Summary: We find the Council at fault for the way it handled Mr X’s homelessness. There was delay, inaction, poor decisions, and a lack of records. This caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his homelessness application. Specifically, he complained that the Council:
1. delayed making decisions on his homeless application;
2. offered unsuitable interim accommodation;
3. did not issue a personalised housing plan and did not review it;
4. did not decide whether it owed him a relief duty and did not tell him its decision;
5. did not assess his housing need;
6. has not put him on the housing register; and,
7. wrongly closed his homeless application.
2. Mr X said he and his child have disabilities. He said his child’s school was far away and it took a lot of time and effort to take his child to and from school. He said it caused stress which impacted on his family relationships.

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)
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons.
8. In this case, Mr X applied to the Council for help with housing in August 2023. He complained to us in February 2025.
9. English is not Mr X’s first language. Mr X needs an interpreter, and it would be understandable if he had difficulties understanding the process, his rights, and what he could do to challenge the Council’s decisions and actions.
10. I therefore consider there are good reasons for us to exercise our discretion and look back to August 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
12. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Homeless applications

13. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)

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)

Interim accommodation

15. 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)
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)
17. 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)

18. 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.

Personalised housing plans

19. Councils must review personalised housing plans with each change of an applicant’s circumstances, and each change of council duty.

What happened

20. In August 2023, Mr X submitted a homeless application. In May 2024, the Council assessed Mr X. A few days later, Mr X and his family were evicted. On that day, the Council accepted a relief duty to Mr X and offered interim accommodation at a hotel. Mr X refused this offer. The Council therefore decided to end its duty to provide interim accommodation.
21. The Council’s social services department housed Mr X and his family.
22. In November, the Council told Mr X it decided he was not homeless because he had accommodation. Mr X complained.
23. A few days later, the Council withdrew its decision. The Council did a fresh assessment and accepted the main housing duty to Mr X.
24. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said it had now given Mr X a copy of the relief notification. It said it was referring Mr X to the main housing register.
25. The Council recognised the interim accommodation offer was outside the borough and was “not ideal”. The Council said nothing else was available. It said it did a suitability assessment at the time and considered Mr X’s household’s circumstances.
26. The Council accepted its November decision was wrong. The Council said its decision to accept the main housing duty was significantly after the 56 days of relief duty. It said it could not see any reason for this delay. It accepted there was a delay processing Mr X’s housing register application. It also accepted it issued a personalised housing plan but did not review it “in any significant way”.
27. The Council said the waiting time for social housing is years so it doubted that the outcome of the decision-making process would have been any different. But it recognised the delays did have an impact. The Council offered Mr X £300. Mr X did not accept this offer.
28. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Delays with Mr X’s application

29. Mr X complained the Council delayed making decisions on his homeless application (part a of the complaint).
30. Mr X applied to the Council for homelessness help in August 2023. The Council accepted a relief duty in May 2024, and made a decision on Mr X’s application in December 2024.
31. There is no evidence the Council took any actions on Mr X’s application between August 2023 and May 2024. This is fault.
32. The Council accepted the relief duty in May 2024. It should have made a decision whether it owed Mr X the main housing duty 56 days after this. This would have been July. The Council did not make this decision until December.
33. The Council accepted it was at fault for delays processing Mr X’s application. I agree that the Council is at fault.
34. I find this fault caused uncertainty and frustration, which are injustice.
35. The delay accepting the main housing duty impacted on Mr X’s eligibility to join housing register. But for the delay, Mr X would have been accepted onto the housing register, and been able to place bids, earlier. However, this injustice is limited because of the housing crisis: it is very unlikely Mr X could have successfully bid for a property even if he had been accepted onto the register earlier.

Interim accommodation

36. Mr X complained the Council offered unsuitable interim accommodation (part b of the complaint).
37. Mr X said he refused the offer of interim accommodation in the hotel for several reasons, including: it was outside the borough; he had safety concerns; and, the distance from his children’s schools.
38. Regarding the safety aspect, Mr X said he did not want to stay at the hotel because he feared his autistic child would jump out of the window. He explained that he worried about this because his child often wakes in the night and will sometimes jump from windows.
39. I do not consider this a reason that the Council would consider this accommodation unsuitable.
40. However, Mr X said the hotel was over 90 minutes from his children’s schools each way.
41. In its complaint response, the Council said it had done a suitability review and found the offer of that accommodation was suitable. I have not seen any evidence of this suitability review.
42. In deciding whether an offer of interim accommodation is suitable for an applicant, councils must consider location. The evidence the Council shared does not explain how the Council made its decision that this accommodation was suitable for Mr X and his family, given the distance from his children’s schools. Either the Council did not consider it or there is no record of its consideration. Either way, I find the Council at fault.
43. However, I cannot say that Mr X would have accepted a similar offer within the borough given his significant safety concerns. And because of the national housing shortage, I cannot say that Mr X missed out on an offer of more suitable interim accommodation. Further, I note that Mr X found short-term accommodation with friends and was then housed by social services. For these reasons, I do not consider this fault caused Mr X significant injustice.

Personalised housing plan

44. Mr X complained the Council did not issue a personalised housing plan and did not review it (part c of the complaint).
45. I am satisfied the Council produced a personalised housing plan in May 2024.
46. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it did not keep Mr X’s personalised housing plan under review “in any significant way”. This is fault.
47. I find this fault caused uncertainty and distress, which are injustice.

Relief duty

48. Mr X complained the Council did not decide whether it owed him a relief duty and did not tell him its decision (part d of the complaint).
49. The Council’s complaint response indicated that it issued a letter to Mr X accepting a relief duty in May 2024. The evidence provided by the Council shows the letter was created. However, the Council has not provided a copy of, or any evidence of, this letter.
50. I am not persuaded that the Council sent this letter to Mr X in May 2024 when it should have. This is fault. This caused Mr X uncertainty, which is injustice.

Assessing housing need

51. Mr X complained the Council did not assess his housing need (part e of the complaint).
52. I do not agree. I am satisfied the Council assessed Mr X’s housing need in May and December 2024. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.

Housing register

53. Mr X complained the Council has not put him on the housing register (part f of the complaint).
54. The Council has now put Mr X on the housing register. However, it accepted it delayed doing this. I have addressed this in paragraph 35.

Closing Mr X’s homeless application

55. Mr X complained the Council wrongly closed his homeless application (part g of the complaint).
56. The Council closed Mr X’s housing application because it believed he had suitable accommodation. However, this accommodation was provided by social services and was not a tenancy.
57. The Council accepted its decision was wrong and withdrew it. The Council then accepted the main housing duty to Mr X.
58. The Council was at fault for this wrong decision. I find this fault caused Mr X uncertainty and distress, which are injustice.

Back to top

Action

59. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X in writing for the uncertainty, frustration and distress caused by:
• delays processing Mr X’s application (part a of the complaint);
• failing to review Mr X’s personalised housing plan (part c);
• failing to send a letter accepting the relief duty (part d); and,
• wrongly closing Mr X’s homeless application (part g).
60. The Council should send this apology letter in Mr X’s first language.
61. 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 this apology.
62. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £550 to Mr X. This is made up as follows:
• £350 for the injustice caused in part a of this complaint: this was a significant period of uncertainty. For this reason, I consider a payment at the higher end of our usual maximum of £500 for uncertainty and distress is appropriate and proportionate; and,
• £200 for the injustice caused in part g: this was significant avoidable distress, but the Council recognised its mistake promptly and acted to rectify it. For this reason, I consider a mid-range payment of £200 is appropriate and proportionate.
• £350 plus £200 is £550.
63. In reaching these amounts, I have taken into consideration our guidance on remedies.
64. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

65. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman