Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s lack of support when Ms X became homeless, which meant she stayed longer than she should in accommodation she could not afford and was evicted by her landlord. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice caused by its delay in arranging alternative accommodation and it has agreed apologise and to make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s lack of support when she became homeless, which meant she had to stay longer than she should have in privately rented accommodation where she could not afford the rent, and was evicted with her young family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Ms X lived in a private rented sector (PRS) property with her partner and three children. In June 2023, she asked the Council for help when she received a notice to leave the property. She told the Council the landlord had increased the rent, and she could no longer afford to live there. The Council accepted a prevention duty. It contacted the landlord, who explained they had increased the rent because their mortgage costs had increased. There is no record to show the Council considered if the rent increase made the property unaffordable and whether that might mean they were legally homeless because it was not reasonable for them to continue to occupy the property on that basis.
9. In early August, Ms X told the Council she had received a possession order, and it accepted a relief duty. This means it accepted they were homeless, and eligible for assistance. There is no record it considered whether it had a duty to arrange interim accommodation, although Ms X was in priority need because she had dependent children.
10. In October 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty. At that point it had a duty to provide temporary accommodation (TA), but there is no record it took any steps to arrange this until the day the family were evicted in February 2024. At that point, the Council arranged bed and breakfast accommodation and, following an incident the following day, arranged self-contained accommodation in a two-bedroom flat. This means they were short of one bedroom.
11. Ms X complained the flat was unsuitable in April 2024 and her partner raised concerns in June 2024. The Council did not carry out a formal review, but did explain it was difficult to find affordable accommodation due to the national housing shortage.
12. The Council offered a PRS house outside its area in February 2025. It explained why it considered this was suitable for the family and that they could accept it, whilst also asking for a review of its suitability. Ms X refused the offer, following which the Council ended its main duty. Ms X asked for a review of the Council’s decision to end the main duty because she had unreasonably refused a suitable offer, but the decision was upheld on review.
13. Ms X also complained the Council failed to respond to telephone calls and emails and had not provided appropriate advice and support. In its complaint response, the Council accepted a period of delay in late 2023, for which it apologised. It offered to pay Ms X £200 to remedy the injustice caused.

My assessment

14. If we were to investigate further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for not recording how it considered whether Ms X was legally homeless in June 2023, for not offering to arranging interim or temporary accommodation from August 2023 to February 2024, and for delays in progressing the application in late 2023/early 2024. The delay in arranging accommodation for the family meant they were left in a PRS property where they could not afford the rent for longer than they should have been and experienced eviction with their young family.
15. We therefore asked the Council to take the following action to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to do so within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• Pay Ms X £1,200 for the delay in arranging accommodation (based on £200 per month between August 2023 and February 2024, in line with our guidance on remedies) and £200 for the delay in late 2023, which makes £1,400 in total.
16. There is no record the Council told Ms X she could ask for a statutory review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation, and it would have been good practice to carry out a review when she raised concerns about it in April 2024. However, based on the records seen, it is unlikely the temporary accommodation would have been found to be unsuitable if a formal review had been carried out, so this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice and we will not investigate this aspect further.
17. Ms X also complained about inconsistent advice from the Council. Having reviewed the case notes for the application, the Council consistently advised Ms X that:
• it would take too long to secure social housing through its housing register so that was not a realistic option (although it advised them to bid for flats as fewer people bid on them giving Ms X more of a chance);
• they needed to look at PRS; and
• they needed to be flexible about the type and location of the property they were willing to accept.

This was appropriate advice for the Council to give them and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating further.

18. For completeness, the Council has recently agreed to carry out action to improve its homelessness service, including arranging additional staff training, following our investigation of another complaint, so no further action is needed at this time.
19. The Council ended the main homelessness duty after Ms X refused what it considered to be a suitable offer. Ms X asked for a review of that decision, which confirmed the Council’s position. Its review decision explained Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law if she disagreed with its decision and it was reasonable for her to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in arranging alternative accommodation when she was legally homeless. The Council has agreed to apologise and make an appropriate payment to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman