The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions when she approached it for assistance after being threatened with homelessness and following an incident affecting her property. She says the Council:
1. failed to respond to her requests for Intermediate Market Rent accommodation;
2. delayed referring her to the Private Rented Team until October 2023;
3. did not provide adequate support or advice following the incident;
4. took no appropriate action following the issue of a possession order in June 2024 and eviction notice in October 2024;
5. did not properly consider relevant medical evidence and professional recommendations;
6. produced inaccurate Personal Housing Plans; and
7. failed to respond to her contacts and complaints.
2. Mrs X says this caused her financial loss, including court fees, storage expenses, and the cost of securing a deposit for alternative accommodation. She also reports that the situation had a negative impact on her and her family’s 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. 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.
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

What I have and have not investigated

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. Although Mrs X’s complaint relates to events beginning in June 2023, she did not bring her complaint to us until January 2025, which is outside the 12-month time limit. However, I have exercised discretion to investigate the full period because the case is complex with interrelated matters. Investigating only part of the complaint could result in an incomplete understanding of what happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs 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

Legislation and statutory 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.

Threatened with homelessness

11. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council on or after 3 April 2018:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5)

Assessments and Personal Housing Plans

12. 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. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

The prevention duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

15. 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). 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)

Review rights

16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the prevention duty to an end;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• 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.

17. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Interim and temporary accommodation (section 188)

18. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
19. 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)
20. 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)
21. 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.

Priority need

22. 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.

Housing allocations

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. The Council awards eligible applicants priority from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). The Council decides priority within a band based on how long the applicant has been waiting in that band.
25. So far as is relevant to this complaint, the Council awards Band B to eligible homelessness applicants in temporary accommodation provided by the council or in referring accommodation.

What happened

26. In June 2023, Mrs X approached the Council after receiving a Section 21 notice from her landlord requiring her to leave the property. An assessment was completed, and the Council confirmed she was eligible for assistance and owed the prevention duty. A personalised housing plan (PHP) was issued, setting out the steps both the Council and Mrs X would take.
27. In July, the section 21 notice expired.
28. In September, Mrs X complained to the Council about the lack of contact from her case officer.
29. In October, the Council responded, apologising for poor communication. On the same day, it referred Mrs X to its Private Rented Sector (PRS) team, who subsequently contacted her and provided advice and information on securing private rented accommodation.
30. In December, Mrs X contacted the Council to report that her attempts to reach her case officer were unsuccessful. She also provided a new Section 21 notice due to expire in January. The Council apologised and reallocated her case to a new officer.
31. Later that month, Mrs X raised concerns about having to leave her property imminently. The Council advised her to remain in the property and explained the eviction process.
32. In January 2024, Mrs X contacted the PRS team to ask about available properties. The Council sent details of eight private rented properties, all located outside the borough. Later that month, it shared details of a property within the borough, but Mrs X said that it was unaffordable. The Council updated her PHP, but it did not provide her with a copy.
33. Later that month, an incident occurred in the flat below Mrs X's property. Her family was evacuated, and a member of her family received medical treatment. Mrs X says a Council officer who attended said no support could be offered by the Council because she was privately renting. She later reported the incident to the Council, confirmed that the property remained habitable, and expressed interest in a two-bedroom property if affordable.
34. A support worker acting on behalf of Mrs X submitted a complaint to the Council about the lack of support offered following the incident and requested a move to a new property.
35. The next day, a Council officer visited and confirmed that the property was habitable. Based on this, the Council decided not to offer Mrs X temporary accommodation.
36. Later that month, the Council partially responded to the complaint. It apologised for the officer’s conduct, explained the officer was new to the role, and committed to providing training for the team.
37. The Council then responded to the remainder of the January complaint, confirming it had considered the need for temporary accommodation. It concluded this was not required, as both Mrs X and the visiting officer had confirmed the property was habitable.
38. In February, Mrs X contacted the Council again, raising concerns about the safety of the property, the impact of the incident on her family’s wellbeing, and asking about a referral to housing associations and the Intermediate Rent scheme (a local scheme providing the opportunity to rent a brand new property at 80% of the market rent).
39. Later that month, Mrs X’s support worker raised a further complaint to the Council, believing that a possession order had been issued. They submitted a GP letter about the family’s worsening health and requested a reassessment of property suitability and a revised PHP.
40. In March, the Council advised Mrs X that she would need to wait for the possession order and then the bailiff’s warrant before having to leave the property. She asked the PRS team for further assistance in finding accommodation.
41. Later that month, the Council contacted Mrs X about a private rented property in the borough, however Mrs X declined as the property was too far away from her place of work. She reported being rejected for other properties due to not having a guarantor.
42. Two officers visited Mrs X’s property and again deemed it habitable. Mrs X reiterated concerns about the eviction process and the recent incident. The officers advised she would be offered temporary accommodation before eviction if private rented housing could not be secured in time.
43. The Council responded to some parts of the February complaint. It acknowledged that although a revised PHP had been completed, it had not been sent, this was later corrected. The Council confirmed the GP letter was under review by its medical advisor and admitted that further enquiries into the family’s health and the incidents impact could have been made. However, it concluded the property remained suitable based on earlier assessments. It committed to continue support in securing alternative accommodation and financial assistance if a suitable property was found.
44. In April, the Council shared details of another out-of-borough private rented property, which Mrs X declined as the property was too far away from her place of work.
45. Later that month, Mrs X escalated her complaint, dissatisfied with the Council’s explanation of the Council officer’s conduct on the day of the incident, and raising concerns about the delay in PRS referral, and inaccuracies in the PHP. She also reported ongoing mental health impacts and a lack of referral to the Intermediate Rent scheme.
46. In May, the Council advised Mrs X of future available in-borough properties. She raised concerns about both the distance from her work and safety standards.
47. The Council’s medical advisor reviewed the provided information and concluded that there were no medical reasons preventing her from living in her current type of accommodation.
48. The Council then ended the prevention duty, explaining that the case had remained open for over 56 days. It advised her to submit a new application once a possession order had been issued. This decision was later overturned, and Mrs X was notified.
49. In June, the Council shared another out-of-borough private rented property with Mrs X. Again, she declined, citing the distance to her work.
50. Later that month, Mrs X provided a copy of her possession order due to end within a week. The Council then accepted that it owed her the relief duty (backdated to May) and completed a revised PHP which was sent to her. It discussed temporary accommodation options, including moving immediately or waiting for the bailiff’s warrant. The Council advised that temporary accommodation may not be within the borough. Follow-up contact reiterated this.
51. Later that month, Mrs X’s support worker requested the PHP be updated to reflect the impact of the incident. They also submitted a therapist’s letter confirming the family were being treated for PTSD.
52. Mrs X was referred to the temporary accommodation team.
53. In July, a meeting was held with the Council. Mrs X raised affordability concerns and asked to stay near the borough due to work. She was told accommodation could be up to 90 minutes away. Two local properties became available; she declined one due to safety concerns, and the second was no longer available by the time she attempted to view it.
54. Later that month, the Council responded to the escalated April complaint. It accepted there were delays in updating the PHP and referring to PRS, citing a backlog which had since been addressed. It offered Mrs X £600 to recognise the impact of the delays. It also acknowledged delays in assessing medical evidence and explained that it could not determine whether emergency housing would have been offered immediately after the incident as no visit to her property occurred at that time.
55. Mrs X responded, stating that several issues remained unresolved. She referred to medical letters evidencing the ongoing impact on her family, asked how this had been factored into decision-making, and said she had incurred storage and court costs. She also noted she had not been offered temporary accommodation and requested an update on the Intermediate Rent scheme referral.
56. Later that month, following a pre-offer check, the Council made an offer of temporary accommodation. Mrs X did not accept the offer and requested a suitability review, submitting additional medical evidence confirming the family’s diagnosis of PTSD and raised concerns that the impact of PTSD had not been sufficiently explored in previous meetings. The additional medical evidence was submitted to the medical advisor who concluded there was no confirmed medical condition that would impact the suitability of accommodation.
57. Her support worker submitted another complaint, querying whether medical evidence had been fully considered before the accommodation offer was made.
58. Later that month, the Council accepted the main housing duty and registered Mrs X on the housing register with Band B priority.
59. In August, the Council responded to the July complaints. It accepted the temporary accommodation offer was made before medical evidence had been reviewed by its medical advisor but said mental health concerns had already been raised in the pre-offer check. It said the officer’s conduct from the previous meetings was reviewed and found to be appropriate.
60. In September, the Council responded to outstanding complaint points. It confirmed all medical evidence had been considered, with the medical advisor concluding that all accommodation types were medically suitable. It also clarified that Intermediate Rent is a self-referral scheme and no direct referral request had been made by Mrs X.
61. Later that month, the Council offered Mrs X another out-of-borough private rented property, but she did not respond.
62. In October, Mrs X’s support worker submitted a copy of the eviction warrant, scheduled for November.
63. Later that month, the Council reviewed the earlier temporary accommodation offer and deemed it unsuitable. It was asked to arrange an alternative offer due to the imminent eviction.
64. In April 2025, the Council contacted Mrs X with details of two out-of-borough private rented properties but received no response.
65. In May, the Council made an offer of temporary accommodation. Mrs X advised she had secured private rented accommodation independently.
66. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that it is not standard practice to advise applicants to remain in a property once a valid Section 21 notice has expired. It also confirmed there was no recorded evidence on Mrs X’s records that it had considered whether it was reasonable for her to remain in the property beyond the expiry of the Section 21 notice.

My findings

Council’s actions when initially approached

67. In June 2023, Mrs X approached the Council. It assessed her situation, accepted the prevention duty, and issued a PHP. There was no fault in these initial actions.
68. However, when the Section 21 notice expired in July 2023, Mrs X was homeless. It is not fault for a council to advise tenants that they have the right to remain in a privately rented property until evicted by bailiffs under a court warrant. However, councils must assess whether it remains reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation once a valid Section 21 notice has expired. The Council has confirmed it did not record any such assessment or consideration in Mrs X’s case. This was fault.
69. Mrs X was in priority need and the Council should have accepted the relief duty and offered suitable interim accommodation. It failed to accept the relief duty until July 2024, an 11-month delay. This was fault. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether Mrs X would have accepted interim accommodation at that time, but the failure to offer it leaves uncertainty about what might have happened and meant she remained in a property with no legal right to remain and at risk of court action, causing further avoidable uncertainty and distress.
70. This delay also meant the Council did not accept the main housing duty in September 2023 as it should have, delaying Mrs X’s placement in Band B of the housing register by 10 months. This was fault. I have reviewed average Band B waiting times and find Mrs X did not miss out on a property, so the injustice caused by this is limited.
71. When a further Section 21 notice was served in November 2023 (expiring January 2024), the Council again failed to act correctly. It later wrongly ended the prevention duty in May 2024 stating this was because more than 56 days had passed, despite an ongoing possession claim. Though it later reversed this decision, the error caused confusion, uncertainty, and distress for Mrs X.

Requests for Intermediate Market Rent properties

72. Mrs X requested a referral for Intermediate Market Rent accommodation in February, April, and July 2024. The Council only explained in September 2024 that she needed to self-refer. This delay was fault. Although the Council later claimed no direct requests were made, this was inaccurate. However, as Mrs X had self-referred prior to June 2023, she did not miss out on any properties, but the poor communication caused her distress.

Delayed referral to the Private Rented Sector (PRS) team

73. The Council did not refer Mrs X to the PRS team until October 2023, three months after it accepted the prevention duty. This delay, which the Council has acknowledged and apologised for, was fault. While I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether a suitable property would have been found or accepted earlier, the delay leaves uncertainty.

Support following the incident

74. After the incident in January 2024, a Council officer reportedly told Mrs X no support could be offered because she was a private tenant. This was incorrect and fault, which left Mrs X without support during a challenging time. The Council has since apologised and provided staff training. I consider this to be an appropriate response and make no further recommendations.
75. Mrs X notified her case officer of events shortly after the incident. The Council made two visits and assessed the property as suitable. I find no fault in the Council’s assessment or decision-making on the property’s condition.

Response to possession order and eviction notice

76. When Mrs X provided the possession order in June 2024, the Council updated her PHP, gave advice, and discussed emergency accommodation. I find no fault in its actions at that point.
77. However, after Mrs X submitted the eviction warrant in October 2024, the Council failed to maintain contact or offer further temporary accommodation until May 2025. Given it had not been informed that Mrs X had secured alternative housing, the lack of follow-up communication was fault, causing uncertainty and distress, up until the point she secured private rented accommodation independently.

Consideration of medical evidence

78. Mrs X began submitting medical evidence in January 2024, including documentation about the psychological impact of the incident on her family. In March 2024, the Council acknowledged it should have made more enquiries and noted that evidence was awaiting review by its medical advisor. The lack of earlier action was fault and caused avoidable distress.
79. In May 2024, the medical advisor concluded Mrs X did not have a medical condition which would prevent her from living in her current type of accommodation. In June and July, further medical evidence was submitted which confirmed Mrs X and her family had a diagnosed mental health condition. At a July pre-offer meeting, Mrs X described the significant mental health impact of the incident, but this was dismissed. Despite multiple clinical letters, the Council’s advisor maintained there was no confirmed medical condition affecting property suitability. In October 2024, the Council reviewed the temporary accommodation offer and found it unsuitable. This outcome indicates its consideration of the evidence and the medical advisor’s recommendation was flawed: it failed to explain why it discounted the numerous clinical letters supplied by Mrs X confirming a diagnose condition. This was fault. By July 2024, enough information had been provided to conclude that certain properties would be unsuitable. The failure to correctly consider this caused avoidable uncertainty, distress, and time and trouble.
80. Mrs X requested a review of the temporary accommodation offered in July. The Council failed to complete the review within the statutory 8-week timeframe, instead taking 14 weeks. This was fault. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether this delay meant that Mrs X missed out on a suitable offer of temporary accommodation, however this causes uncertainty, and significant distress for Mrs X.

Inaccurate Personal Housing Plans (PHPs)

81. Mrs X and her support worker repeatedly highlighted inaccuracies in her PHPs. The Council’s failure to act on this was fault. Although the errors did not materially affect the Council’s homelessness decisions, they caused uncertainty and distress.

Response to contacts and complaints

82. Between September 2023 and July 2024, Mrs X made seven complaints. The Council provided eight responses, but two of these were outside the Council’s published timescales, and some issues were never addressed. This was fault, causing distress and uncertainty.

Court and storage fees

83. The Council failed to consider whether it was reasonable for Mrs X to remain in the property after the Section 21 notice expired in either July 2023 or January 2024. This was fault. This contributed to her remaining in the property and ultimately becoming liable for the landlord’s court costs in February 2024.
84. In June 2024, Mrs X paid for storage due to fears of a sudden eviction, but she did not inform the Council about this until later. As the Council was unaware of the situation, had already offered interim accommodation (removing the need for storage), and there was no indication she could not afford the cost, I do not find the Council at fault.

Conclusion

85. In summary, the Council acted appropriately when Mrs X first sought assistance, but it subsequently failed in several key duties under the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance. These failings included delays in accepting statutory duties, failure to assess whether it was reasonable for her to remain in the property, inaccuracies in her housing plans, inadequate consideration of medical evidence, and poor communication and complaint handling. While I cannot say whether the faults led to a direct loss of housing they did result in financial loss, and caused Mrs X significant distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble pursuing complaints and reviews.
86. During my investigation, the Council learnt that Mrs X had secured private rented accommodation independently. It has since used its discretion and offered to reimburse her the full cost she incurred in securing the private rented property, totalling £10,384.61. I have considered whether the remedy is in line with the expectations set out in our Guidance on Remedies. In my view, the amount offered exceeds what I would normally recommend in the circumstances. I therefore do not recommend any further remedy.

Back to top

Action

87. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Mrs X its proposed remedy of £10,384.61
88. Within three months of our final decision, the Council has agreed to issue a briefing note (or series of notes) to all relevant housing and homelessness staff. This should use Mrs X’s case as a case study and must include guidance on the following areas:
• Statutory duties and interim accommodation;
• Assessing suitability after Section 21 expiry;
• Accuracy and timeliness of Personal Housing Plans;
• Handling and assessment of medical evidence;
• Statutory timescales for review requests.
89. I have not recommended any action for the Council to take to improve its complaint handling, as in September 2024, after Mrs X made her complaints, the Council reminded its staff to address all substantive issues raised in complaints.
90. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

91. 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