Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to properly help with her homelessness, had poor communication, and housed her and her young children in unsuitable accommodation, which caused them significant distress, uncertainty and affected their mental health. We find the Council at fault for its communication, complaint handling, and homelessness assistance which caused significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council handled her request for homelessness assistance after she notified it she had received a section 21 eviction notice in October 2023. In particular she complains the Council:
1. Had poor communication and did not address her complaints properly.
2. Did not provide adequate assistance regarding her homelessness.
3. Housed her family in unsuitable accommodation from October 2024.
2. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused significant distress and uncertainty. She says the unsuitable accommodation negatively affected her children and her mental health.

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. 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 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 provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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.
7. 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

8. I have investigated matters from October 2023, when Miss X first told the Council she was at risk of homelessness, until January 2025, when the Council notified Miss X it owed her the main housing duty and informed her of the right to review the suitability of her accommodation.
9. The matters that happened in October 2023 are late because Miss X first complained to us more than 12 months later in November 2024. I have decided Miss X would not have had grounds to be dissatisfied when she first contacted the Council in 2023. I have decided this is a good reason to investigate the whole complaint.
10. I have not investigated matters beyond January 2025 because the Council gave Miss X information about her rights of review. This is because we do not normally investigate complaints about decisions where a council has told a complainant about relevant review and appeal rights.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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 and guidance

13. 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.
14. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation and gives reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

Threatened with homelessness and the prevention duty

15. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
16. Once the council has accepted it owes the prevention duty, it must help the person for at least 56 days. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 14.11)

Relief duty and interim accommodation

17. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B) This is the relief duty.
18. 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) Applicants in priority need may include people who have dependent children.
19. The relief duty ends automatically after 56 days, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. There is no discretion to extend it. Where inquiries are not completed before the end of the relief duty, the Code advises the decision should be made within 15 working days from when the relief duty ends. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Main housing duty and temporary accommodation

20. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
21. The Code of Guidance states that people owed the main housing duty should be notified the day after the relief duty ends.
22. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation and reviews

23. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
24. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33)
25. B&B accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)
26. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of the Council accepting the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
27. The person has a right to appeal the Council’s review decision to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
28. We expect people to use their review and appeal rights and therefore we usually do not investigate when someone has these rights. However, we may exercise discretion to investigate in exceptional cases. For instance, where the Council has failed to inform someone of their right to seek a review.

What happened

29. This is a summary of the key events. It is not complete chronology of everything that happened. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
30. Miss X has two young children. She contacted the Council in October 2023 because her landlord had served a section 21 eviction notice. She was not evicted straight away. The Council told Miss X she did not have to worry as it was just a paper exercise. However, Miss X said she was at risk of eviction. She received three further letters, including notification from the courts that her landlord had applied to evict her in December 2023. She sent these to the Council. Miss X said it did not reply or offer assistance.
31. At the beginning of October 2024 Miss X sent evidence her landlord was legally evicting her later that month to the Council. The Council replied and told Miss X it had no duty to support her because she lived in a neighbouring borough.
32. On 4 October Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council. She complained that the Council should have told her to contact the neighbouring borough a year ago if that was the case. She also complained the person at the Council that had been handling her case was unprofessional and rude.
33. After making the complaint Miss X checked and realised her address was in the borough of Redbridge, not the neighbouring borough. She contacted the Council about its mistake. The Council agreed it had made a mistake. It says it contacted Miss X and conducted a telephone homelessness assessment.
34. Later in October the Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint. It apologised to Miss X for the lack of service and lack of communication over the previous year. It said it had done a homelessness assessment and it would assist with her case.
35. The following day Miss X was evicted. She said she and her children had to spend two nights with a family member because she had nowhere else to go.
36. I have seen no evidence the Council made a formal decision regarding what if any homelessness duties it owed when she was evicted. However, Miss X said the Council housed her and her children two days after she was evicted..
37. The Council initially housed Miss X in a hotel. After four weeks it moved her to another hotel. Miss X said the hotel accommodation was unsuitable for her and her young children.
38. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Complaint procedure. She complained the Council had given her conflicting information, and the hotel was not suitable accommodation. The Council responded on 21 November. It partially upheld her complaint.
39. In mid-January 2025 the Council provided Miss X alternative accommodation in a studio flat. Miss X said this was also unsuitable as it was small and had some disrepair.
40. A few days later the Council wrote a letter to Miss X to notify her it had decided it owed the main homelessness duty. It said she had the right to request a review of the suitability of her accommodation. This was the first time the Council had formally notified Miss X of any decision about a housing duty.

Analysis

The Council’s communication and complaint handling

41. The Council agreed it was at fault for a lack of service and communication over the previous year, including the incorrect advice to contact the neighbouring borough’s council, in its stage one response letter. It apologised to Miss X and told her it had raised her concerns with a relevant manager. I agree with the Council that it was at fault. It caused Miss X injustice in the form of uncertainty and frustration.
42. I would usually have recommended the Council apologise to Miss X for the distress. However, the Council has already made a satisfactory apology which meets the standards we would expect.
43. I have considered the Council’s complaint handling with reference to the stage two response letter. It contains statements about important points that do not appear to be consistent with the evidence:

• It suggests it wrongly told Miss X to contact the neighbouring Council in January 2024, however that actually occurred in October 2024.
• It states the Council accepted the main housing duty on 15 October 2024. However the Council did not formally notify Miss X of the decision until January 2025 and the records the Council subsequently provided indicate the decision was not authorised until two days after that.

44. The Council’s stage two response also failed to identify it had not sent Miss X any decision notification letters or notified her of any rights of review.
45. For these reasons I find the Council’s complaint handling resulted in unclear communication and missed an opportunity to address areas of fault. It therefore fell below an acceptable standard. This was fault which caused Miss X injustice in the form of time and trouble.
46. I recommend the Council apologise to Miss X for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.

The Council’s homelessness assistance

47. Between October 2023, when Miss X first approached the Council, and January 2025, when it notified her it had decided it owed the main housing duty, there is no evidence the Council made inquiries, finalised a homelessness assessment or PHP, took any steps to prevent Miss X from becoming homeless before she was evicted, or formally made any decisions regarding the homelessness duties it might have owed Miss X.
48. This is fault because the Council failed to fulfil its homelessness duties laid out in the law and guidance section above.
49. We can decide on balance of probabilities, what would have happened but for the fault to determine the extent of the injustice.
50. Regarding the duty to make inquiries. I find the Council had reason to believe Miss X may be threatened with homelessness when she first approached it in 2023. This is because “reason to believe” is a low threshold and Miss X provided a section 21 eviction notice and additional letters including notification from the courts that met the threshold. The Council’s failure to decide to make inquiries, and notify Miss X of its decision, was fault. The fault denied Miss X a decision about what, if any, duties it owed. This caused Miss X injustice in the form of distress, frustration and uncertainty.
51. Regarding the prevention duty. I have considered the information Miss X provided to the Council before she was evicted in October 2024. Had the Council done inquiries, I find it would have decided it owed the prevention duty before she was evicted. This is because the evidence Miss X gave to the Council, including the information from the Court in December 2023, would have led it to conclude she was threatened with homelessness within 56 days. I am of the view this finding is supported by the fact that Miss X was ultimately evicted. The Council’s fault denied Miss X a notification of the prevention duty she was owed, and a right of review.
52. There is nothing to suggest Miss X would have reviewed the prevention duty decision, however it also meant the Council did not do a homelessness assessment or PHP. The Council’s fault caused Miss X injustice in the form of significant distress, frustration and uncertainty. It also caused the missed opportunity of steps that may have helped prevent her from becoming homeless that would have been recorded in a PHP.
53. I considered whether Miss X’s homelessness would have been prevented had the Council accepted the prevention duty. I have decided I cannot find, even on the balance of probabilities, whether it would have been prevented because I cannot know the reason her landlord was seeking to evict her, steps that might have prevented him from doing so, nor whether Miss X might have found alternative accommodation had the Council assisted. Therefore I make no findings of injustice on this question.
54. Regarding the relief duty. I note the Council wrote to Miss X to tell her the relief duty had ended in January 2025. However, there is no evidence the Council decided it owed Miss X the relief duty before that date. In the absence of evidence I find the Council failed to make a decision as to whether it owed the relief duty. I have considered the information the Council had, and the steps it took, when Miss X was evicted and became homeless in October 2024. Had it made and recorded a decision I find the Council would have decided it owed Miss X the relief duty when she was evicted. This is because she was homeless, eligible and her young children meant she had a priority need. The Council’s fault denied Miss X a notification of the duty she was owed and right of review. There is nothing to suggest Miss X would have reviewed the relief duty decision, but she was caused injustice in the form of distress and uncertainty.
55. I note Miss X was able to stay with a family member for the two days after she was evicted. The Council then acted as if it had decided it owed the relief duty by securing Miss X accommodation. This was, in effect, interim accommodation. For these reasons I do not find the Council’s actions around the relief duty caused injustice regarding interim accommodation.
56. Regarding the main housing duty. The Council should have automatically owed Miss X the main housing duty 56 days after a relief duty decision. Further to my decision the Council would have decided it owed the relief duty, I find it should have owed the main housing duty 56 days later and notified Miss X. It should also have informed her of rights of review of its decision and the suitability of the accommodation she was in. There is nothing to suggest Miss X would have asked for a review of the main duty decision. However, she might have asked for a review of the suitability of the accommodation given her concerns about it.
57. The Council did not notify Miss X it owed the main housing duty until January 2025. On the basis it should have decided it owed the relief duty in mid-October, this was a delay of approximately one month and was fault. Given Miss X’s complaint about the hotel accommodation, I think it is more likely than not that she would have exercised her right to review its suitability had the Council provided the notification sooner. Therefore the delay caused injustice to Miss X in the form of lost opportunity to seek a review of the suitability of the accommodation, distress, frustration and uncertainty.
58. I recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment of £300 for the missed opportunities and distress caused to Miss X by the faults in its homelessness assistance.

Suitability of the accommodation

59. I find that the hotels Miss X were housed in between approximately October 2024 and January 2025, a period of 12 weeks, were unsuitable. This is because they met the definition of B&B accommodation and councils may only place a family in a B&B as a last resort and only for a maximum of six weeks.
60. For this reason I find the Council was at fault for housing Miss X in B&B accommodation for six weeks longer than the maximum. The Council said it is experiencing a severe shortage of available local self-contained housing. I accept this is true and the use of B&B accommodation was a last resort. Therefore I find this fault was service failure as described in paragraph 4. The fault caused Miss X injustice because B&B accommodation provides limited privacy, requires the sharing of cooking facilities and can be particularly detrimental to the health and development of children. This is laid out in the Code of Guidance and caused Miss X significant distress.
61. I note the Council has made a satisfactory apology which meets the standards we would expect. I find there is still unremedied injustice. I have considered our guidance on remedies which has a section about injustice experienced by households who stay in unsuitable B&B accommodation. I recommend the Council make a symbolic payment of £600 for the distress caused by the six weeks Miss X stayed in B&B accommodation beyond the maximum allowed by the guidance.
62. I have considered Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of the studio flat she moved into in January. I note the Council notified Miss X of her right to review the suitability of accommodation in its notification letter a few days later. I have decided it is reasonable for Miss X to have exercised that right and I therefore make no findings on that part of her complaint in line with paragraph 28.
63. I have decided not to make any recommendations of service improvements about the faults found in this investigation. This is because the Council described new monitoring and reporting systems it has put in place. We have also recently recommended the Council make improvements about similar faults.

Back to top

Action

64. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision the Council will:

• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by its complaint handling and homelessness assistance. 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.
• Make a total symbolic payment to Miss X of £900 for the distress caused by its homelessness assistance and housing her in B&B accommodation.

65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. I uphold Miss X’s complaint and find fault in the Council’s communication, complaint handling and homelessness assistance which caused injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman