Summary: Mr Y complained how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness after a fire at his home. He says the Council failed to take appropriate action in line with homelessness legislation. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in taking a homeless application from Mr X and its failure to offer interim accommodation. This meant Mr X had to live in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to make a payment to Mr X and implement service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness after a fire at his home. He says the Council failed to take appropriate action in line with homelessness legislation.
2. Mr Y says the Council’s failures meant Mr X spent a long period of time in unsuitable accommodation.

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 may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(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 Mr Y, Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr Y, Mr X and the Council 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

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. 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)
9. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain 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. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called 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)
11. 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)
12. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

What happened

13. Mr X and his wife rent a flat that is owned by a housing association. Mr X has several health conditions. There was a fire in the flat in mid-May 2024. The flat required extensive repairs and so Mr X and his wife had to move out. An officer from the housing association contacted the Council in May and said they needed to discuss housing support for Mr X and his wife. The Council responded and said it did not have studio or one bedroom accommodation it could offer in the area.
14. The housing association provided Mr X and his wife with accommodation in two hotels.
15. Mr Y (who is Mr X’s advisor) contacted the Council in July about Mr X’s circumstances. He explained the hotel accommodation was unsuitable for Mr X’s needs.
16. The Council invited Mr X to attend its contact centre in mid-July. Mr X explained he was homeless due to the fire. He said the housing association was going to provide him with a flat by the end of the month, but he was concerned it would not meet his needs. He provided details of his health conditions. The Council sent Mr X a letter and said the housing association was committed to providing him with temporary housing until it completed the repairs. It said it was satisfied he asked for help with a general housing problem, and it was not an approach for accommodation or assistance in getting accommodation.
17. Mr Y contacted the Council and said Mr X and his wife had been homeless since the middle of May. He asked it to make enquiries with the housing association to protect their interests. He said the temporary housing would not be available until the end of the month.
18. The Council contacted the housing association and asked whether it had adapted the temporary housing to meet Mr X’s needs and whether it was aware of Mr X’s health and mobility needs. The housing association responded and said it was aware Mr X was disabled, but it was not aware of his specific needs. It said it made the adaptations to Mr X’s flat for the previous tenant, and not for Mr X.
19. Mr X and his wife moved into the temporary housing in August. The Council made a referral to a neighbouring authority’s adult social care department and asked it to consider whether Mr X needed equipment to support his daily needs.
20. Mr Y complained to the Council in September about its delays in providing Mr X with support. He said it was aware of Mr X’s circumstances in May, but it did not act. He also said it wrongly closed Mr X’s case after its initial assessment, and it did not offer him a right of review. It said it should have awarded him the relief duty.
21. The Council responded to the complaint and said it provided Mr X with the right advice in July because the housing association had found him alternative housing that he would be moving to shortly. It also said it did not have any other more suitable interim accommodation in its area for Mr X to move to.
22. Mr Y emailed the Council and said he was not happy with its response. He reiterated that it was aware of the fire in May. He also said it was concerning it did not have suitable interim accommodation.
23. The Council issued its final response to the complaint. It said it should have taken a homeless application from Mr X when he visited its contact centre in July. That would have given him the right to a review if he was unhappy with the outcome. It apologised for this. It said it had recommended to its housing management team that staff provide careful oversight, along with additional training on legal requirements where necessary. It said it would ask an officer to contact Mr X and take an application from him. It also said even if it had taken a homeless application, it may have not provided interim accommodation because the housing association had provided Mr X with accommodation in a hotel. It also said it had a high demand for interim accommodation, and it used similar hotel accommodation to meet it homelessness duties.
24. The Council contacted the housing association and Mr X to get some further information. Mr X said he was happy with the temporary housing, and it met his needs.
25. The Council reviewed Mr X’s case and accepted the relief duty in December.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The housing association contacted the Council in May about the fire. It was clear from this contact a household was homeless and the housing association was seeking help with accommodation. The Council had a duty at that point to make some basic enquiries into Mr X’s circumstances. It instead said it did not have any interim accommodation it could offer and that it would work with the housing association to assist the household. This was fault. If the Council had acted without fault, it would have had enough information to have had reason to believe Mr X was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need (because of the fire and Mr X’s medical conditions). It would have therefore had a duty to provide him with suitable interim accommodation. It is also more likely than not, based on Mr X’s circumstances, it would have awarded him the relief duty.
27. The Council was also at fault for failing to take a homeless application from Mr X in July. Mr X was asking for help finding accommodation and from the information he provided it had reason to believe he was homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Council’s approach of issuing the advice only letter was not line with homelessness legislation.
28. The Council’s faults have caused Mr X a significant injustice. The Council deprived him of its homelessness services, and it did not afford him the right to review its decisions.
29. Mr Y says the Council’s faults also mean Mr X stayed in unsuitable interim accommodation from May to early August. When the Council responded to the complaint, it said it only had similar hotel style interim accommodation in the area, and it was unlikely it could have offered Mr X anything better.
30. The law is clear councils must offer interim accommodation that is suitable for the applicant. This is an absolute duty. Councils cannot wait until something more suitable becomes available. As previously explained, the Council owed Mr X this duty from May. It would have had to assess his circumstances and offer him suitable interim accommodation. Mr X has several medical conditions. He needs an aid to manage his toilet needs, he has severely limited mobility and he needs help getting in and out of the shower. Mr X did not have any aids or equipment while he was living in the hotel. I consider on the balance of probabilities, if the Council had not been at fault, it would have placed Mr X in more suitable accommodation for his needs or it would have had to ensure he had the appropriate equipment to meet his daily needs. Therefore, its fault means Mr X had to live in unsuitable accommodation. This is a significant injustice.
31. The Council has apologised to Mr X which I welcome. However, an apology alone is not sufficient to reflect Mr X’s injustice. I have made a further personal recommendation. I have also recommended service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

32. By 23 June 2025 the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £500 to reflect the time he was living in unsuitable accommodation.
33. By 21 July 2025 the Council has agreed to provide training or guidance to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of:

• The low duty to make inquiries when someone contacts the Council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days.
• The duty to provide interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if the Council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need.

Back to top

Final decision

34. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman