Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in the way it dealt with Ms X’s homelessness and in reviewing the suitability of her accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the distress, frustration and delayed appeal rights this caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• failed to support her appropriately when she was evicted by her private landlord;
• delayed taking action to deal with disrepair in her private rented property;
• delayed dealing with her homelessness and reviewing her personalised housing plan; and
• offered her inappropriate interim accommodation, failing to take account of her health conditions.
2. Ms X says this caused her significant distress and frustration and has left her without adequate accommodation.

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. 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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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)
6. Most homelessness decisions carry a right of review, followed by a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. We cannot investigate late complaints without good reasons. Ms X complained to us in March 2025. I have considered what happened back to March 2024. If Ms X had concerns about earlier events, it was open to her to come to us at that time. There are no good reasons to investigate these issues now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and guidance

Homelessness

12. Where the council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it should make enquiries to enable it to decide if they are eligible for assistance and, if so, what duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
13. If a council is satisfied the applicant is homeless and eligible for assistance, it will owe a relief duty. This duty means a council must take reasonable steps to secure accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B) When a council decides this duty has come to an end it must notify the applicant in writing.
14. If a council has “reason to believe” a person may be homeless, eligible and in priority need, then it must provide interim accommodation for them, whilst it makes enquiries. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) A council may decide an applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability.
15. It is a matter of judgement for councils whether the applicant’s circumstances make them vulnerable and therefore whether they are in priority need. In assessing and deciding on this, councils must consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances and consider the impact of homelessness on the applicant when compared to a non-disabled person. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 8.16)
16. Where a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it may owe them a main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996. This is a duty to secure accommodation for them. Until the council is able to discharge this duty, it is required to provide temporary accommodation.
17. 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)
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.
19. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 protects anyone living in any property as a dwelling. The law makes it a criminal offence to act in a way intended to make a residential occupier leave their home without due process of law. This is often called “illegal eviction”. The law says a notice to end a licence must be in writing and give at least four weeks’ notice. This includes property guardians occupying a property with a licence.

Private housing repairs

20. Councils have powers under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System to take enforcement action against private landlords where the council has identified a hazard which puts the health and safety of the tenant at risk. Councils must take enforcement action against category one hazards. They have discretion to decide to take action against category two hazards.

Background

21. Ms X lived in a one bedroom property managed by company A. They are the landlord, not the owner of the property. The Council wrote to Ms X in September 2020 that it had arranged the accommodation with company A in discharge of its homelessness duties.
22. The property was provided as supported accommodation. Ms X signed a licence agreement for the property.

What happened

23. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to this complaint. It does not include all contact between Ms X and the Council.

Repair issues and eviction

24. Ms X contacted the Council in May 2024 about the landlord’s 10 day delay in replacing a broken fridge. Later in May she contacted the Council as a contractor had knocked then entered her property regarding a leak in the property below. Ms X was unhappy no-one had contacted her to advise her of the visit. She contacted the Council again later that month to say her landlord was harassing her and was delaying repairs as he had a grudge against her. The Council told Ms X it would pass her concerns to its private sector housing team (PSHT). It said it was important to raise her concerns with her landlord and to give them an opportunity to resolve them.
25. In June 2024 the PSHT told Ms X it would investigate her concerns.
26. In mid-June 2024 the owner of Ms X’s property went to court to claim possession of the property. The court dismissed the claim due to incorrect paperwork.
27. Later that month an Environmental Health Officer visited the property to address issues Ms X raised of damp and mould, excess heat as the boiler could not be turned off and issues with the cooker. The landlord told the Council it had access issues relating to the repairs. Ms X disagrees. Ms X told the PSHT a decorator turned up at 5pm which was too late in the day.
28. In November 2024 a Council officer, officer B, met with Ms X and her landlord from company A due to concerns her tenancy was at risk. Her landlord said the owner of the property wanted to sell it. They also referred to issues around where Ms X parked her car. The landlord said as it was a licensing arrangement the owner would serve notice on the landlord and if it goes through the landlord could make Ms X leave. Ms X raised concerns about repairs not being done and being evicted without good reason. The landlord said they would be looking to evict Ms X in three to four months. Officer B explained the landlord could ask for the property back. Officer B told Ms X that as soon as she received notice, she should complete a self help tool and present herself as homeless.
29. The landlord contacted Ms X in mid December to try and arrange repairs. Ms X said she wanted a third party present and would appreciate not being rushed. She said there had been constant delays and no shows in getting her repairs done. She said she had asked for 48 hours notice and yet someone had turned up previously on the same day without notice. She said she would not leave the property until a court asked her to.
30. The landlord contacted Ms X and the Council later in December. They said Ms X was using unsociable behaviour towards them and had requested they did not attend the property. They asked the Council to find another company to house Ms X at least by the time of the eviction notice of 21 January 2025. They said she was in breach of tenancy for threatening behaviour, unsociable behaviour and damage to the property.
31. Officer B told Ms X and the landlord that if Ms X had a notice to quit she needed to complete the self help tool on the Council’s website. This would result in an appointment with the homelessness intervention team. Officer B said they could refer her to a different supported housing but would need an up to date supported needs assessment (SNAP) form with a clear account of why she was facing eviction. If there was a disagreement this could contain both views.
32. In mid-January 2025 an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) says they visited the property and stayed in attendance whilst a new cooker was fitted. Records show that later that year the Council served improvement notices on the property related to fire doors and escape windows in the flat.
33. On 20 January 2025 the landlord advised Ms X that the eviction was set for the next day. Ms X responded that the landlord should get a court order.
34. Later that week the landlord evicted Ms X. The police also attended.

Homelessness

35. At the end of December 2024 Ms X submitted a homelessness application.
36. On 2 January 2025 the Council offered Ms X an appointment in mid-February 2025, on a date she had advised she was unavailable as she was having an operation. It later changed the date to early March.
37. Ms X was evicted from her accommodation in late January 2025. Ms X says she visited the Council offices on the day she was evicted but was not seen. The Council’s notes record she spoke with an officer the following day. They requested a copy of her medical information including a copy of her passport. Ms X provided a copy of her driving licence and a GP letter.
38. Ms X attended the Council again three days later as she was told to come back to the Council for a placement. She had been homeless for four days. The Council notes record there was reason to believe she may have been in priority need and it placed her in interim accommodation. The notes record the Council accepted the relief duty on that date as she was already homeless.
39. Ms X’s case was allocated to a case worker on 10 February. They carried out a homelessness interview with Ms X on the telephone in mid February. They noted the notice to quit said Ms X was in breach of her tenancy due to threatening behaviour, unsocial behaviour and damage to property. They noted Ms X stated the landlord was lying. Ms X had raised disrepair issues and that was when the landlord tried to get her out of the property. They asked Ms X to provide a proof of her identity and other documents. They emailed Ms X requesting a copy of her birth certificate, bank statements and proof of benefits.
40. On 15 April 2025 the Council sent Ms X her personalised housing plan and a relief duty letter that set out she was homeless and eligible for assistance. The PHP included information from the homelessness interview. Ms X was unhappy with its contents and requested a review of the plan.
41. Ms X raised issues about the suitability of the accommodation. The Council told Ms X on 7 April that the accommodation was interim accommodation so issues with its suitability were for the case work team.
42. In early May a solicitor acting for Ms X requested alternative interim accommodation due to its size, noise and the lack of proper kitchen facilities.
43. In mid May 2025 an officer reviewed Ms X’s PHP. This noted they had revised the PHP due to concerns Ms X raised regarding the suitability of her current accommodation and the information in the original plan. It noted Ms X strongly disputed the claims made in the previous plan that she was evicted due to threatening/anti-social behaviour and said the landlord provided false information. Ms X said the issues only began after she reported disrepair. It noted Ms X’s views would be considered in any ongoing assessment.
44. Ms X’s solicitor contacted the Council about the progress of her homelessness application. Ms X’s case worker told the solicitor they could not progress the case as Ms X had not sent the requested supporting documents. Ms X provided this in response.
45. Ms X contacted the Council in early June regarding the suitability of her accommodation. She said her GP had submitted evidence it was unsuitable and that medical treatment had been delayed due to her housing situation. The Council responded that it was interim accommodation and advised her to contact her case worker.
46. The Council wrote to Mr X accepting the main housing duty on 2 July 2025. At that point her accommodation became temporary accommodation. Later that month Ms X’s solicitor requested a statutory review of the suitability. They provided medical information and proof of Ms X’s ID in support of this.
47. In October 2025 the Council started a review of the suitability of the accommodation. In early December the Council’s medical advisor told the Council the property was not suitable.
48. In early December 2025 the Council wrote to Ms X. It decided the temporary accommodation was not suitable and it would move her as soon as possible to alternative suitable accommodation.

Complaints

49. In mid February 2025 Ms X complained to the Council (complaint 1) about the actions of company A in evicting her, which she said was unlawful. She said she was told in the November meeting with officer B that any eviction would need to go through the courts and was unlikely to happen until May/June 2025. The Council responded and explained that Ms X did not have an assured shorthold tenancy but a license agreement. Most of the issues she raised concerned company A’s behaviour, not the Council’s. It was open to her to seek legal advice on how to pursue any action against the provider. It said it had stopped using the provider.
50. In a further complaint (complaint 2), in mid-February 2025 Ms X raised issues of being injured during the actual eviction and reiterated her concerns about the Council’s lack of support during the eviction process. The Council responded in Mid-March. It said it had addressed most of the issues in its previous response and reiterated she had a license not a tenancy and so the landlord did not need a court order to evict her.
51. In mid-April 2025 Ms X complained (complaint 3) about a lack of communication from her case worker and said she no longer wanted to continue working with them. She also requested a review of the accommodation provided. She also asked that her previous complaints be considered at stage two of the complaints procedure.
52. The Council responded to complaint 1 at stage two in April 2025. It said Ms X had raised issues with company A and the Council arranged mediation between the two. It said it placed her in accommodation after the eviction and that accommodation was still available.
53. Its response included that:
• company A issued a 28 day notice to quit in line with its requirements. When that period expired it had a right to proceed with an eviction. Complaints about the landlord’s conduct during the eviction should be directed to the landlord;
• The Council said it had no authority to force a provider to continue to home someone if the resident as in breach of their rules; and
• It no longer used company A because the provider was not registered.
54. The Council wrote to Ms X in mid May 2025 in response to complaint 3. It apologised for the delay in forwarding her request for a review of the PHP to the housing review team. It said it would not assign a different case worker as there was no evidence of failure by her case worker. It said case workers may not be able to respond as frequently as she would prefer and asked that she did not send multiple emails with the same information. It reiterated the decision to evict her was made by the housing provider. It said when she was evicted it accepted it owed her the relief duty and provided accommodation. It said it had not yet received evidence of her identity and needed this to progress her homelessness application.
55. Ms X remained unhappy and asked that complaint 3 be considered at stage two of the complaints procedure.
56. The Council sent Ms X a stage two complaint response to complaint 2 in mid-June 2025. It reiterated any complaint about company A should be raised with the provider and that Ms X had a license agreement not a tenancy. Company A had given notice in Iine with the license and followed the correct eviction process. In relation to concerns she raised about the quality of the accommodation it said an EHO visited and contacted the landlord to address the issues. It said the work was completed in January 2025. It offered Ms X £50 for the delayed complaint response.
57. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint 3 at the second stage of its complaints procedure in January 2026. It provided a detailed response summarising all her main areas of concern. This included:
• it upheld there was a delay reviewing her PHP;
• it remained of the view there was no fault in the actions of the case worker who was now off long term;
• it said the delays in progressing the homelessness application were due to missing documentation. Ms X did not give consent to contact the GP at the time requested and the supporting documents requested in February were not provided. It had received Ms X’s driving licence but not her passport. It communicated this to Ms X’s solicitor who provided the required documentation; and
• regarding the eviction, it said the details it held on file reflect the documentation and explanations provided by the landlord. They were not the Council’s conclusions.
58. It said it had started a suitability review in October 2025 relating to her temporary accommodation. It apologised for the delay in progressing this. It said its medical adviser considered the accommodation was not suitable. It was now looking to rehouse her in suitable accommodation. It offered Ms X £200 for the uncertainty caused by the delays in progressing the suitability review and £100 for the delay in progressing her stage two complaint. Ms X says she did not receive this letter.

Findings

Repair issues and eviction

59. Ms X lived in private accommodation under a license agreement with company A. Any repair issues were ultimately a matter between her and the landlord. The Council sought to assist with progressing these through its private sector housing team. It inspected the property and later attended to ensure works were carried out. Later in 2025, after the date of Ms X’s eviction, the Council also served improvement notices on company A related to fire exits and fire doors.
60. I do not intend to investigate further the Council’s role in responding to Ms X’s repair issues. The records show the Council responded as we would have expected it to and it is unlikely we would find it at fault. There were differences of opinion between Ms X and her landlord on why repairs were not carried out sooner. The EHO attended to ensure Ms X’s cooker was replaced. Ms X no longer lives at the property. There is nothing I could achieve by investigating this further.
61. The records show the landlord told Ms X the owner wanted to sell the property. They later referred to unsociable behaviour and damage to property. Ms X believed the eviction was in retaliation to her raising repair issues. Whatever the reason for the eviction, the landlord gave Ms X 28 days notice in line with the requirements of a licensing agreement. The Council could not step in or take any action against the landlord regarding its decision to evict her. If Ms X believes the eviction was illegal or unlawful or has any issues with the way the actual eviction was conducted, this is a matter between her and company A, not the Council. It is open to her to get legal advice.

Homelessness

62. Officer B met with Ms X and the landlord in November 2024 to try and find a way forward. The owner had already sought to take possession proceedings which were thrown out by the court. However, at that meeting they did not give an eviction date or confirm Ms X was to be evicted. Officer B told Ms X what action to take if she was given an eviction date and Ms X approached the Council and completed a homelessness application in late December 2024. There was no fault in the advice given to Ms X at this stage.
63. In late December 2024, the landlord told the Council that Ms X’s eviction notice expired on 21 January 2025. In line with the advice given by officer B, Ms X submitted a homelessness application in late December 2024. The Council was already aware that Ms X was to be evicted but did not offer an appointment until mid-February 2025. This was fault. Ms X approached the Council on the day she was evicted and was given emergency interim accommodation four days later. Had the Council seen Ms X sooner she may have avoided the distress caused by the eviction process and the four days she was left without accommodation.
64. The Council’s case records are contradictory. The notes say it accepted the relief duty on 31 January 2025 but the case worker did not write accepting the relief duty until mid-April 2025. If the Council had accepted the relief duty in January 2025 it should have written to Ms X to advise her of this. It should then have made a decision on what other homelessness duties it owed her much sooner. This caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration.
65. Once the Council accepted the relief duty there was a delay in it deciding whether it owed Ms X the main housing duty. The Council said Ms X had not provided the necessary identification it needed. Ms X said she provided this when she initially approached the Council. Other than the email requesting documentation in mid February 2025 following her homelessness interview, I have seen no evidence the Council clearly explained what was missing and what it required. Once it told Ms X’s solicitor in early June what was needed, she provided it. This delay added to Ms X’s frustration. The delays set out in paragraphs 64 and 65 also meant Ms X was delayed getting her right to request a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation.
66. Ms X was unhappy with the content of the PHP. The information included in the PHP was based on the initial homelessness interview and the information provided to the Council by the landlord. Ms X did not agree with that information, but the Council was not at fault for referring to information it had been given in good faith. When Ms X disputed the information, the Council agreed to revise the PHP to more accurately reflect her views. The Council was not at fault.

Suitability of accommodation

67. Ms X repeatedly raised concerns about the suitability of the interim accommodation. The Council passed her case to the review team. It correctly advised her that it could not carry out a statutory review as it was interim accommodation but said it would pass her request to the case work team. Although there is no statutory right of review of the suitability of interim accommodation, the Council must still ensure all accommodation, whether interim or temporary is suitable. I have seen no evidence the Council explored or addressed Ms X’s concerns about the suitability of the accommodation through its case work team or in its complaint responses. This was fault. This leaves Ms X with a sense of uncertainty over whether, had it done so, she may have been moved sooner.
68. When the Council accepted it owed Ms X the main housing duty she requested a statutory review of the accommodation’s suitability. In its complaint response the Council accepted it had delayed this review. It also accepted it delayed responding to her complaint. It offered Ms X £300. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delays. However, the Council decided the property was unsuitable for Ms X in early December 2025 and she remains living there. The Council owes an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation. The delay in moving Ms X is fault and means she has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than she should have.  

Other investigations about this Council

69. In June 2025 we issued a report on a separate complaint about this Council and the way it responded to homelessness applications. We made recommendations to address the delays and poor complaint handling. The Council provided evidence of the actions taken to address the faults identified. In further cases we have recently investigated the Council has agreed to take action to improve communication with its service users. I have therefore not found it necessary to make service improvements on this case. We will continue to monitor the Council’s performance through our case work.

Back to top

Agreed Action

70. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms X and pay her £350 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty and delayed review rights caused by its faults. This is in addition to the £300 it has offered through its complaints’ procedure. 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.
2. Pay Ms X £150 for each month since the beginning of December 2025 that she remains in unsuitable accommodation. This should continue for a maximum of six months after the date of the final decision. If the Council has still not found alternative suitable accommodation by that date it is open to Ms X to submit a new complaint to it, and then to the Ombudsman if she remains unhappy.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

72. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman