Summary: Mr X complained about the support and accommodation the Council provided him with while he was homeless. There was no fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council supported him while he was homeless from late 2023. He says the Council:
• offered him unsuitable interim accommodation while it assessed his application;
• wrongly said he refused offers of accommodation;
• recorded incorrect information about him; and
• wrongly decided to end its duty to house him.
2. As a result, Mr X says he has been without suitable accommodation for over a year and has been caused significant, avoidable distress. He wants the Council to pay him a financial remedy for the distress he has been caused any to make sure its officers only record accurate, truthful information.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I have not investigated how the Council decided on what accommodation to offer Mr X in late 2024, or how it decided to end its duty to house Mr X. Mr X had the right to appeal the suitability of that accommodation and the Council’s decision to end its duty to house him.
11. Although Mr X was homeless and had other difficulties, I am satisfied it would have been reasonable for him to use his appeal rights. It is likely Mr X would have been eligible for publicly funded legal advice to help him use the rights parliament set out.
12. I have investigated how the Council decided what interim accommodation to offer Mr X and how it decided to end the duty to provide this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mr 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

Homelessness

15. 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.
16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is referred to as the ‘relief duty’. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is called the ‘main housing duty’. 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)
18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of various homelessness decisions, including:
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness; and
• 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.
19. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
20. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
21. 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)
22. One of the reasons the interim accommodation duty ends is if someone refuses an offer of interim accommodation.
23. 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.
24. 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)
25. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
26. 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)
27. 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)

28. The Council has a policy for the allocation of accommodation to homeless applicants. This groups applicants into different categories, depending on their circumstances and the impact being housed outside its area might have on them.
29. Only people who would be disrupted the most are housed inside the Council’s area. This includes people who:
• have children where there is involvement with the Council’s children’s services team;
• have severe mental health difficulties and are receiving treatment or aftercare locally that could not be provided elsewhere; and
• people who are terminally ill.
30. The Council tries to house people in neighbouring council areas who are:
• in regular and stable employment;
• care leavers who are currently on a pathway plan; and
• receiving frequent care from a hospital in the Council’s area.
31. The Council provides accommodation for other homeless applicants either in other London boroughs or outside London.

What happened

32. Mr X’s most recently applied to the Council as homeless in August 2023.
33. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation in a different London borough a few days later.
34. During phones calls with Mr X, he told the Council he thought the accommodation would be too far for him to travel to and he could not afford to get there. He also said the accommodation would be too far from university. The Council asked other people currently supporting Mr X if they could help with his travel to the accommodation, and was told they would be able to. When the Council asked about access to university, Mr X told the Council he was not yet attending university and was a “prospective student”.
35. The Council told Mr X it considered the accommodation it had provided was suitable. However, Mr X told the Council he would not accept it.
36. Over the next few weeks the Council tried to engage with Mr X, but said he would not provide the information it asked him for.
37. In mid-September 2023 the Council asked Mr X if he was going to use the interim accommodation it had offered him. Mr X told the Council he was not accepting or refusing the accommodation, but he did not intend to use it.
38. Based on this, the Council decided to treat Mr X as having refused the offer of interim accommodation and it ended its duty to provide this for Mr X.
39. In May 2024, the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty. According to the Council, Mr X accepted an offer of temporary accommodation a few months later, while he was on a waiting list for supported accommodation.
40. In late 2024 the Council offered Mr X longer-term supported living accommodation. The Council said Mr X refused this offer so it ended his homelessness duties to him. Mr X said he did not reject the offer, instead he asked for a review of its suitability.
41. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in February 2025.

My findings

42. Mr X’s complaint about events before February 2024 is late. However, I consider that Mr X’s homelessness and other difficulties are a good reason did not complain sooner. Therefore, I have investigated the Council’s actions from August 2023, when Mr X made his most recent homelessness application.
43. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether any accommodation the Council offered to Mr X was suitable. That was a decision for the Council to make. Our role is to consider whether the Council made its decision properly, including considering the right evidence, rules and guidance.
44. The evidence shows that the Council’s offer of interim accommodation in another London borough was in line with the Council’s homelessness accommodation policy. The Council had no evidence Mr X would meet any of the criteria for accommodation in the Council’s own area, or neighbouring boroughs.
45. Although Mr X had some personal difficulties and was receiving professional support, there was no evidence that this could not be provided in the area where it decided to place Mr X. It also ensured Mr X could get support to travel to the accommodation, so that it was accessible for him.
46. I am satisfied the Council was entitled to treat Mr X’s statements that he would not use the interim accommodation as him refusing the Council’s offer. Councils do not require signed confirmation that someone is rejecting an offer of interim accommodation. Instead, they can also treat someone’s actions as evidence of their intentions or decisions. Councils also do not have to offer different accommodation while they carry out a review.
47. The Council’s decision about the main housing duty took longer to make than I would have expected. However, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied this was likely due to, or significantly affected, by Mr X’s reluctance or refusal to engage with the Council or provide it with the information it had asked him for.
48. As explained above, Mr X had the right to appeal the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty, and it would have been reasonable for him to have used that right. Therefore, I cannot investigate how the Council made that decision, or the suitability of any offered accommodation which led to that decision.
49. I have seen no evidence the Council recorded incorrect or false information about Mr X as part of his homelessness application.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman