Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal with her housing properly, causing distress. The Council is at fault because it delayed moving her from unsuitable accommodation and delayed completing a suitability review. Miss X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £1,750.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council has not dealt properly with her homelessness because it:

• Failed to offer her a direct let;
• Placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation until August 2024;
• Delayed a suitability review.

2. Miss X says she should have been offered a permanent home and has suffered avoidable distress.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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.
5. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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, guidance and policies

9. 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.
10. 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)
11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available
12. There is a legal duty for authorities to ensure any accommodation provided under a homelessness duty is “suitable” for the applicant and household members (Housing Act 1996, section 206).
13. Authorities must have regard to the following factors when considering suitability:
• The space and arrangement of the accommodation
• The state of repair and condition of the accommodation – as an absolute minimum it must be free of Category 1 hazards such as damp and mould
• Location – including access to established employment, schools and specialist health care. Accommodation should be in the council’s own area “so far as is reasonably practicable”.
• The specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability
• The cost of the accommodation and whether the applicant can afford it
14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
15. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request regarding suitability of accommodation.

The Council’s allocations policy and direct lets

16. Where an applicant meets the criteria for ‘auto-bidding’ and the Council decides that they are unsuitable for ‘auto-bidding’ (because of the specific nature of their housing requirements, for example), the applicant will be encouraged to continue bidding but may be considered for a ‘direct offer’ of accommodation. (6.10.1)
17. When considering the need for a ‘direct offer’, the Council will take into account all of the circumstances, including any reasons why they must or must not reside in a particular part of the borough or type of property. (6.10.2)
18. A ‘direct offer’ may be made, for example, where an applicant needs to move urgently because of a critical medical or welfare need, including situations where there are child protection and/or public protection implications and/or the applicant or a member of their household is a victim of harassment, domestic violence or hate crime. (6.10.3)
19. Such offers may also be made, in exceptional circumstances, where it is in the overriding interests of the Council to prioritise an allocation of housing to a particular household and/or it is necessary to comply with a Court Order and/or fulfil an urgent statutory or legal duty. (6.10.4)

What happened?

20. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
21. Miss X was placed in temporary accommodation by the Council. She was placed in Band B. Miss X previously complained to the Ombudsman and the Council agreed to complete a review of her eligibility as an outcome of that investigation.
22. The review was completed in January 2024. The Council accepted that Miss X’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable.
23. Miss X complained to the Council in June 2024, including issues of disrepair, a lack of response from the Council and that she was entitled to be offered a direct let.
24. The Council offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation in August 2024, which she accepted. Miss X complained to the Council about the suitability of the new temporary accommodation and asked for a review.
25. Miss X wrote to her MP who also contacted the Council on her behalf. The Council responded to Miss X’s MP in October 2024.
26. In December 2024, Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process because the suitability review was overdue.
27. Miss X complained to the Ombudsman in February 2025.
28. The Council completed the suitability review in May 2025. The outcome was the temporary accommodation Miss X was moved to was suitable.

Analysis

Direct let

29. Miss X says the Council told her she was eligible for a Direct Let under its allocations policy in April 2023. I have seen the letter which Miss X says states she is eligible for a direct let.
30. The Council says: “It is clear from all the information we hold that [Miss X] does not meet any of the direct let criteria. She has never been assessed as being “homeless and in severe need” which would qualify her for Band A, does not have housing requirements so specific to preclude her from auto bidding (which she is currently signed up to), has the capacity, ability and general IT literacy to bid, does not have any area restrictions so local as to need us to withdraw properties from the bidding process, does not need to move urgently given her current temporary accommodation is suitable and her circumstances while difficult are not exceptional. Her circumstances are in fact fairly common among those in temporary accommodation. Further, there is no overriding interest to the Council. [Miss X]’s previous temporary accommodation was unsuitable, and we resolved this issue with a suitable offer of temporary accommodation.”
31. The letter sent to Miss X in April 2023 was sent alongside a letter confirming that she had been placed on auto-bidding and her personal housing plan.
32. The Council says the April 2023 letter was a generic letter that is no longer used due to its lack of clarity or specificity, the letter showed that the Council felt Miss X was suitable for auto bidding.
33. On the balance of probability, I agree with the Council. The accompanying letter placing Miss X on auto-bidding indicates that she was not eligible for a direct let.
34. The Council has advised Miss X in February 2025 that there are no grounds on which to consider her for a direct let.
35. I do not consider this to be fault by the Council.

Unsuitable accommodation

36. The Council accepted that Miss X’s accommodation was unsuitable in its letter to her dated January 2024.
37. The Council provided alternative accommodation to Miss X in August 2024.
38. There was therefore a delay of 7 months. This is fault by the Council. Miss X had to live in unsuitable accommodation causing avoidable distress.

Suitability review

39. The Council should have completed the suitability review within 8 weeks. It did not. The suitability review was completed in May 2025, a delay of 7 months. This is fault by the Council. However, this did not cause Miss X any injustice, because the outcome was that the accommodation she had been placed in was suitable.

The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

40. Where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in their life, our recommendation for financial redress is likely to be in the range of £150 to £350 a month. But we may recommend a higher monthly amount in cases where the injustice is exceptional or particularly severe. We assess each case on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the complainant and other members of their household.
41. We have set out below the factors we take into account, but this is not an exhaustive list.
• The size of the accommodation – are there enough rooms for the household?
• The condition and state of repair of the accommodation.
• Are toilet and bathing facilities private or shared with other households?
• Are there adequate facilities to store, prepare and cook food?
• The age of the household members.
• Any disabilities or vulnerabilities of the household members.
42. I have considered the full details of Miss X’s family circumstances when considering what would be an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Action

43. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the fault found 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 in my findings.
• Pay Miss X £1,750 in respect of living in unsuitable accommodation, at a rate of £250 per month for 7 months.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman