Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not contact the complainant to discuss whether she would find bed and breakfast accommodation suitable as interim accommodation, told her she needed to submit documents before it could book interim accommodation for her, and did not respond helpfully when she informed the Council she could not access her housing register account. The Council has agreed to offer the complainant a financial remedy and apologise to her for this, and also to issue guidance to its staff.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss C.
2. Miss C complains the Council did not respond or offer assistance when she:

• advised it she could not continue to live in her current accommodation, because of her physical condition and domestic abuse; and
• advised it she could not access her online housing register account.

3. Miss C says she and her young daughter were left in unsuitable living conditions as a result of this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, Miss C raised several issues which did not form part of her complaint to the Council, and sought outcomes which were also not relevant to her complaint, including giving her priority on the Council’s housing register. I have not considered these points here.
6. My investigation has instead only covered events from the period Miss C referred to in her complaint, which was November 2024, up until the Council’s final response in January 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

9. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
10. 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)
11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. Wherever possible, Councils should avoid using bed and breakfast accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.33) Bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation can only be used for households which include a pregnant woman or dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks. 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. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)

Miss C’s complaint

13. In November 2024, Miss C submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. She said she had written to the Council on 10 November, to explain her current accommodation was unsuitable because of her medical issues, and because of traumatic experiences she had endured there. As a result, she had been staying with family. Miss C said she had not received any support from the Council.
14. Miss C also complained she had been locked out of her online housing register account, but had been able to resolve this with the Council’s support team. She said this meant she was unable to progress her housing application.
15. The Council says Miss C approached its homelessness service on 20 November, and on 26 November it completed an assessment for her, advising her she needed to upload supporting documents to its online homelessness account.
16. On 2 December the Council contacted Miss C to confirm it had referred her supporting documents to its medical advisor, and was awaiting a response. Miss C replied to say she was required to leave her friend’s property, where she had been staying, later that day, and would then have nowhere to go.
17. The Council responded to advise Miss C she would need to return to her own property, because it could not arrange “temporary accommodation” until it was satisfied her property was unsuitable on medical grounds.
18. On 3 December and 4 December the Council emailed Miss C to explain what documents she needed to provide to allow it to consider her homelessness application, including ID and copies of her tenancy agreement and bank statements.
19. On 10 December the Council’s medical advisor confirmed Miss C needed either a ground floor property, or to be housed in a building with a lift.
20. On 17 December the Council wrote to Miss C to confirm it had accepted a relief duty for her, and that she was in priority need. On the same day, it made a final offer of accommodation to Miss C, but quickly withdrew this when it identified it had not accounted for her accessibility needs.
21. Later that day, during an internal email exchange, a senior council officer said the only other accommodation it had available at the time was in shared B&B accommodation, and that it was better for Miss C to remain where she was for the time being.
22. The Council responded to Miss C’s stage 1 complaint on 23 December. It explained the housing register was not a way to secure immediate rehousing, and advised Miss C to approach its homelessness service if she felt unable to remain at the current property. The Council acknowledged there had been some delays in responding to Miss C’s correspondence, but considered it had provided her with adequate information.
23. The Council also said it had checked her housing register account and established it was still live. It explained Miss C would need to complete a medical assessment if she wished to be considered for a higher priority banding.
24. On 2 January 2025 Miss C submitted a stage 2 complaint. She said she continued to receive no response to her attempts to contact her housing officer. Miss C also explained she had now suffered an injury as a result having to move her belongings between friends’ and family’s homes.
25. On 10 January Miss C contacted the Council for an update on its efforts to identify a new property for her. The Council responded on 22 January to say it was struggling to find anything which met her accessibility needs. Miss C responded to agree an extension to 27 January, but asked the Council to confirm she would be placed within the borough. The Council replied to say it could not guarantee any location because of the short supply of accommodation.
26. On 23 January, the Council emailed Miss C to say it was still waiting for her to upload to her account documents it required to secure interim accommodation for her, including ID, a copy of her current tenancy agreement, and a copy of her prescriptions. The following day, the Council contacted Miss C again to say it had still not been able to identify a suitable property.
27. On 29 January the Council responded to Miss C’s stage 2 complaint. It reiterated Miss C had not provided documents it required to progress her homelessness application, and that it would “at some point… be required to make a decision based on the limited information” on file. The Council noted officers had contacted Miss C on various occasions since she had contacted its service on 20 November.
28. The Council also said that, in its stage 1 response, it had informed Miss C her housing register account was “live [and] not ‘locked’” as she had said. It said Miss C could contact the Council for assistance if she was having difficulty accessing her account.
29. Miss C referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 February.

Back to top

Analysis

30. I will address each point of Miss C’s complaint in turn.

Homelessness

31. I will first note that, in the information available to me, the date of Miss C’s stage 1 complaint to the Council is recorded both as 18 November and 28 November 2024. I cannot say which is accurate, and so I am unable to say precisely where Miss C’s complaint fits into the chronology of events.
32. Second, in her complaint, Miss C said she contacted the Council on 10 November to say she was unable to remain in her property. However, I have seen no record of this, and the Council says Miss C’s first contact at that time was on 20 November, when she approached its homelessness service. Without supporting evidence I cannot say Miss C made any earlier approach.
33. Either way, the Council arranged an interview for Miss C on 26 November and took a homelessness application from her then. Whatever the date of her first contact, there was no significant delay in this.
34. There was then some delay in the Council making a decision on Miss C’s application, while it was waiting for advice about her medical condition, but again, I am not persuaded this is significant enough to amount to fault. On 17 December, the Council wrote to Miss C to confirm it had accepted a relief duty for her, and that it considered she was in priority need.
35. It was at this point the Council’s actions became confused.
36. In accepting the relief duty for Miss C, the Council had accepted she was legally homeless. This meant, broadly speaking, she either had nowhere to live at all, or nowhere she could reasonably be expected to stay.
37. And finding Miss C to be in priority need meant the Council was lawfully required to provide her with interim accommodation while the relief duty remained live (I will observe here that, at several points, the Council incorrectly referred to this as ‘temporary accommodation’, a term which instead refers to accommodation provided under the main housing duty).
38. The Council did, in fact, immediately offer Miss C another property; unfortunately in doing so it had neglected to account for her accessibility needs, and had to withdraw it again. However, I am concerned the Council then decided Miss C was better off remaining in her current property for the time being, as the only available alternative was shared ‘B&B’ accommodation.
39. As I have said, by finding Miss C homeless, the Council had accepted she could not remain in her current property. I acknowledge Miss C may well have agreed her current property was preferable to shared B&B accommodation, but the Council should have at least put this option to her, rather than simply making an assumption about it. There is no evidence to suggest it discussed it with her though.
40. I should note the law says homeless households with children may only be placed in B&B accommodation for a maximum of six weeks. As Miss C has a child, this limit would apply to her. But, in the short term, B&B accommodation would have been legally suitable for Miss C.
41. My second significant concern here is that the Council later told Miss C it could not arrange interim accommodation for her until she had provided certain documents – including her current tenancy agreement, and copies of her repeat prescriptions.
42. I cannot see what relevance either of these documents, but especially Miss C’s prescriptions, had to the matter at hand. While Miss C’s medical condition was the reason she had made the homelessness application in the first place, the Council had already accepted she was homeless when it accepted the relief duty for her; it had also already received medical advice about her accessibility needs. There was no further need for the Council to explore this, at least not as part of its duty to provide interim accommodation.
43. What makes this more confusing is that the Council had already offered Miss C interim accommodation – albeit abortively – on 17 December, without asking her to provide these documents first.
44. More critically, even if I accepted it was necessary for Miss C to provide these documents, the purpose of interim accommodation is to provide immediate housing to someone the Council has reason to believe is homeless. Councils should not delay discharging this duty simply to perform administrative tasks which can be completed later.
45. The Council was therefore at fault for these reasons. It should have discussed whether Miss C would have found shared B&B accommodation suitable in the short term. It also should not have told Miss C it could not provide interim accommodation until she had provided a copy of her current tenancy agreement and repeat prescriptions, especially as it is unclear why the Council even needed these documents anyway.
46. I have already acknowledged Miss C may have agreed her current property was preferable to shared B&B accommodation. But, if the Council had offered this to Miss C and she had turned it down, the Council could then have lawfully discharged its duty to her. This being so, it is not straightforward to identify what injustice Miss C has suffered because of the Council’s fault here – it might be that it left her in a better position than she would otherwise have been.
47. And, given the Council had not yet actually identified any other suitable interim accommodation, I also cannot say its insistence Miss C provided documents first made any difference to her situation.
48. But, taking these points together, I consider the Council’s fault has created an element of uncertainty, which is an injustice in its own right. I will consider what the Council should do to remedy this at the end of my decision statement.
49. I find fault causing injustice in this element of Miss C’s complaint.

Housing register account

50. In her stage 1 complaint, Miss C said she had been locked out of her account, and remained so despite various attempts to contact the Council’s helpline. And, at the beginning of my investigation, Miss C told me her access to the account had only been restored in August 2025.
51. I asked the Council to explain what steps it had taken to restore Miss C’s access to her account. In response, it explained Miss C had submitted a change of circumstances form in May 2025, leading to a series of events which meant her access to the account had been restricted until July. The Council said this was because Miss C had failed to submit other supporting documents it needed, despite it requesting this.
52. The Council also provided what it said was a document supporting its position. However, this document is from 2023 and so appears to be irrelevant.
53. Either way, the Council’s comment appears to explain why Miss C may not have been able to access her account until recently; but this falls outside the period I am investigating and so, again, is not relevant to the matter at hand.
54. Whatever the facts, I am satisfied the Council’s response to this point of Miss C’s complaint was not helpful. At no point did Miss C suggest her account had been shut down – she merely said she was locked out of it. Establishing the account was still live, therefore, did not address this question. Nor was it useful or appropriate to advise her to contact the helpline, when Miss C had explained she had done this already without success.
55. I therefore also find fault on this point. Again, it is difficult to say what difference this made to Miss C’s circumstances, but I consider it created further uncertainty. I will again consider what the Council should do to address this at the end of my decision statement.
56. I find fault causing injustice in this element of Miss C’s complaint.

Conclusions and remedy

57. Our published guidance on remedies says:

“Our recommendation for a remedy [for distress, which can include uncertainty] needs to reflect all the circumstances including:

• the severity of the distress;
• the length of time involved;
• the number of people affected (for example, members of the complainant’s family as well as the complainant);
• whether the complainant or other persons affected are vulnerable and affected by distress more severely than most people; and
• any relevant professional opinion about the effects on any individual.

Where we decide it is appropriate, we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.”

58. In this case, I have found two areas of fault which have created an uncertainty to Miss C, and I am conscious this uncertainty affected both Miss C herself and her child. However, I am also conscious my investigation only covers a relatively brief period of November to January, and while there may be subsequent events which Miss C is also dissatisfied by, I cannot take these into account. Taking all these points together, I consider a remedy of £350 to be appropriate here.
59. I also consider the Council should write a formal letter of apology to Miss C to reflect the faults and injustice I have identified here.
60. Separately, I also consider the Council should issue guidance to relevant staff, to remind them they should not delay the arrangement of interim accommodation to await the submission of documents which can be collected later. The Council should circulate a copy of my decision statement as part of this guidance.

Back to top

Action

61. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• offer to pay Miss C £350 to recognise the uncertainty caused its faults in this case;
• write a formal letter of apology to Miss C for the same reason. 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; and
• issue guidance to relevant staff, to remind them they should not delay the arrangement of interim accommodation to await the submission of documents which can be collected later. The Council should circulate a copy of my decision statement as part of this guidance.

62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

63. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman