Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed accepting a housing duty towards him. He also complained the Council offered unsuitable interim accommodation and communicated poorly. We have found the Council at fault for its delay accepting the main housing duty and for its poor communication with Mr X. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to keep the suitability of Mr X’s accommodation under review between September 2023 and March 2024. We have not found the Council’s delays caused Mr X to miss any opportunities for suitable permanent accommodation. We have found the Council’s faults caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, increase the symbolic financial remedy it previously offered, and issue a reminder to relevant officers.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
1. Failed to properly administer his homelessness application, leading to a delay in the Council accepting the relief and main housing duties.
2. Failed to provide suitable interim accommodation.
3. Failed to communicate effectively.
2. Mr X said these faults significantly affected his health and wellbeing. He said the delay meant he stayed in unsuitable accommodation longer than he otherwise would have. He also said he potentially missed other suitable housing opportunities.

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. 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)
5. The law 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)
6. 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)
7. 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.
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Part of Mr X’s 2023 complaint to the Council concerned its decision about his priority need. Mr X exercised his right to seek a review of the Council’s decision. In late 2023, the Ombudsman decided it would not investigate this complaint, because Mr X had the right of review. However, some related matters do fall within the scope of this investigation. I explain why in this statement.
10. In his complaints to the Council, Mr X also asserted poor communication and decision-making going back several years. This investigation concerns matters from July 2023 to March 2024, encompassing two complaints Mr X made to the Council and his approach to the Ombudsman about those complaints. I have not investigated any historic matters. The restriction set out in paragraph 4 applies.
11. Part of Mr X’s complaint concerns the Council’s actions and decision-making after the point he approached the Ombudsman. I have not considered these matters as part of my investigation, as the Council has not yet considered these matters as a complaint. The restriction in paragraph 6 applies.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered information he provided.
13. I considered information the Council provided about the complaint.
14. Both Mr X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Homelessness

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)

Assessment and Personal Housing Plans

16. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. 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)

Interim accommodation duty (section 188)

17. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

Relief duty

18. 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)

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 secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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

20. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

21. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
22. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Interim and temporary accommodation

23. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
24. 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)
25. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
26. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
27. 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.
28. 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)
29. The Code says accommodation that is suitable for a short period, for example accommodation used to discharge an interim duty, may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period, for example to discharge the main housing duty (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.7). Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.8).
30. 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.

Council’s allocations scheme

31. 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))
32. The Council publishes its allocations scheme on its website. This sets out how the Council assesses an applicant’s priority and allocates housing. Relevant to this complaint, the Council’s allocation scheme says:
1. The Council has four priority bands: Bronze, Silver, Gold and Emergency. The allocations scheme sets out how the Council establishes priority against these bands.
2. Homeless applicants with a local connection, to whom the Council has accepted a main housing duty, will be awarded Silver priority. Applicants to whom the Council has accepted the relief duty will also be awarded Silver priority.
3. Applicants assessed as meeting the criterion for significant welfare needs will be awarded Gold priority.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

33. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.

2023

34. In May 2023, Mr X applied to the Council as homeless. The Council said Mr X’s approach followed his accommodation provider advising Mr X it intended to issue a Notice to Quit (NTQ). At the time, Mr X lived in supported accommodation, which utilised shared facilities. Mr X said the shared nature of the accommodation was significantly affecting his mental health and overall wellbeing. The Council said the accommodation provider served Mr X with an NTQ to help with his homelessness application and get him rehoused, rather than acting punitively.
35. The Council discussed Mr X’s application with him by telephone. It also spoke with the accommodation provider. The provider agreed to allow Mr X to stay in the supported accommodation while the Council worked with Mr X towards a managed move to long-term, self-contained accommodation.
36. In June 2023, the Council completed its assessment of Mr X’s housing circumstances. It awarded Mr X Silver housing priority. A short time later, it upgraded Mr X’s priority to Gold.
37. In July 2023, Mr X complained to the Council:
1. Mr X complained the Council had not provided a copy of his assessment, his PHP, or issued a decision about his homelessness.
2. Mr X complained the Council had not moved him from his accommodation. This was despite his vulnerability and the impact of the accommodation leading him to be hospitalised.
38. The Council wrote to Mr X with its decision about his homelessness. The Council said it owed Mr X the relief duty. However, it said Mr X was not in priority need, so it did not owe him the interim accommodation duty. The Council said shortly after this, it provided Mr X with a copy of his assessment and PHP.
39. Mr X sought a review of the Council’s decision about his priority need.
40. In August 2023, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint:
1. The Council said it would complete the review procedure properly, but told Mr X it had quashed its original decision about his priority need. It accepted its previous decision had caused Mr X distress and apologised for this.
2. The Council recognised the impact of Mr X’s accommodation. It said it needed to move Mr X to settled, self-contained accommodation as soon as possible. However, the Council said it believed Mr X’s current accommodation was suitable as interim accommodation, for the purposes of its s188 duty. It set out the factors that informed this decision:
1. The Council said the Code confirmed some accommodation would not be suitable in the long-term, but could be suitable in the short-term.
2. Mr X’s accommodation provider would allow Mr X to stay beyond the 28-day NTQ period. Mr X could access support from the staff at the placement while he remained there.
3. Other accommodation available at the time also consisted of shared facilities, or was bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Council said these placements had fewer facilities and more people than Mr X’s current accommodation, as well as less support, so they would be unsuitable for Mr X’s needs.
4. The Council wanted to minimise the number of times Mr X had to move between different placements, owing to the disruption and distress this could cause.
3. The Council explained how it assessed Mr X’s housing priority. It said it would consider any further supporting evidence it received.
4. The Council agreed Mr X had waited too long for decision letters and his PHP. It explained there was an exceptional demand on its service, but said this did not make Mr X’s case any less important.
5. The Council said it would formalise its review response. It said it would provide training to officers around priority need decisions. It also said it would develop and implement a contact management plan for Mr X, to make sure he received regular updates. This was to mitigate Mr X’s distress and uncertainty.
41. Mr X escalated his complaint. He said the Council had not addressed the fact officers had accused him of trying to manipulate the Council over his priority banding. He also said the Council’s conduct over the previous four years had negatively contributed to his wellbeing. Mr X said the Council should have considered compensation.
42. In late August 2023, the Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint. The Council:
1. Agreed the content and tone of its communications had been unacceptable.
2. Said it would address conduct issues with specific officers.
3. Apologised to Mr X and offered a financial remedy of £150 for the distress caused.
43. Mr X asked the Council to reconsider its remedy. The Council said it was final.
44. In September 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X to formally confirm the outcome of the review. It said Mr X had a priority need and provided Mr X with the relevant rights of review for its new decision.
45. Later that month, the Council said it sought input from the community mental health team (CMHT) about the impact of Mr X’s accommodation on his wellbeing. The Council said it did not receive a response.

2024

46. In January 2024, Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X’s complaint concerned the Council delaying deciding whether it owed him the main housing duty. Mr X also complained the Council had not told him his allocated caseworker had left the Council and it had reallocated his case.
47. In March 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint:
1. The Council confirmed it would accept the main housing duty towards Mr X. It accepted it had delayed telling Mr X this.
2. The Council said Mr X’s caseworker left the Council in September 2023. It said it allocated a new caseworker in January 2024. The Council said a senior officer had oversight of Mr X’s case in the meantime, but said Mr X had been left without a designated point of contact for an unacceptable period.
3. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint. It said it would implement service improvements and offered Mr X £150 in recognition of the impact on his wellbeing.
48. The Council wrote to Mr X to formally confirm its decision to accept the main housing duty.
49. Mr X sought to escalate his complaint. The Council said it did not receive this request, as Mr X’s email was incorrectly sent to a junk inbox.
50. In early May 2024, Mr X chased the Council for a response to his complaint. In late May 2024, the Council responded to Mr X’s escalated complaint:
1. The Council upheld its previous findings and proposed remedy.
2. The Council apologised for its delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and explained how this happened.
3. The Council confirmed it had made service improvements and offered to allocate Mr X a support and inclusion officer.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Application and housing duties

51. The Council accepted the relief duty towards Mr X in July 2023. In the correspondence I have seen, the Council has given different dates for when it accepted this duty. However, the relief decision letter I have seen is dated 13 July 2023 and so I consider it was on this date the Council accepted the relief duty towards Mr X.
52. The Council accepted delays in completing an assessment of Mr X’s housing circumstances, issuing a PHP and providing a written decision. It cited significant pressures on its homelessness services as the cause.
53. The Code does not specify a timescale for completing assessments and issuing a PHP, though stresses that authorities should act to prevent homelessness while assessments are ongoing. I note the Council accepted fault in the specific circumstances of this case. I have not made any further findings on this point.
54. The Council should have notified Mr X of its decision concerning a main housing duty 56 days after accepting the relief duty. As it went on to accept the main housing duty towards Mr X, this means it should have done so by 7 September 2023. The Council did not accept the main housing duty until 11 March 2024, a delay of around 26 weeks, citing service pressures and staff changes as the cause. I have found the Council at fault for this delay.

Suitability of accommodation

55. The Council recognised Mr X’s accommodation was affecting his wellbeing. However, the Council said the Code allows for interim accommodation to be suitable in the short term, even if it may not be suitable in the long term.
56. In August 2023, the Council set out its view that the accommodation Mr X then occupied was suitable interim accommodation. The Council set out the factors that had informed this decision, summarised in paragraph 40b.
57. The evidence shows the Council had regard for the requirements of the Code and based its decision on the individual facts of the case, while explaining its reasons. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for how it decided the accommodation then available for Mr X was suitable interim accommodation. I cannot therefore question the decision itself.
58. Accommodation that was suitable at the point it was offered can become unsuitable over time, as set out in paragraph 29. The Council has a duty to keep the suitability of interim accommodation provided under its s188 duty under review. This is particularly important when the Council has already identified the present interim accommodation may become unsuitable with the passage of time.
59. The Council sought some input from the CMHT in September 2023, but did not receive a response. The Council provided no evidence it reviewed the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation again at any point between this and March 2024, when it accepted the main housing duty. I have found the Council at fault for failing to keep the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation under review.

Communication

60. In its 2023 complaint responses, the Council accepted its communication with Mr X had been unacceptable in content and tone. In its 2024 complaint responses, the Council said Mr X’s allocated housing officer had left in September 2023. It said a senior officer had overseen Mr X’s case, but accepted Mr X had been without a named point of contact for an unacceptable length of time.
61. The Council accepted fault in its communication with Mr X. I agree with the Council’s view and have made the same finding.
62. In its final complaint response from 2024, the Council accepted delays in its complaint handling, noting its email system had mistakenly filtered Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised and confirmed it had corrected the issue.
63. I recognise the Council accepted faults in its complaints handling and have made the same finding.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

64. Mr X was concerned the Council’s delay in accepting the main duty led to him missing opportunities to secure suitable permanent accommodation. Having considered the evidence available, I have found:
1. The Council awarded Mr X Gold priority when it accepted the relief housing duty towards him, owing to his welfare needs. Mr X had this priority throughout the delay. He then maintained this same priority when the Council accepted the main housing duty. The Council’s allocations scheme does not confer additional priority to applicants to whom it accepts the main duty. This means the Council’s delay did not affect Mr X’s priority entitlement.
2. Between September 2023, when the Council should have accepted the main housing duty, and March 2024, when the Council did accept the main housing duty, Mr X placed eight bids for accommodation. Of these eight properties, five went to applicants with higher housing priority than Mr X. One went to an applicant in the same priority band, but with an earlier registration date. The remaining two properties were subject to additional lettings criteria Mr X would not have qualified for.
65. I am therefore satisfied Mr X did not miss any opportunities for suitable permanent accommodation, because of the Council’s delay.
66. However, the Council’s delay in confirming it accepted the main housing duty caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty about his housing circumstances, and what the Council would do to help him. This avoidable uncertainty and distress were injustices to Mr X.
67. Mr X said he lived in unsuitable interim accommodation longer than he otherwise would have, but for the Council’s faults. As set out above, I have not found the Council at fault for how it decided the interim accommodation was suitable for Mr X in August 2023. This means I cannot take a view on whether the accommodation was suitable at that point.
68. The Council was at fault for not keeping the suitability of the accommodation under review between September 2023 and March 2024. There is therefore some uncertainty about whether the Council would still have found the accommodation suitable over time, if it had properly considered the question. The Council may or may not have decided the property remained suitable as interim accommodation for Mr X, depending on when it considered this question. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the Council would have decided, as any decision would have turned on the facts of the case at that specific point. This causes uncertainty, which is an injustice to Mr X in itself.
69. The Council’s fault could cause injustice to others in future, if not addressed. I have recommended the Council act to prevent this.
70. When the Council accepted the main housing duty, it provided Mr X with the right to request a review of the suitability of that accommodation. I understand Mr X did not exercise this right and ultimately remained in the property until January 2025. For the reasons set out in paragraph 11, I have not considered the Council’s actions and decision-making after it accepted the main duty towards Mr X. I have also not considered whether it was reasonable for Mr X to exercise his right to seek a review in the circumstances. It would be open to Mr X to make a separate complaint to the Council about this period and bring his complaint to the Ombudsman, in the event he remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
71. The Council accepted it communicated poorly with Mr X in 2023 and 2024. In August 2023, the Council committed to creating and implementing a contact management plan to improve its communication with Mr X. However, Mr X’s housing officer left the Council in September 2023 and this contact plan did not materialise. Between September 2023 and March 2024, Mr X was without a designated point of contact, causing significant uncertainty and distress at a key time. These are injustices to Mr X. The impact for Mr X was particularly acute, given his vulnerability.
72. The Council offered Mr X a financial remedy totalling £300 across the complaints in 2023 and 2024, for the impact of its poor communication and delays. I recognise the Council accepted fault and had regard for the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which proposes symbolic payments of up to £500 for avoidable distress. However, I do not think the Council’s proposed remedy accounts for the impact on Mr X in this case. I have recommended the Council act to address this.
73. The Council accepted delays in its complaints handling in 2024, arising from a technical issue with its email system. It apologised and confirmed it had corrected the issue. I note the Council’s apology and action, which I believe provides a partial remedy for the avoidable time and trouble Mr X incurred. However, in view of Mr X’s specific vulnerabilities, I have recommended the Council act to recognise the disproportionate impact on Mr X.

Back to top

Action

74. I have had regard for the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies when making the following recommendations.
75. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty identified in this statement. This would include the £300 the Council already offered Mr X, if this has not yet been paid.
3. Pay Mr X a further £100 to recognise the time and trouble incurred in completing the complaints procedure in 2024.
4. Remind relevant officers of the Council’s duty to keep the suitability of interim and temporary accommodation under review and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances that may affect suitability, as set out in Chapter 17 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

77. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman