Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms X with interim accommodation when she was homeless and heavily pregnant. As a result, Ms X gave birth without anywhere to live and continues to sofa surf with her newborn. The Council was also at fault for poor communication and delay accepting the main housing duty. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide Ms X with temporary accommodation, make payments to her, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to help her when she was asked to leave and then evicted from her accommodation while pregnant.
2. As a result, Ms X is homeless and sofa-surfing with her very young baby.

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 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. 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

6. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Ms X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and guidance

10. 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.
11. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help them to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
12. If councils are satisfied applicants are homeless and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. The relief duty usually lasts 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. 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)
15. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)

What happened

16. Ms X approached the Council in Summer 2024. She was pregnant and her family told her she needed to move out by 4 November.
17. The Council met with Ms X to complete an assessment in late July. It accepted the prevention duty. It referred her to its private sector team to look for privately rented accommodation.
18. Ms contacted the Council a few days later. She said she had expected a call from her allocated housing officer about next steps. She was concerned the Council was suggesting she move out of London. She explained that she was employed, and her salary would decrease if she moved out of inner London. She said the Council had not discussed social housing with her and asked if they could explore this. The Council did not respond to this email.
19. Ms X called the Council in September to say she still had not heard from her housing officer. The records show the officer called Ms X a few days later. Following the call, Ms X provided requested documents. This included proof of her pregnancy and evidence of the terms of her salary.
20. In October, the Council asked Ms X to complete an affordability assessment. Ms X completed two versions, one for her current salary and one for maternity pay. The Council completed a suitability assessment form. It noted that Ms X needed to stay in London because of her employment.
21. On 4 November at 3.30pm, Ms X called the Council. She said no one had called her about interim accommodation for that day. Ms X says the Council called her at 3.51pm and confirmed it would provide interim accommodation. At 5.30pm, the Council wrote to Ms X to say it had secured a property in the private sector which would end its duty to her. Ms X replied to say she was confused. She said: “it was made clear to me by yourself that I would be receiving details of temporary accommodation while I await a bidding pack as yourself and [officer] were able to see through my various affordability assessments, as my salary changes, I will no longer be able to afford the rent in a privately rented accommodation.”
22. The next day, Ms X emailed the Council again. She said she had sofa surfed the night before. She said she did not think the property would be affordable. The Council replied to say it had assessed the property as affordable. Ms X agreed to accept the offer and asked when she could view it.
23. On 6 November, the landlord withdrew the property offer. No one told Ms X.
24. Ms X chased the Council twice in November. The Council did not reply to these emails.
25. In early December, Ms X contacted the Council again. She said she was homeless and her housing officer had not contacted her since 4 November. Ms X gave birth a few days later. She told the Council and asked it to contact her urgently as she was now sofa surfing with a newborn.
26. In late December, Ms X contacted the Council again. She said she still had not heard back from the Council. She said following the birth, she was physically unable to attend property viewings.
27. In early January 2025, the Council offered Ms X interim accommodation in its area. Ms X accepted the offer but told the Council she was concerned about being able to afford it now that she was on maternity pay. The Council advised Ms X to apply for housing benefit.
28. Two days after the Council offered the property, Ms X wrote to say she was physically unable to access the property because of the stairs and that her pram could not fit through the door and hallway, even when collapsed. She returned the keys and told the Council she would arrange her own accommodation until the Council found something more suitable. She said she still had not received a bidding number for the housing register.
29. The Council responded to Ms X advising that the property met the information on its suitability assessment from October 2024. It said that because she had left the property, it would end its interim accommodation duty. It said Ms X did not have a bidding number because the Council had not yet accepted the main housing duty. Ms X pointed out that she was still pregnant in October 2024 and that her circumstances had changed since giving birth.
30. At the time of writing, Ms X continues to sofa surf with her baby.

Findings

31. The Council made no contact with Ms X between the assessment in July and mid-September 2024, despite several requests for contact from Ms X. It again failed to communicate with Ms X between early November and early January 2025, when Ms X was homeless. This poor communication was fault. It left Ms X without advice and support at a difficult time and caused avoidable distress.
32. The Council’s allocations scheme says it awards applicants who are homeless or threatened with homeless Band 2A priority on its housing register. The Council’s failure to tell Ms X how to apply for social housing when it assessed her in July 2024 or in response to her request a few days later was fault. The Council later wrongly told her she could not apply until it owed her the main housing duty. This was further fault. It is unlikely Ms X missed out on an offer of social housing because the average waiting time exceeds five years. However, it prevented Ms X from accessing one of the housing options available to her and caused avoidable frustration, which is an injustice.
33. The Council’s failure to tell Ms X when the private rented offer fell through was fault. It was further fault not to tell Ms X in response to her repeated questions about it. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.
34. The Council’s failure to provide Ms X with interim accommodation on 4 November when she became homeless was fault. This fault continued until January 2025. As a result, Ms X had to sofa surf while heavily pregnant, gave birth without anywhere to live, and then continued to sofa surf with a newborn. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.
35. Ms X says the accommodation provided in January was unsuitable. I cannot say, even on balance, whether it was suitable. This is in part because the Council failed to update its suitability assessment after Ms X gave birth. Failure to do so was fault. Its records do not show whether or how it considered the suitability of the property at the point of offer. This was further fault and not in line with the action plan agreed by the Council following a previous investigation. It leaves Ms X with avoidable uncertainty about whether the accommodation was suitable. This is an injustice to Ms X.
36. The Council should decide whether it owes the main housing duty 57 days after accepting the relief duty. In Ms X’s case, this means it should have decided whether it owed the main housing duty by the end of December. At the time of its response to my enquiries in February 2025, the Council had not yet done so. This delay was fault. On balance, had it made the decision when it should have, it would have decided Ms X was eligible, homeless, in priority need and had not become homeless intentionally. It therefore should have accepted the main housing duty. Had it done so, Ms X would have had a statutory right to review the suitability of the accommodation offered in January. The delay denied her access to this statutory right, which is an injustice.
37. Even if the Council had not accepted the main housing duty by early January, it should have done so soon after. Once it accepted the main housing duty, it would have offered Ms X temporary accommodation. Instead, she remains homeless and sofa surfing with a baby. This is a significant injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the injustice to Ms X from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. write to Ms X accepting the main housing duty and offer her temporary accommodation;
3. invite Ms X to apply to the housing register and backdate her priority to July 2024;
4. pay Ms X £250 to recognise the impact of poor communication, inaccurate advice and missed statutory review rights;
5. pay Ms X £600 to recognise the impact of the two months she spent sofa surfing because of the failure to offer interim accommodation; and
6. pay Ms X £900, being £300 for every month she has continued to sofa surf when the Council should have provided temporary accommodation under the main housing duty.
39. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
40. In 2024, we issued a report (22 016 576) in which the Council agreed to produce an action plan to address failings in its homelessness service. In response to a more recent complaint, it has agreed to provide us with an update on its progress against this plan. I have not, therefore, repeated that recommendation here.
41. However, the Council should review the action plan and identify further action needed to ensure it:
1. offers interim accommodation to all households the same day it has reason to believe they might be eligible, homeless and in priority need; and
2. makes a decision about the main housing duty 57 days after accepting the relief duty.
42. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

43. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman