Summary: There was fault by the Council. It failed to consider its duty to protect Mr K’s belongings when he was made homeless. It also took too long to assess his social care needs, and did not contact him with sufficient urgency when he was at risk of being made street homeless. This caused Mr K distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr K; make a symbolic payment in recognition of the impact on him; and remind staff of its duty to protect belongings that are at risk through homelessness.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of her adult son, Mr K, about how the Council handled his housing and social care needs. In particular, they say the Council:
• Failed to support Mr K when, in 2022, it placed him in a hostel away from his support network;
• Wrongly decided that Mr K was intentionally homeless when he was evicted from the hostel;
• Placed Mr K in a hotel as interim accommodation but this was dirty, in poor repair and was infested with bed bugs;
• Failed to protect Mr K’s belongings when he was homeless and the hostel threatened to destroy these with little notice;
• Mishandled an offer of accommodation of a flat when it allowed the prospective housing association to find out sensitive information about Mr K’s past circumstances; and
• Failed to assess his adult social care needs and provide the support he needed.
2. Ms X says that the Council’s shortcomings left her son in unsuitable hotel accommodation and caused him distress when his housing and support needs were not met.

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. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated Mr K’s complaint that the Council should not have moved him to the hostel away from his support network, nor his complaint that the Council should not have decided that he was intentionally homeless. I have set out the reasons for both below.
6. Firstly, I have not investigated Mr K’s complaint that the Council should not have moved him to the hostel away from his support network. This is because 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. Ms X complains that the Council should not have moved Mr K to the hostel in 2022 and did not ensure that he had the support he needed when he was there. I have not investigated whether the Council was right to move Mr K to the hostel because Ms X did not bring his complaint to the Ombudsman until April 2025 and so this complaint is late.
8. Secondly, I have not investigated Mr K’s complaint that the Council should not have decided that he was intentionally homeless. 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)
9. Mr K used his legal review right to challenge the Council’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. He had the right to challenge this further in the county court. I appreciate that Mr K is vulnerable and was staying in emergency accommodation at the time. However, the homelessness law sets out that the way to challenge these decisions is by court action, and the Council told Mr K of his rights. As such, I would expect Mr K to use his legal right and I have not investigated this complaint.
10. I have investigated the Council’s actions from July 2024 to May 2025. I have also investigated Mr K’s complaint that the Council allowed a prospective landlord to access sensitive information about him which led to it not offering him a flat. This happened earlier that the period covered by my investigation. But Mr K and Ms X only learnt about this more recently and so could not complain to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms 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

The law and guidance

Homelessness

13. 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)
14. 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).
15. Councils must have regard to the state of repair and condition of accommodation when deciding if it is suitable.
16. Councils can decide that an applicant is intentionally homeless because they did, or failed to do something, and as a result they can no longer occupy their accommodation. If an applicant is intentionally homeless, councils may still owe some homelessness duties but will not owe the main housing duty.
17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the certain decisions including:

• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness; and
• giving notice to bring a duty to an end;

18. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Protection of belongings

19. Where the council owes or has owed certain housing duties to an applicant, it must protect the applicant’s personal property if there is a risk it may be lost or damaged. A council may make a reasonable charge for storage and reserve the right to dispose of the property if it loses contact with the applicant. (Housing Act 1996, section 211, Homelessness Code of Guidance chapter 20)

Back to top

What happened

20. Mr K has learning disabilities and is autistic. His mother, Ms X has helped him deal with the Council and the Ombudsman. Mr K was the victim of exploitation as criminals took over his home. He had to leave there and move to the Council’s area.
21. The Council placed Mr K in a hostel in October 2022, and in November 2022, Mr K joined the housing register.
22. In January 2024, the Council contacted Mr K about a flat he could move to. He was due to view the flat but received no further details. Later Ms X found that the hostel had told the housing provider that Mr K had a history of criminal activity and so the provider decided not to let the flat to him. However, the Council says that the housing provider had marked that particular flat as not suitable for anyone who is vulnerable due to problems in the immediate area. The Council’s allocations policy says that a housing provider can do this. Mr K and Ms X only discovered this later on. The Council told Mr K that he could ask the housing provider for more information about this.
23. In July 2024, a specialist charity advocate contacted the Council. He told the Council that Mr K needed support and was struggling to live in the hostel due to his disabilities. He said that Mr K would benefit from urgent support from Adult Social Care. The Council’s case notes show that it liaised with the charity and established that Mr K would start work with a 1:1 mentor weekly to help him maintain his tenancy and also support him with moving.
24. In August, the same advocate emailed the Council again asking for urgent support for Mr K who described as at risk of homelessness. The Council had decided that it would assess Mr K’s social care needs and a social worker made an appointment for the assessment.
25. However, Mr K was evicted in September 2024 before the assessment could take place. The hostel says that Mr K had broken his licence agreement by forcing entry into the office without a member of staff. Mr K says he was trying to collect his post.
26. Mr K and Ms X approached the Council for help with Mr K’s housing. The Council placed him in interim hotel accommodation while it assessed his situation. The Council’s social worker told Mr K’s charity mentor that he needed to collect his belongings from the hostel or they would be disposed of.
27. At the beginning of October 2024, the Council wrote to Mr K, explaining that it was likely to find him to be intentionally homeless. The Council said Mr K had known he should not enter the office and this led to his eviction. It said it had taken into account that he is disabled but this did not alter its decision. The Council’s letter set out Mr K’s right to request a review of the Council’s decision. The Council’s case notes show that its housing and adult social care services discussed the decision, and the social worker suggested the Council may offer crisis housing as he was still vulnerable.
28. Ms X complained that the Council had failed to make sure Mr K had the support he needed; that the hostel was wrong to evict him; and that the hostel had discussed his personal information with the prospective housing association so he had missed out on a flat in January 2024. Later in October, Ms X also complained that the Council had not helped Mr K store his belongings. Mr K had put his belongings in storage and he was having to pay for this out of his benefit income.
29. In late October 2024, the Council completed the social care needs assessment. It decided that Mr K was able to care for himself but would need some support to maintain his home environment and keep a tenancy, when he moves to a new home.
30. In November 2024, the Council moved Mr K to another hotel. Ms X complained that the new hotel was dirty, in a state of disrepair and had a bed bug infestation. Ms X sent the Council photos of the accommodation, and bed bug bites suffered by her son.
31. The Council asked the hotel to treat the mattresses, and it also boil washed the bedding. It also offered to send an outreach doctor to examine and treat Mr K’s bites. It replied to Ms X’s complaints but did not address all the issues. It explained that the hotel had treated the rooms for bed bugs, and that he should complain to the hostel if he thought that it had told a prospective housing association personal information. The Council did not respond to Ms X about Mr K’s belongings.
32. At the beginning of December, the Council formally told Mr K that he was intentionally homeless and so he would need to move from the hotel by the end of the month. In its correspondence with Ms X, the Council said that Mr K should continue to work with his support worker from its Learning Disability team.
33. Mr K asked the Council to review its decision that he was intentionally homeless. The Council said that Mr K could stay in interim accommodation in the meantime. It moved him to a different hotel.
34. In November and December 2024, Mr K and Ms X both telephoned the Council angry and upset that the Council had decided that Mr K was intentionally homeless.
35. On 16 January 2025, the Council upheld the decision that Mr K was intentionally homeless and the relief period had ended. In its letter to Mr K, the Council explained that there had been issues with Mr K’s behaviour at the hostel and he had been served with notices due to his behaviour and the condition of his room. He had received additional support from the charity due to this. The notices had been revoked but later reissued. He should have asked a member of staff for his mail rather than force entry into the office. He had support and had managed to maintain his tenancy for some time before this. The Council said it had taken into account his disabilities and that he is autistic.
36. The Council told Mr K that he would need to leave the interim hotel accommodation by 4 February.
37. Again, both Mr K and Ms X telephoned the Council. They spoke to the duty social worker but had not had contact from Mr K’s social worker or any support from the Council’s adult social care service. Mr K spoke to the Council towards the end of January and said that he was feeling very low and he needed support. He was suicidal at the prospect of being street homeless. Mr K’s doctor wrote to the Council in January in his support. It said his behaviour at the hostel was attributable to his learning disability and autism. A specialist service for victims of exploitation also wrote a letter of support. Mr K contacted the Council several times to ask what would happen when he had to leave the hotel and to ask the Council to reconsider.
38. Ms X raised a safeguarding concern that Mr K was at risk if made street homeless. The Council decided that it could best help Mr K by his allocated Social Worker and its housing team working together. The Council also noted that Mr K could be given crisis accommodation due to his vulnerability.
39. The Council allowed Mr K to stay in the hotel until mid-February when he moved into supported living accommodation.

Was there fault causing an injustice to Mr K?

Mr K’s complaints about the bed bugs and disrepair at the hotel

40. The Council arranged the interim accommodation at the hotel. It must make sure it is suitable and this includes its condition and state of repair. The Council addressed the bed bug issue with the hotel in good time, after Ms X raised this. It cannot have known whether there would be an infestation at the time it allocated this property to Mr K. There is nothing to suggest that the state of repair was detrimental to Mr K or would make the property unsuitable for him. There was no fault by the Council when it moved Mr K to the interim accommodation at the hotel.

Mr K’s complaint that the Council failed to protect Mr K’s belongings when he was evicted from the hostel

41. The Council has a duty to protect a person’s belongings if these are at risk due to homelessness. In Mr K’s case, this duty arose when the council accepted an interim duty to accommodate him. However, for the Council to take action it must first decide that there is danger the property will be lost or damaged, the person cannot protect or deal with it, and no other suitable arrangement has been made.
42. The Council knew that the hostel had planned to dispose of Mr K’s belongings. Later Ms X was clear that Mr K could not afford to carry on storing his belongings. At both these times the Council should have considered whether there was a risk Mr K’s belongings would be lost due to his homelessness, and whether it had a duty to protect these. The Council told Ms X that it could not help with this and there is no evidence that it properly considered its duties.
43. The Council also did not address this issue when Ms X included it in her complaint, and so missed another opportunity to make sure that it had properly considered its duty to protect Mr K’s property.
44. I cannot say that had the Council considered its duty properly it would have taken action, but the Council’s failures have left Mr K uncertain. Had the Council arranged storage for Mr K, it would have been able to charge him for this, but such charges should have been affordable.

Mr K’s complaint that the Council mishandled an offer of a flat by allowing access to his sensitive information

45. The Council’s notes suggest that the housing association discussed the flat with the hostel and Mr K’s support worker. The housing association decided not to offer the flat as there were ongoing issues close by and it was concerned that Mr K would be vulnerable.
46. The Council has been clear that it was the hostel and not the Council that shared Mr K’s personal information with the housing association. It also made sure that any sensitive information was removed from Mr K’s housing register details.
47. I can see that Ms X and Mr K feel that he should have been able to decide this for himself. The Council’s housing allocations policy allows housing providers party to the scheme, to restrict who it will let properties to. This includes that it will not let specific properties to vulnerable tenants. This means that the Council was acting in accordance with its policy. There was no fault by the Council.

Mr K’s complaint that the Council failed to assess his adult social care needs and provide the support he needed

48. Mr K was referred to the Council’s adult social care service in July 2024. It made sure that he had support of the specialist charity. However, it decided that he should have a care act assessment in July and this did not move forward until October. This was too long, particularly when Mr K was so vulnerable.
49. The impact of the delay on Mr K was limited because the assessment found that he needed support to maintain his home and his tenancy, and the Council had made sure that he was receiving this from the charity.
50. Mr K’s case remained open to a social worker because his housing situation was not resolved. The case notes say that its adult social care service would consider crisis accommodation. However, when in December 2024 and January 2025, the Council decided that Mr K would need to leave the hotel, the Council did not do enough to contact him to discuss his options. Mr K was left very distressed at the prospect of being street homeless, and told the Council he was suicidal.

Other matters

Ms X has also complained that the Council has encouraged Mr K to bid on properties in other areas but these are not suitable because this would be away from his support network. It was not fault for the Council to talk to Mr K about widening his search so that he might be more successful in his search for a new home.

Back to top

Action

51. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr K for the uncertainty and distress it caused him when it failed to consider its duty to protect his belongings, and when it took too long to assess his adult social care needs or contact him when he was at risk of homelessness. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay £250 to Mr K in recognition of the impact on him of these shortcomings.
• Remind relevant staff that the Council has a duty to protect belongings where these are at risk of being lost due to homelessness. The Council should do this by issuing a briefing note or raising the issue at a staff meeting or briefing.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman