Summary: Ms D complains the Council delayed considering her homelessness application and left her in unsuitable interim accommodation. I have found extensive fault by the Council meaning Ms D was left in unsuitable accommodation. I have asked the Council to pay redress to Ms D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council delayed assessing her homelessness application and issuing a main duty decision. Ms D also refers to being placed in unsuitable interim accommodation from December 2022 to August 2025, not receiving assistance to her queries from allocated Case Officers and issues with her housing register application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have exercised discretion to look back to December 2022, when Ms D moved into her interim accommodation, that is because she regularly pursued the case. My investigation covers up to May 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaints response.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I issued a draft decision at which point the Council clarified the ownership of the hostel accommodation, this resulted in a revised draft decision being produced.
6. I shared my revised draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

2022/ 2023

7. On 4 November 2022 Ms D applied to the Council as homeless. She was allocated a Case Officer (Officer A). The Council placed Ms D and her two children into a hotel. The family were moved to another hotel on 2 December and a third hotel on 6 December. On 20 December the Council placed the family in a hostel/ B&B style accommodation owned by the Authority. They were in one room with access to a shared bathroom and kitchen. On that day Ms D raised issues with the suitability of the accommodation with the Council. A Temporary Allocations Team Officer emailed the Hostel Manager that Ms D had reported mould, a broken heater and a broken wardrobe. I have not seen evidence of the Council chasing this up or asking for evidence of the matters being resolved with the Hostel Manager. An Officer then advised Ms D he had emailed the hostel and it was disrepair issue rather than a suitability matter.
8. Officer A left the Council in December 2022. Ms D was without a Case Officer until 25 April 2023 when a new Case Officer was allocated (Officer B). In May Ms D emailed the Council for an update on her homelessness application but she did not receive a reply. Officer B left the post in October 2023. Miss D was then without a Case Officer until 2025. Nobody was supervising her case in the absence of a Case Officer.
9. On 14 December Ms D emailed the Council about issues with the accommodation. There were problems with residents, the property was not clean, and the family had no privacy including her children having to use communal bathrooms. Ms D asked to be moved. She sent further emails on 18 and 20 December about the impact the accommodation had on her children. She did not feel safe and needed to move. The Council says it forwarded the emails to an Officer handling hostel accommodation.

2024

10. On 2 January 2024 the Officer dealing with hostels noted he had discussed the issues with Ms D. I have no note of the conversation or any indication of what was discussed and if any action was promised. On 8 February Ms D emailed the Council again about issues with the accommodation. The Council forwarded the email to the Hostel Manager. I cannot see this was responded to or any further action was taken by the Council.
11. In May 2024 the Council notified Ms D it considered she was intentionally homeless and intended to end its relief duty towards her. In June Ms D told the Council about ongoing issues with her accommodation including the impact on her family. She said she had no allocated Case Officer. On 10 June Ms D complained to the Council about its decision to end the relief duty, she said emails had been ignored. On 16 July the Council replied to the complaint. It said the relief duty decision had been reversed. It also stated the delay in processing Ms D’s application was due to a turnover of staff. It said a new Case Officer would be assigned to complete a full assessment.
12. At the start of July the Council received evidence from Ms D about the impact on her children caused by the interim accommodation. The Council says it did not refer the documents to its Medical Adviser because ‘the accommodation was already deemed as unsuitable by this stage’.
13. On 4 September Ms D asked the Council why she was still in hostel accommodation and repeated that it was unsuitable. I understand that day Ms D met a Council Officer. I have no note of the meeting or confirmation about what was discussed. I understand the Council told Ms D it would be looking at ‘available properties’. On 12 September Ms D asked for an update and the Council replied that it had agreed to move her and was waiting for a suitable property. Ms D chased up the Council about a move in November. The Council said a lot of properties were having repairs and were not available.

2025

14. On 18 March 2025 Ms D emailed the Council, she had not received an update on her case. She asked why other residents in the hostel had been moved out but her family remained there. She asked what had been done with the medical evidence she supplied in 2024. The Council said an officer was looking at the case and would reply when they returned from leave. I have not seen any response from the Council to Ms D addressing the concerns she raised.
15. On 29 March Ms D complained to the Council about delays reaching a main duty decision on her case. She also referred to errors with her housing register application and remaining in unsuitable accommodation. On 17 April the Council replied to the complaint. It said a main duty decision should have been reached by early 2023 and the delay was due to staff shortages. A decision should now be issued by 16 May 2025. The Council said it had not received a housing register application which was a separate process to making a homelessness application. If the Council accepted a main housing duty decision Ms D would automatically be added to the housing register. She could also apply to join the register while the homelessness application was being assessed. The Council accepted it had not explained this to Ms D previously and apologised. The Council also stated that it recognised it needed to provide suitable interim accommodation and said there was fault because it had relied on no main duty decision being made to not offer alterative accommodation. The Council would now prioritise Ms D for alternative accommodation. That day Ms D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She stated Officers had never told her she needed to apply to the housing register. There had been repeated failings by several Officers, and no remedy had been offered to her.
16. On 1 May an Officer asked internally at the Council whether Ms D’s housing register application had been completed. They were told no application had been received. At the end of May Ms D reported issues with the housing register account to the Council. The Council says the housing register case was assigned to an Officer ‘and remains unresolved as it would not ever show up on our cases’. In May Ms D was allocated another Case Officer (Officer C), this was part of overtime work to make decisions on overdue relief duty cases. On 20 May the Council accepted a main housing duty decision towards Ms D and sent her a decision letter. Also on that day the Council issued its final stage complaints response. It said an instruction to reach a main duty decision on the case by 16 May 2024 (it meant 2025) had not been met. It accepted the Council should have considered the suitability of interim accommodation particularly after it received medical information in July 2024. The Council would provide Ms D with the next available suitable temporary accommodation. In respect of the housing register the Council said the lack of responses to Ms D’s queries was unacceptable and she had been given misleading information linking prioritisation of a move to whether a main housing duty decision had been issued. The Council also accepted the initial complaint response was insufficient. It said Ms D should have been considered for a move to alternative interim accommodation in July 2024, so it offered financial redress for 10 months at a rate of £300 per month. It would also set her priority date for the housing register to February 2023 which is when a main duty decision should have been made.

Events outside my timeframe

17. On 5 August Ms D moved to alternative temporary accommodation after all residents were moved out of the hostel so refurbishments could be carried out.

What should have happened

Homelessness applications

18. 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)

The prevention duty

19. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must help the applicants to secure that accommodation does not stop being available for their occupation. In deciding what steps they are to take, councils must have regard to their assessments of the applicants’ cases. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

20. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

21. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer, or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Interim and temporary accommodation

22. 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)
23. 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)
24. 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)
25. Where an applicant is placed in interim accommodation and raises suitability issues with the Council, the Council should notify the accommodation provider and either ask for a response or visit the site and feedback to the Temporary Allocations Team on whether the accommodation is suitable. If an applicant raises medical concerns linked to the accommodation the Council can seek advice from a medical adviser. It should assess the information and advice and notify the applicant of its decision. If the Council finds accommodation is unsuitable it should relocate the applicant.

Hostel/ B&B accommodation

26. Hostel/ 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. This does not apply to hostel/ B&B which is owned by the Council or a registered provider of social housing. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.35)

Housing register

27. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
28. A homelessness applicant can also apply to join the housing register; this is a separate application and process. Where the Council accepts a main housing duty towards a homelessness applicant, they are automatically added to the housing register. Their priority date will be when the Council accepted the main duty.

Was there fault by the Council

29. The Council has accepted in its complaint response to Ms D that it failed to consider whether her accommodation was suitable and it was incorrectly waiting for a main housing duty decision to be issued before it considered suitability. In addition to that failure the Council also did not follow up on reports made by Ms D about issues with the accommodation including disrepair, the behaviour of residents and the impact on her children’s wellbeing and mental health. The evidence shows the Council forwarded some of Ms D’s emails to the Hostel Manager, but Officers did not follow up to see what action had been taken. The Council also failed to consider the medical evidence provided by Ms D in July 2024. It states it had already decided the property was unsuitable but has failed to clarify when that decision was made, on what basis and when it was communicated to Ms D. Furthermore, if the Council had accepted in July 2024 the accommodation was unsuitable it then failed to relocate Ms D for over a year. I have not seen any action to show what steps the Council took to assist Ms D in being relocated to suitable accommodation for the majority of the investigation period. The overall handling of this matter is extremely poor.
30. The Council accepts it delayed reaching a main duty decision on Ms D’s homelessness application. Had it acted within the required timeframe a main duty decision should have been issued by 26 January 2023. Instead Ms D had to wait until May 2025: a delay of 28 months. Again, this is a serious failing by the Council. It says there were severe staff shortages which caused the delay.
31. The Council accepts in its complaint response to Ms D that it failed to provide clear and accurate information about the housing register process. It is evident the did not provide Ms D with a reasonable level of service in this matter.
32. Ms D was without a Case Officer from December 2022 to April 2023 and then from October 2023 to May 2025: that is unacceptable. In July 2024 the Council said it would allocate Ms D a new Case Officer but that did not happen. This was during a period where serious errors were made in her case. Ms D was left without a named Officer to contact for advice and assistance, and her case was also unsupervised during that time meaning the delays and errors were not picked up by the Council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

33. The extensive faults by the Council meant Ms D and her children were left in unsuitable accommodation from at least July 2024, were not offered support and assistance and had to wait over two years for a decision on the homelessness application.

Back to top

Action

34. The Council has previously paid Ms D £3,000 redress (at a rate of £300 per month) for the ten months it accepted she was in unsuitable accommodation (July 2024 to May 2025). That is a reasonable rate of redress. The Council will check if Ms D also received payments for June and July 2025 when she remained at the property.
35. The Council has also agreed to my recommendations and will pay Ms D £500 for the delays in her case.
36. In addition, the Council says it has made some service improvements including issuing decisions on all historic homelessness cases.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman