Summary: Ms X complained the Council provided her with unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation for a prolonged period. Ms X also complained the Council failed to properly administer her homelessness application, delayed completing a suitability review, and communicated poorly. We have found the Council acted with fault. These faults meant Ms X lived in unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period and experienced significant avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology to Ms X and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Provided her with unsuitable interim accommodation.
2. Failed to properly administer or progress her homelessness application, resulting in delays in accepting the main housing duty and in Ms X joining the Council’s housing register.
3. Delayed completing a suitability review of her accommodation.
4. Delayed responding to her complaints and otherwise communicated poorly.
2. Ms X said the Council’s faults meant she lived in unsuitable accommodation far longer than she otherwise would have. This had a significant impact on her physical and mental wellbeing. Ms X also experienced significant distress, uncertainty and frustration because of the Council’s faults, in addition to avoidable financial expense.

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. 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.
6. 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

Time

7. Paragraph 4 sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to older complaints. I have exercised discretion to consider matters from late 2022, more than 12 months before Ms X’s approach to the Ombudsman. This is because I am satisfied there were good reasons Ms X could not bring her complaint sooner, due to ill health and her vulnerability.
8. Additionally, matters from this period are directly relevant to Ms X’s current injustice. I would need to consider older matters to be able to reach a view on the injustice Ms X has experienced.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Homelessness

11. 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)
12. It is not reasonable for a person to continue to live in accommodation if it is probable this will lead to violence or domestic abuse against them. (Housing Act 1996, Section 177)

Assessment and Personal Housing Plans (PHPs)

13. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The relief duty

14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person.
15. Where the council is satisfied that the applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days. Where the council has the information it requires to make a decision as to whether the applicant is in priority need and became homeless unintentionally, it should be possible to notify the applicant on or around day 57. In cases where significant further investigations are required it is recommended that councils complete their inquiries and notify the applicant of their decision within a maximum of 15 working days after 56 days have passed.
16. 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

17. If, at the end of the relief duty, 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

18. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
19. 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)
20. 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.
21. 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)
22. 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.
23. 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)
24. 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.

Review rights and timescales

25. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the certain decisions. Relevant to this complaint, these decisions include:

• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end; and
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (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.

26. Relevant to this complaint, councils must complete reviews of decisions about the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Complaints procedure

27. The Council operates a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage one of its complaints procedure, it says it will respond to housing complaints within a maximum of 20 working days. At stage two of its complaints procedure, it will respond to all complaints within a maximum of 40 working days.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

28. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
29. In September 2022, a specialist domestic abuse service referred Ms X to the Council for help, after finding Ms X’s wellbeing was at risk if she remained in her home. The Council carried out a housing needs assessment with Ms X and found it should provide her with emergency accommodation due to her circumstances. I refer to this as interim accommodation in this statement.
30. As part of its assessment, the Council obtained advice from its independent medical advisors. The Council received this advice on 30 September 2022. The advice stated Ms X would be considered vulnerable. It also said it was not clear whether Ms X would benefit from self-contained or supported accommodation. It suggested, given Ms X’s known vulnerabilities, that supported accommodation may be preferable.
31. Around this time, the Council provided Ms X with interim accommodation at Property H. Ms X said she understood the Council would take 56 days to tell her what would happen next, but this did not happen. I understand Ms X tried to get updates from the Council over the next few months, but did not receive a reply.
32. In July 2023, Ms X’s mental health practitioners wrote to the Council:
• They said Ms X’s mental wellbeing was being negatively affected by Property H. They cited anti-social behaviour from other residents, which the practitioners had also experienced when visiting Ms X.
• They said Ms X had contacted the Council multiple times for help about this and asked it to consider alternative accommodation.
33. In August 2023, Ms X’s advice worker wrote to the Council:
• They set out the impact of historic events on Ms X, highlighting her vulnerabilities, as well as the care and support now in place.
• They said Property H was unsuitable for Ms X and asked the Council to move Ms X to self-contained accommodation. They said Property H was having a detrimental impact on Ms X’s wellbeing, given the impact of historic events.
• They said Ms X did not have a housing officer, did not know if she was on the Council’s housing register, and did not know what the next steps were. They said the Council had not responded to her requests for help or updates. They asked the Council to act.
34. Later the same month, the specialist domestic abuse service also wrote to the Council:
• They said Property H was not suitable for Ms X’s needs, as it affected her mental health recovery. They said Ms X was seeking further housing support.
35. In September 2023, Ms X complained to the Council:
• Ms X set out her circumstances to date. She provided copies of the submissions made on her behalf. She emphasised she was highly vulnerable and needed to be adequately housed close to her support services. She said she had no housing registration details, meaning she could not bid for accommodation.
36. In October 2023, different medical practitioners wrote to the Council on Ms X’s behalf:
• They said the lack of space, shared facilities and other residents at Property H were affecting Ms X’s wellbeing and recovery. They recommended the Council help Ms X find alternative accommodation better suited to her needs.
37. On 14 December 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty towards Ms X. It backdated this duty to November 2023. I have seen a copy of the Council’s decision letter, dated December 2023. However, Ms X told the Ombudsman she did not receive a copy of this until February 2024.
38. I understand that in January 2024, the Council told Ms X it would contact her within 20 working days to provide a full complaint response. Ms X emailed the Council to follow this up, but did not receive a reply.
39. In March 2024, Ms X’s medical practitioners wrote to the Council:
• They stressed the negative impact Property H was having on Ms X’s wellbeing and recovery. They said other residents disrupted Ms X at all hours and exposed Ms X to substances she was trying to avoid. They said the unsafe environment had contributed to Ms X experiencing several mental health crises.
• They asked the Council to provide Ms X with self-contained accommodation to aid her recovery. They said this was their professional opinion and they were prepared to engage with the Council in any way to support this.
40. In April 2024, Ms X’s GP wrote to the Council:
• They said Ms X had disclosed that Property H was not suitable or safe. They said Ms X lived in one small room, with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities. Ms X had reported post being stolen, meaning she missed medical appointments. She felt unable to discuss private matters by telephone, given the proximity of other residents. She had been exposed to substances she was trying to avoid. The environment was causing Ms X significant distress. They asked the Council to consider the impact on Ms X.
41. On 15 May 2024, solicitors acting for Ms X wrote to the Council to ask for a suitability review. They highlighted the relevant parts of the Code, Ms X’s circumstances to date, and the numerous submissions made on her behalf.
42. On 28 May 2024, the Council sent its full stage one complaint response:

• The Council confirmed it had accepted the main housing duty in December 2023. It said Ms X had been registered since November 2023. It agreed it had taken too long to process Ms X’s application and upheld this part of Ms X’s complaint.
• The Council said Property H appeared to be suitable for Ms X’s needs. It said it was not supported accommodation, as the Council did not have any available. It said Ms X had the right to ask for a review of Property H’s suitability.
• The Council said Ms X would need to raise any concerns with the on-site staff at Property H, as she did not have a dedicated housing officer. The Council said it would offer Ms X accommodation when it identified something suitable.

43. On 30 May 2024, Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints procedure.
44. In June 2024, the Council said it provided Ms X with her housing registration application details.
45. On 9 July 2024, the Council responded to Ms X’s solicitors. It asked the solicitors to complete a specific form to make their review request. Ms X’s solicitors responded on 16 July 2024, providing a completed form. They asked the Council when it would complete the suitability review. The Council did not reply. Ms X’s solicitors sent two further emails chasing a response in July, but did not receive a response.
46. On 9 August 2024, the Council responded to Ms X’s stage two complaint:
• The Council set out its response at stage one.
• It said it understood Ms X’s need to move, but there were limited properties available. It said it had provided Ms X with the right to seek a suitability review, which she had not exercised. The Council did not uphold this complaint and said Ms X could still ask for a suitability review.
• The Council apologised for the delay in providing Ms X with her bidding registration details. It offered Ms X £450 for the inconvenience caused. It provided Ms X with details of how to refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman’s Service (HOS).
47. In August 2024, Ms X’s solicitors wrote to the Council to ask for an update on the suitability review. The Council responded, explaining the reviewing officer had been unwell. Ms X’s solicitors asked the Council when it would provide its response. In September 2024, the Council told Ms X’s solicitors it expected to respond by 23 September 2024.
48. On 18 October 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X’s solicitors and confirmed it found Property H was not suitable for Ms X on medical grounds. It said its Placements Team would seek new accommodation for Ms X.
49. Ms X said on 16 October 2024, the Council told her she owed around £25,000 in rent arrears, which Ms X said she was unaware of. Ms X said the Council told her the debt needed to be reduced before it could move her to alternative accommodation. Ms X said she made a complaint, before taking out loans and borrowing money to reduce the debt. She paid around £700 towards the debt, before being admitted to hospital. Ms X said this admission was due to the stress she was under.
50. Ms X said the Council then responded to her complaint. It found Ms X had not been properly signed up to the tenancy at Property H. It said her housing benefit claim would likely be adjusted back to the beginning of her tenancy at Property H to reflect this, clearing the arrears. Ms X said the Council would not refund any money already paid.
51. Ms X moved into new self-contained accommodation on 28 November 2024.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Allocation of interim accommodation

52. The Council’s records do not confirm the exact date Ms X moved into Placement H. From the evidence available, I understand this was on or around 30 September 2022.
53. The Council sought advice from its independent medical advisor as part of its assessment. The advice said it was possible Ms X needed supported accommodation, given her known vulnerabilities. This was very much framed as a decision the Council needed to make, rather than a definitive view.
54. Property H was hostel-style accommodation. It was not supported accommodation. I asked the Council how it decided Property H was suitable when it allocated it to Ms X. The Council referred me to risk assessments it completed at the time. However, these assessments do not explain how the Council decided Property H specifically was suitable for Ms X, given it was neither self-contained accommodation, nor supported accommodation.
55. The Council has provided no other record to show how it made its decision. I understand it has no such record on file. On the balance of probabilities, I find the Council did not consider whether Property H was suitable for Ms X when it provided it as interim accommodation. I have found the Council at fault for this.
56. The Council accepted it failed to correctly start Ms X’s tenancy at Property H, leading her to accrue significant arrears and service charges she was unaware of. I have found the Council at fault for this.

Administration of homelessness application

57. The Council decided Ms X could not remain in her previous accommodation, due to the risks posed to her. This is why it provided Ms X with Property H. In making these decisions, the Council accepted Ms X was homeless and it assumed both the relief and interim accommodation duties. However, the Council has provided no evidence it formally made and documented these decisions. It also did not provide any evidence it sent Ms X written decisions, confirming the duties accepted and highlighting any relevant rights of review, as required by the Code. I have found the Council at fault for not properly documenting its decisions and for not properly notifying Ms X.
58. The Council should have issued Ms X with a copy of her PHP, setting out the steps Ms X and the Council would both take to relieve Ms X’s homelessness. The Council provided me with a PHP that appeared to be at drafting stage. This document was undated and appeared unfinished. I have seen no indication the Council sent this document to Ms X. On the balance of probabilities, I find the Council did not send this document to Ms X. I have found the Council at fault for this.
59. The Council effectively accepted the relief duty on or around the 30 September 2022. The Council should have accepted the main housing duty 56 days after this, on or around 25 November 2022. The Council did not accept the main housing duty until over a year later, on 13 December 2023, at which point it backdated the duty to November 2023, registering Ms X’s application from the same date. Ms X said the Council did not notify her of this decision in writing until February 2024. The Council told me the delays were due to a significant increase in demand on its service, in addition to a restructure. This impacted the Council’s performance, including in how it handled Ms X’s application.
60. The Council significantly delayed progressing Ms X’s homelessness application and accepting the main housing duty towards her. I have found the Council at fault for this delay. The Council also delayed notifying Ms X of its decision in writing, thereby delaying providing the relevant rights of review. I have found the Council at fault for this.
61. In September 2023, Ms X also told the Council she did not have a housing bidding reference number and so could not bid for accommodation. The Council did not provide this until June 2024. The delay in ensuring Ms X could bid on suitable accommodation is also fault.

Ongoing suitability assessment for accommodation

62. Paragraphs 18-24 set out the difference between interim and temporary accommodation. They also explain how the duties owed at different times affects whether an applicant can ask for a suitability review.
63. Before the Council accepted the main housing duty, Ms X did not have the right to ask the Council to review the suitability of Property H. However, the Code makes clear the Council has an ongoing obligation to ensure any accommodation it provides is suitable, even if there is no review right. The Council must also keep the suitability under review in response to any concerns raised, and any changes in the applicant’s circumstances.
64. This statement sets out the numerous representations professionals made to the Council on Ms X’s behalf. The Council received around four representations before it accepted the main housing duty towards Ms X. Any of these representations should have led the Council to review Property H’s suitability. The Council has no record it considered or responded to any of these submissions. I have found the Council at fault for this.
65. After the Council accepted the main housing duty in December 2023, Ms X had the right to ask the Council to review Property H’s suitability. There were further medical submissions from professionals in March and April 2024, raising direct concerns about the impact of Property H on Ms X’s wellbeing. The Council has no record it considered or responded to these as review requests. I have found the Council at fault for this.
66. The Council did not consider Property H’s suitability when it responded to Ms X’s complaint, despite this being a specific point raised. Instead, the Council highlighted Ms X’s right to seek a suitability review, disregarding the fact Ms X’s solicitors had already sought a review. In any event, given the repeat and consistent concerns already raised by different professionals, Ms X should not have needed to make a separate review request. I have found the Council at fault for this.
67. Ms X’s solicitors formally submitted a review request on 15 May 2024. Paragraph 26 sets out the timescales for responding to these requests. The Council should have responded by 10 July 2024, but it did not reply until 18 October 2024. It also frustrated the progression of the review, by asking Ms X’s solicitors to use a specific request form, two months after their initial request. Ms X’s solicitor’s review request was clear and unambiguous, and the Council should not have insisted it be made using a specific form.
68. I have found the Council at fault for this significant delay.

Complaints handling and communication

69. Paragraph 27 sets out the timescales for the Council to respond to complaints at both stages of its complaints procedure.
70. As Ms X’s complaint concerned housing matters, the Council should have responded within a maximum of 20 working days at stage one. The Council took 180 working days to fully respond. I have found the Council at fault for this significant delay.
71. The Council should respond to stage two complaints within a maximum of 40 working days. The Council took 51 working days to respond. I have found the Council at fault for this delay.
72. At the conclusion of its complaints procedure, the Council incorrectly referred Ms X to the HOS, rather than the Ombudsman. I have found the Council at fault for this.
73. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaints about its lack of communication. The Council frequently delayed responding to Ms X’s contact and often did not substantively respond, unless chased. I have found the Council at fault for its poor communication with Ms X.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

74. The Council cannot show how it assessed Property H was suitable at the point it allocated it to Ms X. It missed multiple opportunities to assess its suitability throughout 2023 and 2024. When it did assess suitability, over a year after first receiving concerns, the Council found Property H was not suitable for Ms X. Given this conclusion, and the sustained and consistent views of multiple professionals over a prolonged period, I believe Property H was never suitable for Ms X as interim or temporary accommodation.
75. I therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms X resided in unsuitable accommodation from around 30 September 2022 to 28 November 2024, a period of around two years and two months. As was highlighted in many of the professional submissions summarised in this statement, residing in this unsuitable accommodation had a significant impact on Ms X’s health and wellbeing. These are significant injustices to Ms X. The Council failing to initially sign Ms X up at Property H also caused significant avoidable distress later, when the prospect of a move to more suitable accommodation was put on hold.
76. The Council’s delay administering Ms X’s homelessness application means it did not register Ms X’s application on the correct date. It also did not accept housing duties at the correct time, or consistently provide written decisions and notice of Ms X’s review rights. This caused Ms X significant injustice in the following ways:
• Ms X experienced significant avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress, being unaware of what duty the Council owed and what its responsibilities to her were.
• When the Council accepted the main housing duty, it registered Ms X’s application from November 2023. However, it should have registered this from September 2022, the point she approached the Council for help. This meant Ms X’s position on the housing register was incorrect, potentially affecting her housing opportunities. I cannot say whether Ms X missed any offers of suitable accommodation during this period because Ms X was unable to bid, owing to the Council not providing her with a bidding number until June 2024. That I cannot say whether Ms X missed any suitable housing opportunities causes significant uncertainty, which is an injustice to Ms X in itself.
• The Council’s delay accepting the main housing duty meant Ms X could not ask for a suitability review at the correct time. Had she been able to do so, this may have resulted in the Council reaching its suitability decision sooner. Ms X’s lost opportunity to correctly exercise her review right is an injustice.
77. The Council’s poor communication compounded Ms X’s avoidable frustration, distress and uncertainty. Its poor complaints handling also caused Ms X avoidable time and trouble.
78. During my investigation, the Council said these faults occurred in the context of a significant demand on its services, arising from increased need and costs. Nonetheless, the Council told the Ombudsman it fully accepted the impact its faults had on Ms X. The Council said it had backdated Ms X’s application registration to September 2022, the point of her approach. The Council also wrote off the significant arrears Ms X had unknowingly accrued at Property H. These are positive actions, which provide a partial remedy to some of the injustice Ms X has experienced. However, the other injustice identified in this statement has not been adequately recognised or remedied. I have recommended the Council act to address this.

Back to top

Action

79. I have carefully considered the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies when making the following recommendations.
80. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Ms 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 Ms X a total of £8000 in recognition of the injustice she has experienced. This is broken down as follows:
1. £7800 in recognition of the time spent in unsuitable accommodation. This is calculated at £300 per month, for 26 months. This is at the higher end of the range recommended in the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies. It is intended to recognise the length of time Ms X spent in unsuitable accommodation and the disproportionate impact on Ms X, given her vulnerabilities.
2. £200 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble Ms X experienced due to the Council’s complaints handling failures.
81. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
82. Following other recent investigations, the Ombudsman has made several recommendations to the Council about ways it can improve its homelessness services. These recommendations have included training for officers, reviews of existing procedures, and creating action plans to address backlogs of work. These recommendations would address the issues present in this case. To avoid duplication, I have not made the same recommendations again. The Council also told the Ombudsman it had conducted a full review of its homelessness service in 2022 and 2023, which had led to the Council beginning a significant transformation to improve its homelessness services.
83. The Ombudsman will monitor the Council’s compliance with our recommendations and its quality of services through our ongoing casework.

Back to top

Decision

84. 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