Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness and about the suitability of the accommodation it provided. Miss X also complained about how the Council handled her housing allocation. The Council was at fault. It failed to handle her homelessness properly. It used incorrect terminology in its communication causing confusion and uncertainty. It delayed accepting the main housing duty resulting in a delay in Miss X having a right of review. The Council should apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment to her and provide an update about ongoing service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness when she fled domestic abuse. She complained the accommodation provided by the Council for her and her children was unsuitable. Miss X said the distance to and from her children’s school was too far, and the property was not properly furnished. She said the situation caused her great distress.
2. Miss X also complained that there was a delay in the Council providing her with a bidding number, and consequently she had to wait longer than necessary to bid on properties for her and her children.

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

8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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)
11. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. The Council should try to get an account of the applicant’s experience to assess whether the behaviour they have experienced is abusive or whether they would be at risk of domestic abuse if they continued to occupy their accommodation. The authority should support victims to outline their experience and make an assessment based on the details of the case. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
13. The Council plays a wider role in ensuring victims of domestic abuse are as safe as possible. It is essential that the Councils enquiries do not jeopardise a victims safety. The Council should not approach the alleged perpetrator of abuse, as this could lead to further violence and escalate the risk to the victim. (Homeless Code of Guidance, Chapter 21)
14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. 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)
16. Examples of applicants in priority need are:

• people with dependent children;
• pregnant women;
• people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age;
• care leavers; and
• victims of domestic abuse.

17. 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)
18. 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.
19. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
21. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
22. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

23. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
24. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:

• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))

25. A domestic abuse, stalking, and honour-based abuse (DASH) risk assessment is an assessment designed to help front line practitioners understand the risk posed to a survivor of domestic abuse. The assessment is designed to be completed by any practitioner working with someone who is subject to domestic abuse.

What happened here

26. The following is a list of key events relevant to the investigation. It is not a list of everything that happened.
27. Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council in February 2024.
28. Miss X told it she had two children and was pregnant. She said she had to leave the property she was staying in before she had her baby.
29. At the end of February, a specialist domestic abuse worker advocated for Miss X and told the Council Miss X was fleeing domestic abuse. The domestic abuse worker told the Council not to contact the landlord, or Miss X’s family, because they were perpetrators of abuse.
30. At the start of March 2024, the Council carried out an assessment of Miss X’s homelessness. In this assessment Miss X told the Council that she was at risk of domestic abuse from her ex-partner and the landlord, who was related to her ex-partner.
31. 10 days later the Council offered and placed Miss X in interim accommodation. It carried out a suitability assessment of the accommodation and decided it was suitable for Miss X and her children.
32. 7 days after that the Council accepted the prevention duty for Miss X. The Council sent Miss X a letter explaining it had accepted the prevention duty and a copy of her personal housing plan explaining actions for her and the Council to carry out.
33. In May the Council sent Miss X a letter explaining it was accepting a relief duty for her. It updated her personal housing plan. It sent her a copy of the updated plan.
34. A week later, with the help of her advocate, Miss X complained to the Council. She complained about the suitability of the interim accommodation. She said it was too far from her children’s school, she could not open the windows, and she did not have access to a washing machine. At this time, she was pregnant. She told the Council she was sleeping on a mattress on the floor.
35. At the end of May 2024, the Council offered Miss X different interim accommodation closer to her children’s school. Miss X told the Council the stairs would not be manageable, and the accommodation was too small. She reported there was nowhere to put a baby’s cot, the property was completely unfurnished, and the sleeping arrangements were a triple bunkbed which would not be compatible with having a new baby. She declined the offer.
36. The domestic abuse worker advocated for Miss X. They asked for an update on different interim accommodation being offered.
37. Mid July the Council accepted the main housing duty. The accommodation Miss X was living in became temporary accommodation. The Council said it posted a letter to Miss X a few days later to explain this.
38. Miss X’s baby was born.
39. Mid-August the Council inspected Miss X’s property. It noted windows were easily accessible in the bedrooms. It said windows were 6 foot above the ground and 8 foot above the ground in the kitchen and living room. The Council said that because Miss X’s child could stand on a chair and open the windows she had decided to remain in the property. It concluded upon inspection Miss X had no other complaints.
40. In August the Council made its stage one complaint response to Miss X. The Council did not uphold her complaint.
41. In summary, it said:
• the journey to and from school was reasonable,
• she may need step free accommodation because of her planned operation to deliver her baby,
• the accommodation would be inspected.
42. In September Miss X escalated her complaint to the Council to stage two of its complaint procedure.
43. Miss X made a request for a suitability review in November 2024. The delay was due to her being in hospital, having had a planned operation to deliver her baby. The Council were aware of this.
44. The Council refused to carry out the review. The Council told Miss X she made her request for a review too late.
45. In November the Council made its complaint response to Miss X at stage two of its complaint procedure. It summarised the complaint response at stage one. It said it did not uphold the complaint. It referred to the ‘difficult realities’ of temporary accommodation in the area. It said a suitability assessment was carried out at the time the property was offered to Miss X. The issues raised by Miss X did not mean the property was unsuitable. The Council also referred to a ‘chronic shortage of available accommodation’ in the area. It addressed the complaint points about suitability and the Councils actions. It referred to the request for a review being turned down. It said part of its decision making considered whether Miss X would have likely been successful in her review. It decided she likely would not. The Council referred to the property Miss X was offered at the end of May that was closer to her children’s school, which she declined. It signposted Miss X to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Homelessness

46. The Council failed to offer Miss X interim accommodation at the point she disclosed she was homeless, in priority need, and fleeing domestic abuse. It delayed doing so by 15 days. This was fault by the Council.
47. The Council should have offered Miss X interim accommodation while it made its inquiries into her homelessness. During the 15-day period the Council had copy of a DASH risk assessment completed for Miss X, by the domestic abuse agency. Several high-risk factors were listed on the assessment, that should have prompted the Council to act quickly. Its failure to act upon Miss X’s disclosure resulted in her and her children remaining in an unsafe situation for longer than they should have done.
48. The Councils response to our enquiries about its duty to offer Miss X interim accommodation was unclear. The Council explained what happened, when Miss X approached it. But it did not provide a reason for not offering her interim accommodation when it should have done.
49. In Miss X’s personalised housing plan, the Council recorded that she approached the Council because of domestic abuse. The domestic abuse was perpetrated by numerous individuals.
50. The Homelessness Code explains the Council should not contact alleged perpetrators of violence, due to the risk of provoking further violence and abuse towards the victim. In the personalised housing plan the Council said it would contact Miss X’s family. This action is in direct conflict with the guidance.
51. It appears that once the Council understood the risk posed by family members, through discussion with the domestic abuse advocate, it stopped attempts at contact with family members. This was safe practice. However, the action remained in writing on the personal housing plan. It showed the Councils lack of attention to detail about the actions for Miss X. Failure to properly amend the personal housing plan, to reflect actions to be taken by the Council was fault. Seeing this action in writing could have heightened Miss X’s anxiety and fear about the perpetrators of abuse learning she had sought help.
52. Language used, and terminology referred to by the Council in its communications with Miss X was incorrect, and confusing.
• The Council referred to ‘relief/prevention' as a duty it owed to Miss X in one letter. These are different duties. They are awarded at different times, and for different reasons. They should not be mixed up or referred to as one single duty.
• The Council incorrectly referred to interim accommodation as temporary accommodation. This difference is important. Temporary accommodation holds a right to review. Interim accommodation does not.
53. We expect Councils to use the correct language, when it comes to homelessness, and its legal responsibilities. Failure to properly communicate with Miss X about her homelessness was fault by the Council. This fault caused confusion and uncertainty. It could have resulted in review rights being misunderstood by Miss X during an already confusing and turbulent time in her life.
54. The Council accepted the wrong duty for Miss X mid-March, after it placed her in interim accommodation. It told her it had accepted the prevention duty. It should have accepted the relief duty. There was no doubt at this time that Miss X was homeless. Prevention duty is awarded to applicants who are threatened with homelessness. Accepting the wrong duty was fault by the Council. This fault caused unnecessary frustration and confusion for Miss X.
55. Had the Council awarded the relief duty in mid-March, Miss X would then have been awarded main duty mid-May. Main duty was not accepted for Miss X until mid-July.
56. An unnecessary delay of 8 weeks was created due to the Council accepting the wrong duty for Miss X. This was fault by the Council. At the point of accepting main housing duty the interim accommodation Miss X was in, would have become temporary accommodation. Applicants have the right to request a review of temporary accommodation. Therefore, the delay in accepting the relief duty, and subsequent delay in accepting the main housing duty led to a delay in Miss X being able to ask for a review of suitability.
57. Delay making homelessness decisions and communication were areas of fault identified in another investigation completed by the Ombudsman in December 2024. As part of this investigation, we asked the Council to carry out a review of its process for assessing homelessness to make sure it was in line with statutory timeframes.
58. In March 2025 the Council sent us a progress report. The review carried out was thorough and involved data analysis, discussions with staff and review of policies and training schedules. It highlighted several areas for improvement and the Council produced a detailed action plan that explained what it would do, when. Follow up action is scheduled to take place over the next 12- 24 months.
59. The Council needs time to implement the changes it has committed to. We will continue to monitor its effectiveness over the next 12 months.

Suitability of accommodation

60. Chapter 17 of the Homelessness code of guidance explains the Council has a duty to ensure that any accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for them.
61. When Miss X went into interim accommodation in March 2024, she told us it was unfurnished. She said she, and her two children had to sleep on the floor. She was approximately 6 months pregnant at this time.
62. When asked, the Council said it explained this to Miss X upon discussing the offer of interim accommodation with her. This was included in the letter it issued when she accepted the offer.
63. I have reviewed the letter the Council sent which describes the condition of the interim accommodation. In the letter it says that white goods will be provided, and furniture, may or may not be. Specifically, it lists that the accommodation is unfurnished, later in the document. It also says that applicants can contact the resettlement team if they require assistance with furniture.
64. Miss X said she would not have had any furniture if it wasn’t for the help of the domestic abuse worker, and the Council she had fled from who organised the large items she needed, e.g. beds for her and her children.
65. The Homelessness Code of Guidance does not give specific guidance to councils about furnishing accommodation.
66. It appears the Council considered the lack of furniture in its initial communication with Miss X. However, to date, we have seen no evidence of it helping Miss X to try and source any. Miss X was fleeing domestic abuse, heavily pregnant and a single parent. It was not reasonable to expect her to source large items of furniture independently at the point she went into interim accommodation.
67. Failure to assist Miss X to furnish the accommodation was fault by the Council. This fault led to Miss X and her children living in discomfort while sleeping on the floors of the accommodation and further compounded the distress and degradation experienced having fled domestic abuse.
68. The suitability assessment carried out mid-March 2024 showed the interim accommodation was 60 minutes from the borough Miss X was fleeing. It referred to Miss X’s planned operation in July 2024. The Council said that at the time of organising this accommodation Miss X said the distance to the child’s school would not be a problem.
69. Miss X said she verbally reported the difficulties she was having, particularly with the journey to and from school. With two children, heavily pregnant, she had to use several methods of public transport and change at stations where only stairs were available. She told us she had to stop working earlier than planned due to the impact of this on her physical health.
70. The evidence I have reviewed shows the Council acted to review suitability, when it learnt of the issues reported by Miss X.
71. In May 2024 the Council carried out another suitability assessment. The updated assessment reported the concerns Miss X had with opening the windows and with the distance she had to travel to her child’s school.
72. This shows the Council considered the concerns Miss X had at the time and acted on them. It reviewed the suitability assessment based upon her report. It sourced alternative accommodation for her. The Council said this was the only available alternative it had at the time. Miss X declined this accommodation. It was her right to do so.
73. When questioned as part of this investigation, the Council said it offered the different accommodation in May 2024 for two reasons. One, to try to ease the burden of travelling on Miss X, and two, due to the issue with the windows. The Council referred to the suitability assessment that it said covered both points.
74. Miss X said the proximity of the offered accommodation to the perpetrators house was also too close. There was reference to ‘danger zones’ in the suitability assessment. However, the Council did not elaborate further on this point. It is expected that proximity of accommodation to a perpetrator of abuse is considered by a Council when making offers of accommodation to victims of abuse. Even if a Council considers the area to be safe, and the victim does not, or vice versa, there should be a written record of consideration of this.
75. It is important the Council ensures risk areas are routinely discussed with homeless applicants fleeing domestic abuse. However I do not find fault with the Council about this because it was trying to find a property closer to school, upon Miss X’s request.
76. The inspection report produced at the start of July was not completed in full. Damp and mould in the property were not assessed at this time. While we have no evidence to suggest Miss X complained about damp and mould in her first complaint to the Council, we would expect to see the report completed properly.
77. There were some issues identified for the landlord to resolve. A lot of photographs were taken; it was clear the assessor spent time at the accommodation. The issue with opening windows was noted.
78. Although some issues with the quality of the report have been identified, action taken by the Council demonstrates it responding to Miss X’s complaint, and reports of issues in the property.
79. In August 2024, when it made its stage one complaint response, the Council demonstrated how it considered suitability of distance to the children’s school. It referred to several travel options. It also said Miss X told the Council the distance was not the problem, but rather one of the stations used did not have step free access and meant she had to travel to a different station.
80. At this time the Council said it would organise an inspection of the accommodation to determine whether the windows could be opened, as per Miss X’s report.
81. When Miss X reported the damp and mould it appears the Council took timely action to address it. It appears, from current evidence available, the Council attended to the damp and mould issue in October 2024.
82. Noise was a factor for Miss X. She reported ongoing disturbances with alarms going off from August 2024, for the remainder of the time she spent in the first accommodation. The Council noted this in their records. It is not clear why this was not addressed quickly, as it appeared to be a simple matter of changing batteries in an alarm that was placed out of reach for Miss X.
83. I have not seen evidence of an inspection being carried out after the complaint response was made in August 2024. Failure to carry out an inspection of the property after the complaint response was made was fault by the Council. This fault would have only exasperated matters for Miss X.
84. However, there are numerous logs of building repair work taking place, demonstrating a presence in the accommodation and attention to the issues reported by Miss X, by the Council.
85. Once the Council accepted its main duty for Miss X, she had the right to request a formal review of suitability. The Council decided not to accept her request because she made it late. It was not reasonable to expect Miss X to be able to make a suitability review request in the period immediately after the Council issued its main duty to her. This was because she was going into hospital for a planned operation to deliver her baby. The Council were aware of this.
86. Chapter 19 of the Homelessness code of guidance explains an applicant has 21 days to request a review of their accommodation. It also, however, explains there should be consideration shown to applicants who make a late request. The Council should consider the reasons for the delay, and the strength of the request made by the applicant, when it decides whether to accept the late review.
87. When Miss X made her late request, she reiterated this to the Council. It was within the Councils power to exercise discretion and carry out a suitability review.
88. When asked, as part of this investigation, the Council said it did not carry out the review because Miss X had already been moved to different accommodation. That is not in line with what the evidence currently shows. The evidence shows Miss X remained in the same accommodation for over a month after the Council decided not to carry out the review.
89. Miss X was known to have ‘high risk’ medical needs in relation to her pregnancy. This was documented several times by the Council several months prior to this decision being made. Failure to accept this review request was fault by the Council. The failure resulted in Miss X missing out on an opportunity to have suitability formally reviewed.

Housing Register

90. Upon deciding it owed Miss X relief duty, the Council should have placed her on the housing register. This meant Miss X should have been placed on the register in March 2024. Miss X missed out on opportunities to bid on properties at this time.
91. The Council said it put Miss X into Band 3 in July 2024 when it accepted its main housing duty for her and her children. This is in line with the housing allocations scheme in use by the Council, at the time. Miss X had the right to request a review of her housing banding, at the time of it being issued.
92. Miss X said she did not receive information from the Council to enable her to bid on properties until October 2024. In reviewing evidence as part of this investigation, I can see the Council shared bidding information with Miss X in a letter it sent to her in July.
93. Miss X reported issues with access to bidding in October. Council case records show this. She again reported the same issue in November. Over a month later she still could not bid on available properties. Council case records show that, despite attempts being made to alert the necessary individuals, no action was taken to rectify the issue until November. Miss X then started to bid regularly for properties.
94. Having reviewed the data provided by the Council, it is highly likely Miss X would not have been successful in obtaining a property, had she had access to the housing register, sooner than she did. However, failure to provide the correct assistance to Miss X, at the time she reported the issue about access, was fault by the Council. Again, this fault would only have exasperated Miss X’s feelings of frustration and uncertainty.

Complaint Handling

95. The Council delayed in making its complaint responses to Miss X at both stage one and stage two of its procedure.
96. The Councils complaint handling policy explains a response should be made at stage one within 10 working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. The Council took 60 working days to make its response at stage one and 52 working days to make its response at stage two. The delay caused undue distress and frustration and exasperated an already difficult situation for Miss X.
97. Not only did the Council use incorrect language in its communication with Miss X about her homelessness, it continued to use incorrect language in its complaint responses. The language used in the complaint responses about homelessness duties was incorrect. The Council again referred to ‘relief/prevention’ duty. This was fault by the Council and added to the confusion, already caused, for Miss X.
98. In another investigation into this Council, we asked it questions about its complaint handling because we identified delay in how it responded to complainants. The Council told us it had employed more staff and reduced the delays to, on average, 55 days. We now require an update from the Council about its progress towards making timely responses to complainants.

Back to top

Action

99. To remedy the injustice suffered by Miss X, and her children, within four weeks of receiving a final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Miss X line with our guidance on Making an Effective Apology. 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,
• Backdate the main duty offer, to recognise the 8-week delay. Calculate a new award date for Miss X based on the Council accepting relief duty in March 2024, when it should have done,
• Make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise the delay in offering interim accommodation to her, of £100,
• Make a symbolic payment to Miss X to recognise loss of opportunity to have a formal review of suitability, of £100, and
• Make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £100 to recognise the delay in complaint handling.
100. In addition, the Council should award Miss X a £300 symbolic payment to recognise the distress and frustration caused to her by its:
• Poor communication,
• Failure to properly amend her personal housing plan,
• Failure to carry out an inspection of the accommodation after the stage two complaint was made,
• Failure to assist Miss X in furnishing the interim accommodation, and
• Failure to rectify the issue with access to bidding in a timely manner.
101. Within 12 weeks of receiving a final decision, the Council should:
• Share learning from this decision with its housing and homelessness staff teams,
• In writing, issue guidance to ensure its housing and homelessness staff teams are accurately completing personal housing plans, and considering specific elements of risk, appropriately, and
• Provide the Ombudsman with an update about current delay in complaint handling, and the staff recruitment program to address this.
102. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

103. I find fault causing 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