Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. We found the Council at fault in that it delayed in making a main housing duty decision and a decision about the suitability of Mr X’s temporary accommodation. These faults caused Mr X distress and the injustice of being unsuitably housed for a year longer than he should have been. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and making Mr X a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his homeless application. He said the Council delayed in assessing his case and failed to provide stable appropriate temporary accommodation between May 2023 and August 2024. Although suitable long-term temporary housing was then provided, Mr X complained that the Council’s delays further delayed him being offered permanent housing.
2. Mr X said that the Council’s actions exacerbated his pre-existing mental and physical health conditions, and caused isolation, vulnerability, uncertainty and distress.
3. By way of remedy, Mr X sought permanent housing, improved communication, and financial compensation for the distress, hardship, and deterioration in health that has been caused by the Council’s delays.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
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. I have not investigated the period during which Mr X was street homeless in April-May 2023. He has not raised this as a specific complaint, but if he did we would consider it to be late. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
10. The starting point of my investigation is when the Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation in mid-May 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I discussed Mr X’s complaint with him.
12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Legislation and statutory guidance

14. 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.

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

15. 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)

Duty to arrange interim accommodation

16. 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)

The relief duty

17. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

18. 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)

Decision letters

19. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)

Interim and temporary accommodation

20. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
21. 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)
22. 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.
23. 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)
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.
25. 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)
26. Councils have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any change in circumstances that may affect suitability. This obligation remains until the council properly brings its accommodation duty to an end. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.8)

Review rights

27. Relevant to this complaint, homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• 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.
28. A homeless applicant who is not satisfied with the outcome of an internal review, or who has not received notification of that decision within the time limit, can appeal to the County Court on a point of law.

What happened

29. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties.

2023

30. Mr X made a homeless application on 27 April 2023. The Council accepted the relief duty.
31. The Council provided Mr X with interim accommodation in a hotel in Eastbourne from mid-May. He had his own bathroom facilities and shared a kitchen with one other person.
32. The 56-day period of the relief duty expired on 22 June.
33. On 12 July, Mr X’s solicitor sent the Council a copy of a mental health assessment that had been carried out by a consultant psychiatrist. This included the psychiatrist’s view that Mr X needed to be housed in self-contained accommodation.
34. On 24 July, Mr X’s solicitor wrote to the Council to remind it of the need to make a main housing duty decision.
35. In September, the solicitor sent the Council a letter before action in accordance with the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol.

2024

36. On 24 January 2024, in response to chasing from Mr X’s solicitor, the Council’s Housing Reviews Manager expressed a view, in writing, that the main housing duty should be accepted. He also accepted that Mr X had a need for self-contained accommodation. He said he would “endeavour to reach a definitive position” and respond by the end of that week. He had noted in an earlier email that the housing team was “experiencing significant staffing resource issues.”
37. On 9 February, the Housing Options Manager assigned Mr X’s case for the attention of a Backlog Officer.
38. Mr X submitted a formal complaint on 7 March. The Council replied at stage one of its complaints procedure on 30 April. That response included an acknowledgement and apology that the Council:
• should have carried out a homelessness assessment with Mr X and created a personalised housing plan for him in May 2023 – it had not done so
• had sufficient information to make a main housing duty decision by 12 July 2023
• had not – but should have – reallocated Mr X’s case to an alternative Homelessness Prevention Officer (HPO), when the one his case was assigned to was away from work from September 2023 onwards
39. The Council said that the drawback of accepting the main duty at this stage was that it would be easier to find a six-month assured shorthold tenancy to discharge the relief duty than to find the twelve-month assured shorthold tenancy required to discharge the main duty. The letter also warned that if the Council accepted the main duty then longer term longer-term temporary accommodation would be offered, but this was unlikely to be in Eastbourne, which was Mr X’s preferred location at the time. Any eventual permanent housing offer would be in Brighton, as that is where the Council holds housing stock.
40. Mr X’s solicitor responded to the council on 1 May, confirming that Mr X would prefer stability of tenancy (i.e 12 months) over consideration of location – he would accept an offer of housing in Brighton if it was suitable.
41. On 6 May, the Council accepted the main housing duty.
42. Mr X requested a suitability review on 18 May.
43. Mr X made a stage two complaint on 20 June.
44. The Council completed a non-statutory suitability review on 4 July. The outcome was that Mr X needed self-contained accommodation, so the hotel he had been resident in since May 2023 was unsuitable for him to continue to occupy.
45. Mr X moved into a self-contained one-bedroomed flat in Brighton on 26 August. This was described by the Council as longer-term temporary housing.
46. The Council replied at stage two of the complaints procedure on 12 September. The Council acknowledged that, following the Council’s acceptance of the main housing duty, Mr X’s case had not progressed until he had made a stage two complaint. A suitability review had then been carried out and longer-term temporary accommodation secured.

2025

47. When I spoke with Mr X in February 2025, he told me that he felt his entire life had been adversely affected for several years by the Council’s faults. His mental and physical health had both been severely impacted by living in unsuitable accommodation.
48. Mr X moved into accommodation with (following an introductory tenancy) the potential to become permanent in March 2025.

Analysis

Housing work undertaken during the relief duty period

49. Once the Council accepted the relief duty in April 2023, it should have worked with Mr X to create a personalised housing plan. The fact it did not do so is fault, which the Council has acknowledged. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the lack of a personalised housing plan contributed to Mr X’s specific needs and circumstances not being taken account of in the Council’s decision that hotel accommodation (with a shared kitchen) was suitable for him to occupy for more than a year. I shall return to the matter of suitability later.

Time taken to accept the main housing duty

50. The Council’s relief duty lapsed on 22 June 2023. The Council has accepted it should have decided whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty around this date. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 6 May 2024, a delay of more than 10 months. This was fault. Mr X suffered significant injustice in that the delay frustrated his right to a statutory review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation.
51. Once the Council accepted the main housing duty in Mr X’s case, its next step should have been to offer him longer term temporary accommodation. This may not have been possible immediately upon acceptance of the main housing duty, but it should have happened within a matter of weeks. As I have found that the main housing duty should have been accepted promptly in late June 2023, it follows that longer-term temporary accommodation should have been secured by early August 2023. I therefore find that there was a delay of one year in Mr X being provided with longer-term temporary accommodation, which is fault causing a significant injustice.
52. The delay also meant that Mr X’s place on the housing register, and therefore his ability to bid for permanent housing, was delayed. The Council was unable to tell me whether, had Mr X been on the housing register since June 2023, he would have been permanently housed sooner than March 2025. Given the extraordinary pressures on housing stock in the Council’s area, I find it unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X would have been permanently housed significantly earlier. I therefore consider the Council’s decision to backdate Mr X’s place on the register to 22 June 2023 to be a suitable remedy for some of the injustice caused by the Council’s fault. The outstanding injustice here is the uncertainty suffered by Mr X during the period that the council delayed, for which I will make a recommendation for further remedy.

Reasons for the delay in accepting the main housing duty

53. There were several factors that contributed to the delay. The first, which explains the delay between September 2023 and January 2024, is that the HPO assigned to Mr X’s case was absent from work from September 2023 onwards, and Mr X’s case was not reallocated to another HPO. I asked the Council what action it had taken to ensure that cases do not drift in future, when staff are on long-term leave. It explained:

“In May 2024, we restructured our staffing in Homelessness & Housing Options. We created a new role of Team Leader, which sits in the structure between Homelessness Prevention Officers and Housing Options Managers.

One of the purposes of creating the Team Leader role was to create a better ‘manager-to-staff’ ratio than was previously the case, which would: enable more frequent and regular 1-2-1s and case management reviews; and to make sure cases are progressed in a timely manner; and for overdue casework to be identified and reassigned at an early opportunity.

The Team Leader posts were recruited to in July 2024.

In implementing the new structure, we produced a Service Agreement in July 2024 which requires all staff to prioritise customers, to take ownership for and resolve customer and colleague issues at the earliest opportunity, and for staff to receive case supervision every 2 to 3 weeks.

We are tracking that regular case supervision is taking place.”

54. I am satisfied that the Council has taken appropriate steps to prevent drift and delay in cases of staff absence in future.
55. The next delay, from January to May 2024, was partly caused by the fact that the Housing Reviews Manager, who considered Mr X’s case in detail on 24 January 2024, was not empowered to make a main housing duty decision. I asked the Council why this was the case. The Council has explained to me that this was because a main duty decision would have been accompanied by a right to a suitability review: if the Housing Reviews Manager had made the main duty decision, he could not also have undertaken a review of suitability, but there was no one in the Council senior to the Housing Reviews Manager who could have carried out the review. As a result, the Housing Reviews Manager was not in a position to make a main housing duty decision. However, he copied his letter of 24 January to the relevant HPO and his manager, either of whom could have made the main housing duty decision at that time. They did not do so.
56. The delay between February and May was also caused by the fact that the Backlog Officer to whom Mr X’s case was then assigned was not able to progress Mr X’s case during this period.
57. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the delay between January and May 2024 was most likely caused by the volume of homelessness cases being dealt with by the Council. This is service failure rather than maladministration (the distinction is explained at paragraph 4) but is nevertheless fault. I am satisfied that actions already taken by the Council, as set out at paragraph 48, are appropriate to prevent a recurrence of this fault.

Unsuitability of temporary accommodation

58. The Council’s suitability review found that shared accommodation was unsuitable for Mr X “because a consultant psychiatrist has identified that Mr [X] has autism spectrum disorder which has adversely affected his ability to share communal facilities such as a communal kitchen”, and that this had affected his ability to care for himself and, as a result, his health.
59. As the Council’s suitability decision of July 2024 was made on the basis of the evidence provided by Mr X’s psychiatric assessment, it follows that the Council could have made this decision when it received that assessment in July 2023. The delay was fault, and caused Mr X the injustice of being housed in unsuitable accommodation for a year.
60. I find that the timescale between making the unsuitability decision (4 July 2024), and securing suitable accommodation (26 Aug 2024), was not fault in the context of the housing crisis.

Back to top

Action

61. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice he suffered because of the Council’s faults. 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.
• Make Mr X a payment of £2400 in recognition of the fact that, due to the Council’s faults, he suffered the injustice of being housed in unsuitable interim accommodation for a year longer than he should have been, which negatively impacted his physical and mental health. I have considered our Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation: the sum recommended reflects the fact that, whilst Mr X was a single person impacted by the Council’s faults, the impact on him was greater than it would have been on the average person because of his diagnosed disability.
• Make Mr X a further payment of £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress he experienced because of the Council’s faults. I have again considered the LGSCO’s Guidance on Remedies when making this recommendation, which defines distress as stress, uncertainty, frustration and loss of opportunity.
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

63. I have found fault causing injustice. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to take the actions I have recommended.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman