Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly discharged her family into an unsuitable accommodation and caused delays to put in place its proposed solution. We found the Council at fault for not acting appropriately to ensure Miss X and her family were suitably housed. The faults identified caused Miss X and Y, distress and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s actions allocating her a property under its homelessness duty, she said:
• it allocated her a property that was in disrepair, and it did not consider her disabilities and needs when doing so;
• it inaccurately advertised the property as having three 3 bedrooms making her adult child, Y, homeless due to the lack of a bedroom;
• it has offered Y their own one-bedroom property as way of remedy, but they have not been able to move into this property; and
• it has acknowledged fault but has offered inadequate compensation for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.
2. Miss X said, as a result, she and her family experienced distress and uncertainty.

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(i), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as housing associations (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated matters from March 2024 to February 2025. This covers the period from when the Council ended its main housing duty to Miss X to her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025.
7. I have not exercised discretion to investigate any matters before March 2024. Any matters before March 2024 are late and I have seen no good reason to investigate them now because it was reasonable for her to have complained to us earlier.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Law, guidance and policy

Homelessness

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 sets out councils’ duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant is eligible, homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it owes a main housing duty to secure suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. A council may discharge this duty by making an offer of suitable accommodation. Accommodation must be suitable for the applicant and the household as a whole. Suitability includes consideration of the location, size, condition, and affordability of the accommodation, as well as any health or education needs. (Housing Act 1996, section 206; Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraphs 17.2–17.9)
13. Applicants can request a suitability review of accommodation offered to discharge a duty. This is known as a section 202 review. The Council must consider whether the accommodation was suitable at the date of the original offer. (Housing Act 1996, section 202; Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.11)
14. If a suitability review determines the accommodation was not suitable, the main housing duty under section 193 continues. The Council must take reasonable steps to secure suitable accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.16)

The Council’s housing allocation scheme

15. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties advertised on Home Connections. Its allocations scheme states:
• adverts will include a properties Accessible Housing Register Category (AHR);
• it will consider long-term health, independence and wellbeing when recommending the type of home and do this by looking at present and future needs;
• It will offer homes that have the right number of bedrooms, are suitable for any assessed health needs, and are affordable;
• landlords decide when a home is ready for someone to move into. The landlord may tell the Council the date, or they may let households know directly;
• if landlords say a home will not be ready for more than six weeks, the Council may cancel the letting and wait for a new date; and
• if a resident is not happy with a decision they should seek advice first. This can be used to resolve issues such as misunderstandings or missed change of circumstances. Residents can seek a review or make a complaint if they remain dissatisfied.

The Councils Complaints and Compensation Procedure

16. The Council advises that stage one of its complaint’s procedure may take up to 20 days, with stage two taking up to 30 days.
17. Where the Council agrees it was at fault and a remedy is due to a complainant, a maximum of £500 can be offered. Complainants must accept a proposed remedy within three months.

What happened

18. The Council owed Miss X main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996.
19. Miss X bid on a three-bedroom property advertised on the Council’s Home Connections choice based letting system. Miss X says she withdrew her bid on the property. She said she had received extra points due to a change in policy and wanted to see how this would affect her bidding opportunities.
20. The Council offered Miss X the property. She said no suitability assessment or updated needs assessment was carried out before being offered the property.
21. Miss X visited the property with an allocations officer, she says:
• it appeared derelict with damp everywhere;
• it had multiple levels and stairs which had not been advertised. She said the Council knew from a needs assessment in previous temporary accommodation that she could only manage minimal stairs; and
• she told the allocations officer the property was not suitable but was told that she had to take it.
22. Miss X says she phoned the Council after the visit and raised concerns about its condition and suitability. She says she was told that this was the only property available to her and the Council would be discharging its duty to her.
23. In March 2024 the Council sent Miss X a letter discharging its Main Housing duty to her. The letter provided Miss X with her right to a review.
24. Miss X said she did not use her right of review. She says this was due to personal challenges she was facing at the time.
25. Miss X said she was unable to move into the property until April 2024 due to works that needed to be completed. She said this caused her to incur arrears in her existing temporary accommodation. She said she was told by a project manager for the landlord that the property should not have been offered until the works had been completed.
26. Miss X complained to the Council in July 2024 and escalated her concerns in August 2024, she said:
• the property was incorrectly advertised; the property had levels and stairs that were not suitable due to her health needs and was only two bedrooms rather than three as advertised. Consequently, her adult child, Y, did not have a bedroom in the property;
• the property was in disrepair, and she had been unable to move in for three weeks;
• no suitability and needs assessments had been undertaken before she was offered the property; and
• the Council were aware of her medical needs from assessments in 2018 and 2020.
27. In its complaint responses the Council said:
• incorrect information had been given regarding levels in the property; it relied on landlords to provide accurate information about properties;
• it did not complete continual reviews of suitability and applications, it was Miss X’s responsibility to tell the Council about changes in her circumstance;
• by accepting the property, the Council had ended it main housing duty towards Miss X and provided her right to review, no right of review had been used;
• complaints about any repairs should be made to the landlord;
• there were inaccuracies in its stage one response, notably that it had not addressed a key point of dispute, the property’s third bedroom size;
• after a visit by the Council, it found the third bedroom was below the minimum size as required by its policy. It should therefore not have discharged its duty to Miss X. It would make one more offer of a three-bedroom property or Y would be offered their own one-bed property, as suggested by Miss X;
• she should discuss any arrears with its income team; and
• due to the service failure she had experienced, the Council would offer the maximum £500 compensation in line with its complaints and compensation policy, with any outstanding debts deducted.
28. In November 2024 Miss X and Y accepted the Council’s offer of a one-bedroom property. Y was unable to move into the property due to works until July 2025.
29. Miss X chased the Council on multiple occasions asking for updates on the progress of Y’s property. The Council told Miss X it was waiting for responses from the landlord, and it was surprised at how long the process was taking.
30. Miss X remained unhappy with the Council’s actions and responses and asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter. She said Y had to sleep elsewhere due to the lack of a bedroom, and she had to pay bedroom tax as her property had not been reclassified as a two-bedroom property.

Analysis

Discharging the main housing duty to Miss X

31. The Council offered Miss X her property after she placed a successful bid via its housing allocation scheme. Miss X believes she withdrew her bid however it owed main housing duty and so had a duty to provide Miss X with suitable accommodation.
32. Miss X accepted the property, this ended the Council’s homelessness duty towards Miss X.
33. It is the Council’s policy to allow landlord’s up to 6 weeks before a tenancy begins. The delay was within the timescales of the policy. I also understand Miss X complained separately to the landlord. I have therefore not found the Council at fault for this delay.
34. There is a right of review and appeal to the county court on a point of law regarding the suitability of accommodation offered by the Council to end the main housing duty. The Council provided a copy of its discharge letter in March 2024. This document set out the right to request a review of the suitability of the offer within 21 days.
35. It is acknowledged Miss X was experiencing personal difficulties when the Council ended its main housing duty toward her, however I have not seen any reason why Miss X could not have asked for a review with the statutory 21 days. In doing so she could have highlighted her medical needs and concerns against the property’s suitability.

Re-instating the Council’s main housing duty

36. Miss X told the Council in her complaint she deemed the property lacked a third bedroom as advertised and it was unsuitable for her family due to their health needs.
37. The Council’s July 2024 response correctly advised that Miss X did not use her statutory right of review and signposted her concerns of disrepair to her landlord. However, this did not address her concerns regarding a lack of a bedroom for Y, contrary to its own allocation policy. This was fault.
38. It was only after Miss X escalated her complaint and the Council inspected her property in October 2024, the Council properly considered the lack of a third bedroom. It subsequently accepted it had not fully discharged its main housing duty to her in line with the Housing Act 1985.
39. However, there is no reason why Miss X needed to escalate her complaint regarding her property’s suitability. The Council itself acknowledged, within its stage two response, Miss X’s concerns regarding third bedroom size had not been addressed at stage one
40. Councils can suggest alternative solutions in cases of potential homelessness where these would be suitable and acceptable. This should not be done to avoid its legal duties, especially the duty to make enquiries into a person’s homelessness. Given the circumstances in this case, the Council’s proposal was reasonable to remedy the unsuitability of Miss X’s property and alleviate any risk of homelessness to Y by offering a one-bedroom property. This proposal was agreed by Miss X and Y, with a property offered in November 2024.
41. Applying the time frames the Council took in responding to Miss X’s stage two response to its stage one response, I consider that the assessment of suitability and proposed solution of a one-bedroom property would have been made to Miss X and Y at the end of August 2024, rather that October 2024. I am satisfied that this caused avoidable uncertainty, frustration, time and trouble for a month.
42. I am also conscious in making my decision that:
• the Council accepted the property was unsuitable for Miss X and her family in October 2024. This was not a decision she could challenge at court because the Council had agreed it was unsuitable;
• the offer of a one-bedroom property was made to Y in November 2024, this is a reasonable time frame given the alternative solution proposed and Miss X’s agreement to it;
• due to works by the landlord, Y could not take tenancy on the offered property until July 2025, meaning the family remained in unsuitable accommodation until that time; and
• I have not seen any evidence to show the Council robustly chased the landlord regarding Y’s offered property, reviewed its housing offer to Y after six weeks in line with its allocations policy or offered alternative accommodation to the family. This was fault.
43. I therefore found the Council’s failure to ensure Y was provided with a one-bedroom property as agreed in a timely manner was fault. I am satisfied this caused Miss X and Y avoidable injustice for seven months (October 2024 to July 2025, not including the six-week review period for landlord delays within the Council’s allocation policy).
44. We can recommend a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties experienced by a complainant. Our remedies are not intended to be punitive, and we do not award compensation in the way a court might.
45. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
46. It is recognised that the Council has offered Miss X £500 to acknowledge its service failure. Our guidance on remedies however takes the view that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we will usually recommend a payment between £150 to £350 a month. We consider each complaint on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the person making the complaint and their family. In the circumstances of this case, I consider £150 a month to be appropriate.
47. I have not made any service improvement recommendations on this case. This is because the Council exercised its discretion to solve Miss X’s housing complaint, Y has since been moved, and Miss X has said she wishes to remain in her property.

Back to top

Action

48. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Miss X and Y due to the faults identified, within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise in writing to Miss X to acknowledge the injustice caused by the faults identified We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisation should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Miss X and her family £1,200 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by delayed suitability review during the complaints process and lack of timely action to alleviate accepted unsuitable accommodation.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I have completed the investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice by delays in assessing and alleviating unsuitable housing.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman