Summary: The Council was at fault in how it offered and arranged accommodation for Mr X after he became homeless. It later housed him in unsuitable accommodation for too long. This caused Mr X uncertainty and distress. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay him a symbolic amount. To prevent similar fault in future, the Council will issue a staff reminder and put processes in place to ensure it can comply with guidance on housing for care leavers.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complained the Council failed to house Mr X after he became homeless in January 2024, until it moved him into temporary accommodation in October 2024. Mr Z said the Council wrongly told Mr X he had to accept an offer of a B&B as temporary accommodation because not doing so would result in him losing his place on the social housing register. Mr Z said the Council then left Mr X in the B&B for too long and that it failed to respond to his complaint in line with the Council’s complaints policy. He said this had a significant impact on Mr X’s mental and physical health.
2. Mr Z also said the Council’s wider approach to homelessness accommodation was inadequate and unlawful because it frequently housed care leavers, pregnant women and families in B&Bs and for too long.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr Z 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

Relevant law and guidance

Leaving care

8. The Children Act 1989 places duties on councils to provide ongoing support for children leaving care. These duties continue until they reach 21 or 25 years of age.
9. Councils should appoint each care leaver with a personal adviser (PA), and each care leaver should have a pathway plan. The personal adviser acts as a focal point to ensure the care leaver is provided with the right kind of support. The pathway plan should be based on a thorough assessment of the person’s needs. The plan should include details of the practical and financial support the council will provide. 

Homelessness

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) 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)
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. 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 (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. A care leaver’s PHP should be informed by their pathway plan (section 23C(3)9b of the Children Act 1989). In addition, the government has stated councils should involve a care leaver’s PA in their assessment and in the production of the PHP.

Homelessness accommodation

13. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
14. A council has a duty to 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 interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188).
15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
16. 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). The Code notes that accommodation that is suitable in the short-term may not be suitable for a longer period.
17. When a council identifies accommodation for a homeless person, it sends a decision letter which includes the accommodation’s address and information on the person’s right to ask the council to review the suitability of that accommodation. Applicants have 21 days to ask for a review. The council must complete the review within eight weeks of the review request.
18. Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation is not suitable for care leavers under 25. It can only be used in exceptional circumstances and only for short periods. A B&B is accommodation which is not self-contained, not owned by the council or a registered provider of social housing and where the toilet, washing, or cooking facilities are shared with other households. There are similar restrictions in place relating to pregnant women and families. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 22.28)
19. The Code says councils may want to involve a care leaver’s PA in decisions about the suitability of accommodation and tell the PA before it makes an offer of accommodation.

Complaints handling

20. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure which covers issues including homelessness accommodation. Its policy says that, at stage two, it will appoint an independent senior officer to review the complaint and that this will not be the same person who responded at stage one.

What happened: Mr X’s homelessness

21. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in early January 2024. The Council identified he had been in care recently, so it owed him the duty to arrange interim accommodation.
22. The Council spoke to Mr X about housing him in emergency accommodation outside of its area. Mr X said he was concerned about how he would get to work and confirmed he got two buses to work currently. The Council said if he was placed in nearby council areas he could get a bus and a train to work. Mr X decided to stay with friends and the Council confirmed that if he no longer wanted to do that, he could still ask it to house him.
23. In mid-January, the Council carried out a housing assessment with Mr X and Mr Y, who was Mr X’s PA. The Council prepared a PHP but did not obtain a copy of Mr X’s pathway plan. The Council told me its failure to get a copy of Mr X’s pathway plan did not cause him an injustice because it frequently spoke to Mr Y about Mr X’s housing in subsequent months.
24. The Council asked a medical advisor what sort of accommodation Mr X needed because of his health needs. The medical advisor told the Council they felt Mr X needed self-contained accommodation.
25. In mid-March, the Council spoke with Mr X and Mr Y. It explained it had decided it owed Mr X the main housing duty and that he needed self-contained housing. Mr X said he would continue to stay with friends while waiting for a final offer of housing because it was easier for him to get to work from there. The Council confirmed it could house him instead, but this would be in a hotel out of the Council’s area.
26. In late March the Council told Ms Z, who was acting on Mr X’s behalf, that if he no longer wanted to stay with friends, it could house him in a hotel, out of area.
27. In late May and June, Ms Z told the Council that his health was worsening as a result of his housing situation, which Mr X’s GP agreed with. Ms Z said Mr X had lost several stone in weight and was trying to remain in employment despite his circumstances. In response to both times the Council said it could offer Mr X a hotel room, which might be in its area.
28. Ms Z sent the Council a letter from Mr X’s GP which stated he should not be moved out of area. The council said only hotel accommodation was available to Mr X.
29. The Council repeated that hotels were the only temporary accommodation available to Mr X in mid-August, after Ms Z told the Council he was struggling. At the end of the month, the Council explained about the type of hotels it could place Mr X in. Ms Z said Mr X was experiencing other health issues at that time, including poor mental health and that she would speak to him again about staying in a hotel.
30. Shortly after, Mr Z became involved in Mr X’s case. Mr Z told the Council it needed to find suitable housing for Mr X. In response, the Council said it acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about being housed outside its area, and the impact that would have on his employment. However, there was a lack of suitable accommodation in its area so if Mr X needed housing, it may be outside that area.
31. Mr Z sent an email in mid-September, which he said was a stage one complaint. The Council responded to his email outside of its corporate complaint procedure. Mr Z asked for a stage two complaint response in early October. His complaint included that:
• The Council had inappropriately offered Mr X temporary accommodation (accommodation A) in a B&B, despite the fact he was a care leaver;
• He was unhappy the Council had told Mr X that if he did not accept accommodation A, it would end the main housing duty; and
• The Council had not responded to his complaint under the complaints procedure.
32. The Council again responded to Mr Z outside the complaints procedure. Its response included its view that:
• A B&B was suitable for Mr X in the short-term;
• If Mr X moved into accommodation A it would try to move him there as soon as possible; and
• It would now make a formal offer of temporary accommodation;
33. In late October, the Council sent Mr X an offer letter setting out it would house him in accommodation A, a B&B in its area. It set out Mr X’s right to ask for a review of its decision that accommodation A was suitable. The Council sent the offer letter to Mr X by email and added that if he refused the offer of accommodation, it would end its homelessness duty to him and it would not offer further accommodation. Mr X moved in.
34. Around two weeks later, the Council offered Mr X accommodation in another area (accommodation B). The Council did not speak to Mr Y when deciding accommodation B was suitable, or before it made the offer to Mr X. The Council told me the offer came from its housing allocations team, which does not have contact with PAs.
35. In mid-November, Mr X asked the Council to review the suitability of that accommodation. He said he had worked hard to remove himself from negative influences and was working full-time. Mr X said he had been the victim of crime perpetuated by several people who lived near accommodation B. Mr X said he was panicking at the thought of moving there.
36. In mid-November, the Council registered Mr X’s stage two complaint request from early October as a stage one complaint.
37. The Council upheld the review in late November, on the basis that the area accommodation B was in was unsuitable for Mr X because of the risk to his safety.
38. In early December, the Council issued a stage one response to Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• It had only offered accommodation A (between January and October 2024) because Ms Z had said he would not cope out of area or in a hotel.
• If Mr X had accepted housing, it would have likely housed him in a self-contained B&B in the short term. The Council has decided that B&Bs are self-contained accommodation through provision of a microwave in a homeless applicants room, providing the kitchen and bathroom facilities are also private;
• There were no longer-term temporary properties available between the date the Council decided it owed Mr X the main housing duty and the date it offered him accommodation B;
• It accepted the email it had sent with its offer of accommodation A was misleading because it implied the Council would end the main housing duty if he refused accommodation A, without reference to his right of review;
• The manager of the temporary accommodation team would speak to their staff about ensuring contact with homeless applicants referred to their right of review, where that right exists; and
• It initially did not respond to Mr X’s complaints using the complaints procedure because it used a different procedure when complaints were submitted by people in Mr Z’s line of work.
39. The Council has confirmed the manager spoke to their staff and reminded them about ensuring cover emails and phone calls accurately reflected a person’s right of review of certain decisions.
40. Mr Z submitted a stage two request. He said he wanted compensation for Mr X for having to stay in accommodation A for too long and he felt the Council had not made any efforts to find suitable housing for Mr X.
41. The Council offered Mr X another accommodation, which he accepted and moved into in mid-December.
42. The Council issued its stage two response a few days later. It said:
• The offer of accommodation B showed it was not planning on housing Mr X in a B&B for longer than necessary; and
• It was unable to move Mr X out of accommodation A until December because no other properties became available until that date.
43. Mr Z complained to the Ombudsman. He said the officer who responded to his complaint at stage two was not suitably independent because they had management oversight of the matters he had complained about.
44. The Council told me 144 studio and one-bedroom flats became available between January and October 2024, which were let as permanent housing and temporary accommodation. It does not know what proportion went to temporary housing.

Findings: January to September 2024

45. The Council included Mr Y in its assessment of his homelessness application and production of his PHP, which was in line with the Code. However, it failed to consider Mr X’s pathway plan as part of its creation of his PHP. This was not in line with the Code, and the Council has not provided a good reason why it did not comply with the guidance. This was fault.
46. The Council says the fault did not cause Mr X an injustice because Mr Y was at the assessment and subsequently involved in Mr X’s case. However, if having a care leaver’s PA involved in an assessment and production of a PHP was sufficient, the Code would not also state that the council should consider the person’s pathway plan during the PHP production. I cannot say, even on balance, what Mr X’s PHP would have looked like if it had been informed by his pathway plan. Therefore, the fault will cause Mr X avoidable uncertainty about what the PHP might have said and if it would have been more successful at helping Mr X to secure suitable accommodation before the Council accepted the main housing duty.
47. The Council has decided that when a person staying in a B&B with a private bathroom and toilet is provided with a microwave, their accommodation is self-contained. This means the restrictions on use of B&Bs for care leavers does not apply. I call this accommodation ‘self-contained B&Bs’. Mr Z disagrees with the Council’s view. However, the Ombudsman makes findings on maladministration. This can occur if a council has not acted in line with relevant law and guidance. We cannot make definitive judgements on how to interpret legislation. Whether or not the Council’s interpretation of what constitutes B&B or self-contained accommodation was lawful is not something the Ombudsman can definitively decide; it is for the courts to consider.
48. The Council had a duty to ensure the accommodation provided to Mr X was suitable. B&Bs are not suitable for care leavers under 25 and can only be used in exceptional circumstances and only for short periods. Despite this, when the Council first offered Mr X interim accommodation in January 2025, it only discussed emergency accommodation outside the Council’s area. On balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the Council was referring to B&B accommodation out of area. That is because in subsequent months, all discussion the Council had with Mr X and people acting on his behalf related to B&B accommodation. The Council continued to only offer Mr X B&B accommodation until October, when he moved into accommodation A.
49. There is no evidence the Council explored whether there was self-contained accommodation or self-contained B&Bs available for Mr X to move into, between January and September 2024, before saying only B&Bs were available. This was fault. The Council has confirmed that, despite what it told Mr X and Mr Z, it had homelessness and permanent non-B&B housing available between January and October 2024. It also appears there was the possibility of self-contained B&Bs. This indicates there may have been self-contained housing available to Mr X, had the Council not been at fault. Mr X would have been prioritised for moving into self-contained accommodation because of his status as a care leaver and his medical need to live in self-contained accommodation.
50. Mr X did not agree to be accommodated by the Council because he was concerned he would be placed out of its area. However, the Council failed to tell Mr X that as a care leaver, he could not be placed in a B&B for more than a short period of time or that any accommodation it provided had to be suitable for his needs, including in terms of its location. This was fault.
51. The Council was also at fault because it failed to consider if Mr X’s needs meant he needed accommodation in its area, as well as accommodation which was self-contained. As a care leaver Mr X was particularly vulnerable, and he provided a letter from his GP which said he should not be housed out of area. The Council should have considered that information, to inform its search for suitable accommodation.
52. Once the Council accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty in March 2024, it should have made a formal offer of temporary accommodation instead of informally and repeatedly offering B&B accommodation. That would have given Mr X the right to ask for a statutory review of that accommodation’s suitability. The Council did not make an offer until October, which was fault. This meant Mr X had no way to formally challenge the Council’s decisions to repeatedly offer to house him in non-self-contained B&Bs.
53. On balance, had the Council acted without fault, it would have arranged self-contained accommodation or a self-contained B&B for Mr X for at least part of the period between January and September 2024. However, I cannot say that Mr X would have likely accepted any offers the Council made. Without a properly made decision on whether Mr X could be housed out of the Council’s area I cannot say, even on balance, that the Council would have only offered housing in its area. It is likely that Mr X would have declined to accept any accommodation the Council offered which was outside its area. Therefore, the faults set out between 55 and 58 caused Mr X significant uncertainty and distress about what might have happened if the Council had not been at fault.

Findings: October to December 2024

54. The Council’s offer letter set out Mr X’s right to ask for a review of accommodation A. However, the cover email it sent Mr X with that letter instead said that if Mr X did not accept the offer, it would end the main housing duty, without reference to his right of review. This was fault and caused Mr X distress. The Council has taken suitable action to prevent similar fault occurring in future so I have not made a recommendation to do that.
55. The Council did not tell Mr X it would remove him from the housing register if he did not accept the offer of accommodation A, so it was not at fault.
56. The Ombudsman usually expects complainants to use their right to request a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation. However, it was not reasonable for Mr X to have asked for a review given the Council offered him accommodation A as temporary accommodation in late October but then offered him accommodation B within the review timeframe. For that reason, I have investigated the suitability of accommodation A.
57. Mr X moved into accommodation A in October. There is no evidence the Council considered whether accommodation A was suitable before placing Mr X there. This was particularly important given B&Bs should only be used for care leavers for short periods of time. This was fault and caused Mr X uncertainty about whether the Council would have still offered accommodation A if it had not been at fault.
58. The Council also failed to involve Mr Y in its decision to offer Mr X accommodation A and B. This was not in accordance with the Code and was fault. I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council involved Mr Y in its decision making, it would have decided not to offer accommodation A. That is because the only issue people acting on Mr X’s behalf raised about accommodation A was that it was a B&B. The Council could have decided it was suitable in the short term. Therefore, Mr X was left with uncertainty.
59. Conversely, on balance of probabilities, if the Council had contacted Mr Y before offering accommodation B, it would have heard that the accommodation was in an unsuitable area, as it accepted after Mr X’s review. It is likely that this would have persuaded the Council not to offer accommodation B in the first place. This would have avoided the Council causing Mr X significant distress.
60. The Council does not have any systems in place to allow staff involved in arranging homelessness accommodation to speak with a care leaver’s PA. This means they cannot involve the PA in their consideration of whether accommodation is suitable or alert the PA to the fact the Council intends to make an offer. This is not in line with the Code and was fault. Without a suitable process in place, it is likely the Council will be at fault again in future. I have therefore made a recommendation to address the issue.
61. Mr X remained at accommodation A for nine weeks. This was because the Council was unable to provide alternative temporary accommodation until December. While the law does not define what a short period of time is, it is arguable that nine weeks does not amount to a short period. The Council failed to house Mr X suitably, which caused him an injustice.
62. Mr X can ask for a review of the suitability of his current accommodation if he is unhappy with it.

Findings: Complaints handling

63. After contacting the Council about Mr X’s case, Mr Z made a complaint. While the Council normally responds to people in Mr Z’s position outside of the complaints procedure, Mr Z was clear in his complaint that he expected a response in line with the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council should have clarified with Mr Z how he wanted it to respond to his concerns to ensure it was using the correct procedure. The Council’s failure to do so was fault. In the course of another Ombudsman’s investigation, the Council told us it had decided to amend its processes to prevent the issue happening again, which is appropriate. The fault caused Mr Z avoidable frustration but not at such a level at to justify a recommendation to remedy that injustice.
64. Mr Z feels the Council’s complaints handling was poor because the person that responded at stage two was insufficiently independent. However, the senior officer appointed to respond to a stage two complaint should have sufficient understanding of the issues to answer the complaint. The senior officer was sufficiently independent from the matters Mr Z complained about on Mr X’s behalf, which was in accordance with its complaints policy and good administrative practice.

The Council’s homeless accommodation service

65. Since at least 2021, the Council has seen an increase in the number of people applying as homeless or threatened with homelessness each year. Correspondingly, it has owed more people housing duties each year, which has increased demand on its housing service and the accommodation available.
66. The Council use of B&Bs as homelessness accommodation was the result of that increased demand. It accepts it sometimes houses people in B&Bs for longer than the law says it can.
67. Between November 2024 and October 2025, the Council housed pregnant women and families in B&Bs for 34.7 days on average. There was a sharp increase in the length of time people were staying in B&Bs in December 2024, when the average was 73.1 days. As of October 2025, the average had reduced to 21.4 days. At that time there were no families or pregnant women living in B&Bs for more than six weeks.
68. Between those dates, the Council housed care leavers in B&B’s for an average of 43.5 days. In October 2025, five care leavers were in B&Bs.
69. Since December 2024, the Council has:
• Agreed to lease 60 nightly let properties, all of which are now occupied;
• Arranged for 200 units of long-term rental to become available for use as homelessness accommodation. The units will be ready in January 2026;
• Continued to work with a letting agent to lease properties on a 3-5 year basis;
• Begun reviewing and updating its landlord incentive scheme;
• Bought or is developing 464 units of homelessness accommodation or social housing;
• Began implementing a new five-year homelessness plan, which has a focus on reducing the time people live in temporary accommodation;
• Dedicated funding to help residents clear rent arrears, help with rent deposits, buy furniture and top up rent. This aims to reduce the number of people becoming homeless in the first place; and
• Amended its social housing allocations scheme to give priority to certain homeless households. This meant 70 households were able to move from temporary accommodation into social housing.
70. Elected members of the Council considered updates on the Council’s approach to homeless accommodation in December 2024, February 2025, May 2025 and agreed what action the Council should take. In September 2025, the Council’s scrutiny committee considered the Council’s housing service performance. Members noted its efforts to increase its stock of homelessness accommodation, as well as its work with London councils to reduce the number of people it housed out of area. Members also noted the Council had said it would only place single individuals in B&Bs going forward and suggested changes to how the Council presented data on its use of homelessness accommodation, to enable them gain more from that data.

The Council’s homeless accommodation service

71. The data shows the demand on the Council’s homelessness service has been increasing for years, which meant it struggled to provide suitable accommodation for everyone. The Council accepts this. I have considered what the Council has done to address the issue since October 2024. From that date onwards, the Council has taken appropriate steps to address its use of B&Bs and improve the availability of homelessness and social housing. This has resulted in a decrease in the amount of time pregnant women, families and care leavers are living in B&Bs and the number of those people living in B&Bs. In addition, the Council has ensured there is appropriate oversight of its actions, through updates to elected members and the scrutiny committee meeting. It was not at fault.

Back to top

Action

72. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and distress he felt because of its failings. 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.
2. Pay Mr X £1200 in recognition of that injustice.
3. Remind staff they should consider a care leaver’s pathway plan when creating the person’s Personalised Housing Plan.
4. Remind staff they should check if there is non-B&B accommodation available before offering B&B accommodation to care leavers, pregnant women and families.
73. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will put processes in place to ensure that staff identifying and offering homelessness accommodation are able to speak to a care leaver’s PA when deciding if accommodation is suitable, and before offering accommodation.
74. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

75. I find fault causing injustice causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice and prevent similar fault in future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman