Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to act with a sense of urgency in completing a managed move for Miss X. It was also at fault for making her offers of unsuitable housing, and in failing to issue formal decision notices. This caused Miss X injustice in that she was housed unsuitably, and separated from her child, for longer than she would otherwise have been. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X, make her a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused, and take action to prevent a recurrence.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that, after agreeing to a managed move, the Council failed to rehouse her. She said this caused her distress in that she remained at an address she considered unsafe and she was separated from her child, Y. She suffered the inconvenience of chasing the Council and disappointed expectations about a property that was offered twice and withdrawn twice. The Council then made her an offer of a property it should have known was unsuitable. She wanted the Council to rehouse her as agreed and compensate her for the distress it had caused.

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. 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.
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 before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

The Human Rights Act

7. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, liberty and security of person, a fair hearing, respect for private and family life, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from forced labour, and education. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
8. Not all rights operate in the same way. Instead, they break down into three separate categories:

• Absolute rights: those which cannot be interfered with under any circumstances;
• Limited rights: those that can be interfered with in certain circumstances; and
• Qualified rights: those rights where interference may be justified in order to protect the rights of others or wider public interest. Note that any interference with a qualified right must be in accordance with the law; in pursuit of a legitimate aim; no more than necessary to achieve the intended objective; and must not be arbitrary or unfair.

9. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether or not a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
10. In practical terms, councils will often be able to show they are compliant with the Human Rights Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and that there is a process for decisions to be challenged by way of review or appeal.

Housing allocations

The published scheme

11. 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))

Reasonable preference

12. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• Homeless people;
• People in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• People who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• People who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

Choice based lettings

13. The Council is a partner in a local choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which are advertised.

Managed moves

14. A council housing managed move (or management transfer) is an urgent, high-priority transfer for tenants needing to leave their current home due to safety risks like severe harassment, domestic abuse, or structural emergencies. Unlike standard transfers, it bypasses the usual waiting list, often placing applicants in the highest, urgent band.

Council policy

15. The Council maintains a policy on managed moves. This includes:

“2.1 Where there are exceptional circumstances indicating a need for urgent rehousing, there is discretion to agree Management Transfer status for an application. In each case, the Housing Management Officer (HMO) will have undertaken a full investigation of the case and provided this information to the Tenancy Services Manager (TSM).

2.2 Where a Management Transfer has been approved the tenant will receive one offer directly by the Housing Needs Section. They are not expected to go on the Housing Needs Register or bid. They should be encouraged to search for a suitable mutual exchange while waiting for an offer of alternative accommodation.

2.3 If the tenant, or a member of the household, is in immediate danger, temporary accommodation can be offered. Consideration may be given for Adur Homes to place direct using vacancies elsewhere, including temporary accommodation, if the risk is imminent and such an option appropriate.

[…]

4.10 If the applicant refuses the management transfer offer the applicant can apply to be rehoused via choice based lettings as a Band B applicant. They can also look for alternative suitable accommodation through a mutual exchange.

[…]

Right to Request a Review of Decision

5.1 Unsuccessful Management Transfer applicants may request a review of the decision, which will be carried out by the HoH [Head of Housing] having been given all the relevant information by the TSM. Examples of some grounds that can be considered as a basis for an appeal are:

• Distance from support network or relatives
• Suitability of property
• Distance from school, medical centre or other services required by members of the household
• Proximity to relatives of the perpetrator

5.2 The review will be carried out within seven working days of the appeal being received.

5.3 If the review is successful the applicant will be offered the next suitable property. If the review is unsuccessful the applicant can apply for alternative accommodation via choice based lettings or mutual exchange.”

What happened

16. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology. Events before June 2024 are included at paragraph 17 for background only. The social services and occupational therapy teams referred to are part of the County Council that is not the subject of this complaint.
17. Miss X had a secure Council tenancy. Her home was vandalised in 2023 when Miss X and Y were in the property. The Council and other agencies considered the attack had occurred because of Y’s involvement with a criminal gang. Following the attack, Y felt unsafe living at that address and stayed with friends. Y was later placed in a care setting.
18. A member of the County Council’s Family Safeguarding Team wrote to the Council in June 2024, setting out why they felt it was not safe for Y to return to Miss X’s address.
19. An Occupational Therapist (OT) from the County Council reported to the Council in July 2024, setting out that, due to permanent medical conditions, Miss X required:
• A ground floor property, lifted property, or house where a stairlift could be installed in the future should it be needed;
• Level access bathing facilities, or one with the ability to be adapted to such, and
• A property with (no more than) a step or two at access.
20. Also in July 2024, two Council officers visited Miss X at home. They discussed with her the possibility of a managed move. Miss X said they told her that, if she was not eligible for a managed move, she would instead be able to join the Council’s Housing Register and bid for suitable properties.
21. One of the Council officers that had visited Miss X completed the form requesting a managed move for her and Y. They wrote “[Miss X] and [Y] both need a fresh start after the trauma of the last year. They have worked hard with Social Services and are ready to be living as a family full time again, just not at their current address”. The Council authorised the request in late September.
22. The Council offered Miss X a property in her preferred area, Area A. The property was not available for immediate letting. The Council said this was because it had a backlog of properties requiring void works (the repair, maintenance and refurbishment of unoccupied properties to prepare empty homes for new tenants). And, when void works commenced, the property required “a considerable amount of work to bring it up to a lettable standard, which further delayed its availability for re-letting”.
23. The Council withdrew the offer of the property in Area A in early December 2024. It told me it did this because Y had been absconding from the out-of-district care placement to associate with members of the criminal gang. The Council determined that, as the primary goal of the managed move was to break these links, moving the family to a property close to the area in question would provide no benefit.
24. Miss X complained in mid-December about the withdrawal of the managed move offer. She said she had packed all of her belongings, and purchased new furniture, ready for the move.
25. The Council responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in mid-January 2025. This response said only: “An offer of managed move has been made and the property ready date is awaited, this will be shared with you once the works that are needed in your new home are completed.” The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of an offer being live at that time.
26. Miss X told the Ombudsman that the Council made her a second offer of the same property, in Area A, in March 2025. She rejected it as unsuitable because it lacked central heating. The Council told her the only other property available was in Area B. Miss X said Area B was unsafe as her ex-partner, against whom she had a restraining order, lived there, as did members of the criminal gang with which Y had been involved. And so, she decided to accept the offer of the property in Area A. The Council then withdrew the offer of the property in Area A for a second time.
27. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage 2 in mid-April. The Council responded two days later. It said it had withdrawn the offer of the property in Area A because it did not have a wet room (level access bathroom). The Council said it had offered the property in Area B because it had a wet room and was on the ground floor. It said if Miss X did not accept this offer, she would need to bid on properties through the Choice Based Lettings system. The Council said it would re-assess the suitability of the offer if Miss X could provide evidence to support the reasons she considered it unsuitable.
28. Miss X provided the Council with a copy of the indefinite restraining order against her ex-partner. She told the Ombudsman she had previously provided all relevant evidence at the outset of the managed move process. The Council withdrew the offer of the property in Area B and the managed move application continued.
29. Miss X approached the Ombudsman in July 2025. She said that, by this time, Y was desperate to come home and was suicidal because the Council had not offered them a suitable property.
30. In January 2026 the Council offered Miss X a new property in Area A that met her needs. She started her tenancy in February 2026.

Council response to my enquiries

31. The Council told me that it had explained to Miss X that she could make a homeless application, what the Council’s duties might be if she did (such as the provision of interim accommodation), and what such an application would mean for her tenancy. It said that Miss X did not pursue a homeless application because she had a secure Council tenancy that may have been impacted by a homeless application.
32. In response to my enquires, the Council failed to provide me with much of the evidence I requested, including:
• Answers to some of my specific questions;
• Written records of the Council’s considerations and decision making throughout the case, and a running record of all case notes, correspondence, and notes of calls during the same period;
• Copies of formal offers of housing or the withdrawals of those offers, or other written evidence of how it communicated the offers and withdrawals to Miss X;
• Relevant information sent to the Council by Miss X, the police, children's and adult services, youth justice services and any other relevant source;
• Details of all properties meeting Miss X’s needs allocated to other people during the period in consideration, along with the priority band and relevant date of the successful applicant
33. This lack of evidence has impacted my investigation such that I have made some findings on the balance of probabilities alone.

My findings

34. Managed moves are, by definition, urgent, high-priority transfers for tenants at significant risk of harm. And so, whilst there are no specific local or national guidelines setting out expected timescales for action in the case of a managed move, we would expect councils to act with a sense of urgency throughout the process. The Council began considering a managed move for Miss X in July 2024. She moved into a suitable property in February 2026. The overall timescale of 19 months was not consistent with the need for an urgent move, and was fault. On the balance of probabilities, I consider that Miss X could have been rehoused by early 2025, a year sooner than was the case.
35. Below, I consider in more detail the Council’s actions throughout this period, and how these impacted Miss X and Y.
36. After the Council officers visited Miss X at home in July 2024, and told her the Council would consider her for a managed move, the Council should have completed a request, and then authorised that request, as a matter of urgency. That it did not do so until late September was fault.
37. I find that the property first offered to Miss X, in Area A, was not suitable from the outset, and the Council was at fault in making that offer. That is because the property was not available for immediate letting, as required in the case of an urgent managed move. Further, it did not have a level access bathroom, which the Council accepted Miss X required. As the property was not suitable, it was not fault that the Council withdrew the offer. I have seen no evidence that the Council communicated the offer or the withdrawal in writing, including Miss X's right to a review of those decisions (as set out at paragraph 15). This failing was also fault.
38. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response was at fault in that it did not address Miss X’s concerns or give any explanations as to why the property had been offered and then withdrawn. It also referred to a second offer having been made at a time during which I have seen no evidence that an offer was live.
39. The Council was at fault in making Miss X a second offer of the same property, in Area A, in early 2025. Even if the void works had been completed, and the Council was confident that Y would not have further contact with the criminal gang, the property still did not have a wet room, and so remained unsuitable. Again, as the property was not suitable, it was not fault that the Council withdrew the offer. But again, I have seen no evidence that the Council communicated the offer or the withdrawal in writing, including Miss X's right to a review of those decisions. This was fault.
40. I cannot make a finding, even on the balance of probabilities, about whether the Council was at fault in offering Miss X the property in Area B. That is because I have not seen the evidence that Miss X says she had already provided to the Council, showing that Area B was unsuitable for her, before the Council made the offer. The Council was not at fault in withdrawing the offer when Miss X provided evidence of unsuitability, and putting her back into the managed move process in April 2025.
41. Given the urgency of the situation, the Council was at fault in that it made no further offer of housing to Miss X between April 2025 and January 2026.

Impact on Miss X and Y (injustice)

42. The Council’s delay in completing the managed move meant that Miss X was housed in unsafe – and therefore unsuitable – accommodation for longer than would have been the case had the Council acted without fault. The Council’s faults meant that Miss X and Y were required to live apart from each other for longer than would otherwise – on the balance of probabilities – have been the case, causing them both distress. Miss X and Y have a right to family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. The Council failed to have due regard to these rights in allowing the situation to drift for so long.
43. The Council’s faults also caused Miss X frustration and prolonged uncertainty. They also caused her disappointed expectations and financial losses, in that she had packed up her belongings and bought items for her prospective new home in late 2024.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Make Miss X a payment of £3600, for the benefit of herself and Y, in recognition of the injustice caused by the delay in completing the managed move to suitable housing between early 2025 and early 2026.
2. Apologise to Miss X and Y for the impacts of its faults on them.
45. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Remind staff of the need to issue formal decision notices in the case of housing offers and the withdrawal of offers;
2. Develop an action plan showing how the Council will ensure it maintains its housing records so that key documents are easily retrievable and available for inspection by oversight bodies like the Ombudsman; and
3. Develop an action plan to enable it to monitor households awaiting managed moves and require senior officer oversight of any cases waiting more than six months.
46. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find fault causing injustice. The Council should agree actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman