Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions when she found out she was going to be evicted and it placed her in temporary homeless accommodation. She also complained about how it handled her housing register reassessment request. We found fault because of poor communication from the Council, a delayed suitability assessment of her accommodation and it not reviewing documents it said it would. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will apologise to Ms X, make a payment to her and share guidance with its officers.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s actions relating to her housing, specifically that:
• it was too slow to act when she advised it she was going to be made homeless through eviction;
• it placed her in unsuitable temporary homeless accommodation when she was evicted; and
• it took too long to assess her banding on its housing allocation list for permanent accommodation.
2. Ms X says this has caused her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. We will not normally investigate matters where someone has the right to appeal to the courts in order to seek redress.
6. Ms X had the right to appeal to the county court when the Council took longer than eight weeks to complete her suitability review. However, the Council had actively begun to engage with Ms X during the eight-week period and asked her to make representations to it. I therefore consider it was reasonable for Ms X not to use her right of appeal. For this reason, I will include the delay in completing its suitability review in my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered all the information Ms X provided and discussed this complaint with her. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
8. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness legislation and statutory guidance

9. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
10. Paragraph 15.40 of the Code says that accommodation secured must be available for occupation by the applicant together with any other person who normally resides with them.

Interim and temporary accommodation

11. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
12. 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)
13. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
14. 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 (TA). (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitable temporary accommodation

15. Homelessness TA must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their TA is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
16. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
17. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)
18. If the council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
19. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)

What happened

20. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.

Eviction

21. Ms X called the Council late in 2023 to advise she was likely to be evicted from her current TA, Property A. Ms X had been living there for some time.
22. She called the Council again in March 2024 to say she had been subject to a possession order hearing and had been advised she would receive a bailiffs warrant to remove her from the property. The Council asked Ms X to tell it when she knew the date and time of her eviction.
23. Between 21 May and 23 July 2024, Ms X called the Council five times to ask for an update. One of her calls made on 8 July advised the Council she had received a bailiffs warrant to take possession of the property on the morning of 25 July 2024.
24. On 24 July, the afternoon before her eviction, Ms X called the Council again and was transferred to an officer from the relevant team. Ms X and the Council communicated several times that afternoon. The Council offered Ms X accommodation in a different London borough but Ms X said the property was unsuitable. The Council withdrew the offer.
25. On the day of Ms X’s eviction, the Council offered Ms X different TA, Property B. Ms X spoke to various officers and expressed her unhappiness the Council had left it until the day of her eviction to find accommodation for her. The Council said it had not left it until the day of the eviction as she had been offered something before this.
26. After further discussions with the Council over the coming days and a period of Ms X choosing to stay with friends, she accepted Property B on 30 July 2024.
27. Ms X made a complaint about matters related to her eviction which the Council responded to on 13 August 2024. The Council’s complaint response said it could not offer accommodation to people until the day before the eviction was due and that if it placed her in accommodation at the time she initially approached it, she would be liable for two sets of rent payment at the same time.

Property B

28. Ms X moved into Property B. She asked the Council to carry out a suitability review (the review) of Property B on 5 August 2024.
29. On 17 September 2024, as she had not heard anything about the review, Ms X made a stage one complaint to the Council to chase progress.
30. On 19 September 2024, the Council emailed to acknowledge the review request and quoted a deadline of 30 September. It said it was giving her an opportunity to submit any further written or oral comments or information before it made its decision. It asked her to respond within 14 days of the email.
31. On the same day, the Council said it could not investigate her complaint further as it related to her review request. If she was still unhappy after the review, she could approach it again.
32. On 30 September 2024 and within the 14-day request deadline, Ms X said she wanted an oral hearing.
33. On 15 November 2024, the Council responded to the request. Ms X submitted further supporting evidence via email on 3 December 2024.
34. Ms X chased the Council for a response on 9 January 2025. The next day she submitted a further stage one complaint about the ongoing review delay.
35. The Council issued its suitability decision on 17 January 2025. It decided Property A was unsuitable. It said it would contact Ms X as soon as a suitable property had been identified.
36. The Council looked for alternative accommodation and offered her two properties, one at the end of May 2025 and one in mid-June 2025. Ms X declined these and the Council continued its search.
37. Ms X was offered a different property at the beginning of July 2025 which she accepted. The Council completed a subsequent suitability review for this property within eight weeks. It made the decision the property was suitable.

Housing register

38. On 23 July 2024, as part of her complaint about the eviction, Ms X asked to be assessed and banded for the Council’s housing register. Ms X was already on the Council’s housing register, so this meant the Council would reassess her priority.
39. The Council contacted Ms X on 30 July 2024. It asked her to make contact so it could begin the reassessment process and gave some dates the officer was free for Ms X to discuss matters. It forwarded her a list of documents she would need to provide as evidence.
40. Ms X provided some evidence which the Council acknowledged on 12 August 2024. The Council said it would review the documents sent.
41. After the review decision for suitability of Ms X’s TA was issued in January 2025, the Council again asked Ms X to make contact so the re-assessment process could begin for the housing register. It again forwarded her a list of documents she would need to provide as evidence.
42. On 11 March 2025, the Council emailed Ms X to ask her to send in the evidence as it had not yet received anything since its January request. The Council confirmed she was currently in Band 4 on its housing register.
43. The next day the Council sent its stage two complaint response to Ms X about her complaint it had not reassessed her placement on its housing register. The Council agreed it had not completed the reassessment following Ms X’s July 2024 request and that it had not reviewed the documents she sent in August 2024 when it said it would. The Council apologised and said officers would be reminded to send follow up emails when required.
44. Ms X began to send required documents in March 2025. Ms X and the Council communicated throughout March to June 2025 regarding the necessary documents needed to complete the reassessment.
45. The Council made its final decision on the housing reassessment at the beginning of July 2025 after Ms X sent the final piece of evidence it needed. It increased her to Band 2 on its housing allocation list and backdated this to May 2024.

Analysis

Eviction

46. I have seen no evidence the Council proactively discussed Ms X’s eviction case with her until the afternoon of the day before she was due to be evicted the next morning. This was despite it knowing the date of her eviction for 16 days before and Ms X making six previous contacts for updates since March 2024. The Council discussed matters with her when she made her seventh update call and she was transferred to the relevant officer.
47. The Code says that accommodation should be available for the Council to fulfil its duties to house those eligible. Ms X’s accommodation was available until 25 July 2025, so there is no procedural fault in the Council not acting to offer her TA until the day before.
48. However, I consider the Council should have communicated more proactively with Ms X to explain the process it would follow rather than her chasing for updates and getting little response other than that the department was aware of her situation. I am satisfied this lack of timely communication was fault. It caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Suitability review and new suitable accommodation

49. The Council has a duty to complete a suitability review request within eight weeks. I consider it reasonable that Ms X did not exercise her right to appeal the Council’s delay in completing it, as set out at paragraphs five and six.
50. It took six weeks and five days to acknowledge Ms X’s request. When she asked it for an oral hearing, it took a further six weeks and four days to acknowledge the request. When Ms X presented further evidence, it took a further six weeks and five days to issue its decision.
51. I am satisfied that taking into account the time taken for Ms X to ask the Council for an oral review and to send in evidence, the suitability review should have been completed by late October 2024 at the latest. Instead, the review decision was made nearly three months later.
52. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had decided Property B was unsuitable due to the length of time of the family’s journey from home to school. It exceeded the maximum recommended time as set out in its temporary homeless accommodation policy.
53. Not carrying out the review within the statutory timescale was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty whilst she waited for the Council’s decision. It also meant the Council’s search for suitable alternative TA was delayed. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Housing register

54. After the Council’s reassessment document request in July 2024, Ms X sent some of the required evidence in August 2024. The Council acknowledged this and said it would review what she had sent.
55. As the Council said in its March 2025 stage two complaint response to Ms X, it should have reviewed the documents Ms X sent in August 2024 and begun a conversation with her about what else it needed to see as evidence. Not doing so was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
56. When Ms X began to send in documents in March 2025, the Council engaged in prolonged and detailed communications with her over the next three months about what was needed. It made a prompt decision when it received the final evidence it needed. I am satisfied the Council acted appropriately and in a timely manner when the request for documents was made again in January 2025. I therefore find no fault in its actions here.
57. The Council has confirmed it does not operate a bidding system for property allocation. Instead, it makes offers to clients based on their priority band and the date they were placed onto that band. Evidence provided in response to my enquiries shows that Ms X has not missed out on being offered any properties during the time between her backdated priority date of May 2024 and the Band 2 decision in July 2025.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the identified fault;
• pay Miss X £150 to recognise the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified fault;
• pay Ms X £150 per month to recognise Property B was unsuitable TA for the period from the end of October 2024 to the beginning of July 2025. This is a period of 7.25 months, totalling £1087.50.
• share the Ombudsman’s focus report - unsuitable temporary accommodation: guide for practitioners (issued May 2023) with relevant staff, managers and directors.
59. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
60. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman