Summary: Mr X complained the Council housed him and his family in unsuitable accommodation and had poor standards of communication and complaint responses. He said this caused significant uncertainty, frustration and distress. We find the Council at fault for housing his family in unsuitable accommodation and some of its communication which caused injustice. We do not find fault with its complaint responses. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness application. In particular he complains the Council:
1. Housed him and his family in an unsuitable hostel from 2023.
2. Had poor standards of communication, did not provide timely and accurate information and ignored his requests for contact.
3. Provided inadequate complaint responses when it failed to address specific areas of concern, and did not provide a clear timeline for resolution.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused significant uncertainty and frustration, and distress as a result of living in a hostel with his wife and child.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated from February 2024 until February 2025 when Mr X complained to us.
9. Matters that occurred before February 2024 are late because Mr X knew about them more than 12 months before he complained to us. Mr X explained he did not complain sooner because he had no experience of councils’ homelessness duties and he was worried about upsetting the Council caseworker. I have decided these are not good reasons why Mr X did not complain to us sooner. For this reason, I do not have grounds to exercise discretion to investigate the Council’s actions before February 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr 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

What I found

Law and guidance

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)

The prevention duty

14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

15. If the person becomes homeless, the Council must help to secure suitable accommodation if it is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance. (Housing Act 1996, section189B)
16. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)

The main housing duty

17. When the relief period ends the authority must decide whether it owes the person the main housing duty. It will owe the main housing duty to applicants who are eligible, have a priority need for accommodation and who are not homeless intentionally. Applicants in priority need may include people who have dependent children. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
18. If the authority accepts the main duty, it must then secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation and use of hostels

19. 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 accommodation and temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
21. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
22. Hostel accommodation is accommodation that may be owned and managed by local authorities. It typically involves some sharing of facilities, such as kitchens and bathing facilities. Hostels can offer short-term accommodation to people who are experiencing homelessness if suitable for the applicants placed there. Hostel accommodation that involves families or pregnant women sharing facilities with other households will not be suitable for longer-term placements. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 16.33 to 16.36)

What happened

23. Mr X lives with his wife and their child who has medical and special educational needs. In 2023 they became homeless. The Council accepted the prevention duty, then the relief duty. It provided interim accommodation in a council managed hostel.
24. In February 2024 the Council accepted the main housing duty. It notified Mr X by letter. His family remained in the hostel and it became temporary accommodation. The Council’s letter explained his right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation.
25. At the end of July Mr X emailed two people at the Council. He updated them of a change of circumstances which he said affected his family’s housing needs. He said his family were finding it hard to manage things in the hostel.
26. At the beginning of August Mr X complained to the Council at stage one. His complaint covered two main areas: the hostile environment in the hostel, and poor communication from the Council when his family became homeless in 2023. He asked the Council to reassess his housing situation and provide suitable accommodation.
27. The Council contacted Mr X twice in August. Firstly, it replied to his update about the change of circumstances. It took no action apart from providing different contact details.
28. The second contact in August was a response to his complaint. It summarised its records of communication with Mr X. It found a communication delay in 2023. It also agreed the hostel was not a suitable long-term option and apologised. It said it would complete a suitability assessment. It said it had no record of Mr X asking for a review of the suitability of the accommodation before his complaint.
29. Also in August the Council officers spoke to Mr X and completed a move-on plan that provided information about steps to find alternative accommodation. It also referred him to an organisation that helps find accommodation.
30. The Council completed an assessment of Mr X’s accommodation at the end of August. The case notes do not record the outcome.
31. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint. He escalated it to stage two at the beginning of September.
32. Mr X also raised another stage one complaint in the middle of September. He complained the Council had not responded to his emails at the end of July. The Council responded a few days later. It upheld his complaint and apologised.
33. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint at the beginning of October. It covered the same areas as its response in August and added more information. It said it was experiencing a severe shortage of available housing that led to delays and apologised.
34. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s stage two response. One of his concerns was that the Council could not provide a clear timeline for providing different accommodation. He and a person representing his concerns sent further emails in October and November detailing his dissatisfaction with the Council’s response.
35. Later in November the Council offered Mr X a flat. However, Mr X raised concerns about its suitability. The Council agreed it was not suitable and retracted the offer.
36. Mr X complained to us in February 2025. I have not investigated matters after that date, but Mr X said the Council provided suitable temporary accommodation in May 2025.

Back to top

Analysis

37. I will address each part of Mr X’s complaint below:

a)The Council housed him and his family in an unsuitable hostel.

38. I have only considered the Councils actions from February 2024 for the reasons explained in paragraph 9.
39. The Council’s main housing duty letter in February told Mr X it considered his current accommodation was suitable. It also told Mr X he had the right to request a statutory review.
40. Mr X did not request a statutory review of the suitability of the hostel. I have seen no evidence of a good reason why he could not have done so. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault for the period between February and August.
41. Councils should respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability. An applicant may ask a council to reconsider the suitability of their current temporary accommodation if their circumstances change. The council should then make a new suitability decision.
42. At the end of July, Mr X notified the Council of a change in his circumstances and noted he hoped for more suitable accommodation. He requested it reconsider the suitability of the accommodation in his stage one complaint at the beginning of August.
43. The Council’s records show it responded to this when it completed an assessment of the suitability of the accommodation at the end of August. However, the record of the assessment just says “TA assessment complete.” It did not record what it had taken into account or a decision.
44. The Code of Guidance says the Council’s records should have demonstrated it took statutory requirements into account. We can find fault if a council fails to make a new decision about suitability when told about a relevant change in circumstances. For these reasons I find the Council at fault for not properly recording its assessment or decision.
45. I do not find this fault had a direct impact on Mr X because the Council maintained its efforts to secure alternative accommodation. Therefore it did not cause injustice.
46. The Council did not clearly record whether it decided the hostel was unsuitable. In this case I have decided it is appropriate to make a balance of probabilities decision about what its decision would have been. I have considered relevant evidence including the Code of Guidance regarding hostels and how it applied to Mr X’s family’s circumstances. I have also considered the Council’s stage two responses that acknowledged hostels are not suitable for long term placements and apologised that Mr X had been in a hostel for more than a year. It also made efforts to secure suitable alternative accommodation. I find, on balance, the Council would have decided the hostel was unsuitable when it assessed it at the end of August.
47. If a council agrees accommodation is unsuitable, it owes an immediate and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation. The applicant does not need to request a statutory review. We can make findings about complaints from people who remain in temporary accommodation after the council accepts it is unsuitable.
48. In this case, I find the Council had an immediate duty to provide suitable accommodation from the end of August and failed to do so. This was fault.
49. The Council said it is experiencing a severe shortage of available housing. It said that led to a delay in being able to offer Mr X alternative accommodation sooner. I accept that was the reason for the fault. I therefore find the fault was service failure, not maladministration, as described in paragraph 4.
50. The fault caused injustice to Mr X and his family in the form of significant distress, inconvenience and frustration. The injustice continued for about eight and a half months until the middle of May 2025 when the Council secured them alternative accommodation. The injustice was aggravated by the small size of the accommodation, shared facilities, the age and vulnerabilities of Mr X’s child and the change in circumstances.
51. I have considered our guidance on remedies. I recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment of £275 per month for eight and a half months to remedy the injustice. This is a total of £2,337.50.

b)The Council had poor standards of communication

52. Most of this part of Mr X’s complaint is about matters in 2023. I have not investigated these matters for the reasons laid out in paragraph 9.
53. I have considered the evidence of contact between Mr X and the Council from February 2024.
54. I note the Council provided Mr X detailed information in its letter in February when it accepted the main housing duty. I have seen no evidence that Mr X requested contact until the emails in July when he updated it of a change of circumstances.
55. The Council sent a letter to Mr X in September in which it accepted fault for not responding to those emails and apologised. I agree the Council was at fault which caused injustice in the form of uncertainty. I have decided the Council has already remedied this injustice with its apology.
56. I have decided the evidence I have seen shows the Council maintained a suitable level of communication at other times. For this reason I do not find further fault.

c)The Council provided inadequate complaint responses.

57. The Council responded to Mr X’s first and second stage one complaints within its complaint policy target of 10 working days. It responded to his stage two complaint in 22 working days. This was outside its target of 20 working days. I note the Council apologised for missing its target in its response.
58. I have considered the content of the Council’s responses. I find the responses addressed the areas of Mr X’s complaints in a suitable level of detail. I appreciate Mr X’s frustration that the Council did not provide a clear timeline for providing him alternative accommodation. However, the Council explained it was unable to do so because of the lack of accommodation available, and apologised.
59. For these reasons I do not find the Council at fault for its complaint responses.
60. I have decided not to recommend the Council make service improvements. This is because we have done so following a recent similar decision we issued.

Back to top

Action

61. Within four weeks of the date of the final decision the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the unsuitable accommodation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £2,337.50 to remedy the injustice caused by the unsuitable accommodation.
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

63. I find fault with the Council’s failure to secure suitable temporary accommodation and its communication causing injustice. I uphold those parts of Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman