guidance on remedies. I have also recommended a further apology to address the further injustice caused by fault I have identified in this statement.

Back to top

Action

58. By 24 December 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X and Miss Y for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mr X and Miss Y £300 (instead of the £225 it offered) for their uncertainty, frustration, distress and upset.
• Make a further payment of £375 to Mr X and Miss Y to reflect the time they were living in unsuitable accommodation
• Arrange for an officer to contact Mr X and Miss Y to go through the medical assessment process.

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

Back to top

Decision

60. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X and Miss Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman