Summary: We found fault in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s homelessness application. There was avoidable delay and lack of progress in progressing the case, and after accepting the main housing duty the Council did not secure temporary accommodation until the day of eviction. These faults caused Mrs X and her family distress and uncertainty. The Council has offered a sufficient financial remedy and should also write to Mrs X again to clearly explain how to request a suitability review.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complain the Council delayed in progressing a homelessness application after she approached it in May 2023. Mrs X says the Council failed to act on clear eviction risks and only provided accommodation on the day of eviction in December 2024. She was placed in out-of-borough emergency accommodation which she considered unsuitable for her children’s education and partners employment. She says the Council failed to assess their needs or share a Personal Housing Plan and did not respond to concerns about the accommodation’s condition or location.

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 the 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs 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

6. 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.

The relief duty and interim accommodation

7. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
8. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant 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)
9. Examples of applicants in priority need include people with dependent children, pregnant women, people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems or disability, and victims of domestic abuse.
10. The relief duty ends when the applicant accepts or refuses an offer of accommodation which is suitable and likely to be available for at least 6 months, or, failing this, if 56 days have passed.

The main housing duty and temporary accommodation

11. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
12. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it.
13. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable has a statutory right to ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of being notified of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202).

Back to top

What happened

14. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
15. Mrs X approached the Council on 17 May 2023 and made a homelessness application after being told she would have to leave her privately rented property. The Council arranged an assessment meeting for 26 May 2023.
16. In July 2023, the Council contacted Mrs X to request outstanding information and documents to progress the application.
17. The Council accepted the prevention duty on 18 September 2023. The Council later recorded the case was re-opened on 23 November 2023 following a further section 21 notice being issued.
18. The Council’s records refer to steps taken during early 2024 to try to prevent homelessness, including contact with the landlord and monitoring the progress of eviction action.
19. In May 2024, the Council reallocated the case and took further steps to progress the homelessness application.
20. On 28 June 2024, the Council accepted the relief duty. The Council later acknowledged that from mid-June 2024, once it had evidence of court action, eviction was likely unavoidable.
21. In August 2024, the Council asked Mrs X to provide further information, including documents and medical information, and it issued a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP), which it says it shared with Mrs X on 15 August 2024. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 27 August 2024.
22. In late November 2024, Mrs X told the Council she had an eviction date of 4 December 2024. The Council arranged accommodation for that date and told Mrs X it would assist her on the day of eviction.
23. Mrs X was evicted on 4 December 2024. The Council placed the household the same day in hotel accommodation at the Buckingham Hotel, High Wycombe. The Council has said this was temporary accommodation provided after acceptance of the main housing duty.
24. In January 2025, the Council advised Mrs X that she could request a review if she considered the accommodation unsuitable.
25. In its final complaint response, the Council offered a payment of £650 to recognise the distress and worry caused by its delay in securing accommodation before the eviction date and delays in issuing its stage one response. It also said it would reimburse £355 court costs once Mrs X provided evidence she had paid them.

Enquiries

26. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, it said:
• It accepted the prevention duty on 18 September 2023, reopened the case on 23 November 2023 following a further section 21 notice, accepted the relief duty on 28 June 2024, and accepted the main housing duty on 27 August 2024.
• It accepted that by mid-June 2024, once it received evidence of the possession order, it was apparent eviction was likely inevitable.
• It accepted that it did not consider whether to provide accommodation at that point, despite recognising that further negotiations would not prevent eviction.
• It also accepted that, even after it had accepted the main housing duty, it did not provide temporary accommodation until the day of eviction.
• It accepted it did not act in accordance with statutory guidance, and said it should have made a formal written offer of temporary accommodation before the eviction date, including information about Mrs X’s review rights.
• It said it placed Mrs X and her family on 4 December 2024 in hotel accommodation at the Buckingham Hotel, High Wycombe, and clarified this should be regarded as temporary accommodation (not interim accommodation) following acceptance of the main housing duty.
• It accepted there was an unacceptable lack of progress in the case (including the case remaining in prevention duty beyond the usual period without clear evidence of agreement), and proposed a further £500 payment to reflect this.
• It said the location of the household’s employment was not fully explored, and it should consider moving the family to accommodation that better supports their circumstances.

Back to top

Analysis

Delay and lack of progress in the homelessness application

27. The Council has duties to assess and respond to homelessness applications and to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness where an applicant is threatened with homelessness. In practice, this includes progressing enquiries promptly, keeping applicants informed, and taking timely action under the relevant duties.
28. Mrs X approached the Council in May 2023 and it carried out an assessment meeting later that month. In July 2023, the Council contacted Mrs X to request further documents to progress the case. The Council did not accept the prevention duty until 18 September 2023, and its own records show the case had remained in an “information validation” stage for around four months before this.
29. More significantly, in response to my enquiries the Council accepted there was an “unacceptable lack of overall progress” from June 2023. It also accepted that, from November 2023, the case remained in prevention duty beyond the usual 56-day period and there were no records to show this was agreed with Mrs X or that sufficient progress was made before the case later moved to the relief duty.
30. The Council referred to high caseloads and staff turnover as contributing factors. While these pressures provide context, they do not remove the Council’s responsibility to progress homelessness cases appropriately and keep an adequate record of key decisions and actions.
31. On balance, I find fault in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s homelessness application because there was avoidable delay and drift in progressing the case, including the Council’s acceptance that it did not make sufficient progress for extended periods and kept the case in prevention duty beyond the usual period without clear recorded agreement or evidence of effective action.
32. This fault caused injustice. Mrs X was left for a prolonged period with uncertainty about what action the Council was taking to prevent homelessness and what practical support would be provided. The Council has acknowledged this and proposed a further payment to account for the lack of progress.

Failure to provide accommodation before eviction

33. Once the Council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, it must consider whether interim accommodation should be provided. Where the Council accepts the main housing duty, it is responsible for securing accommodation for the applicant.
34. The Council accepted that by mid-June 2024, when Mrs X provided evidence of the possession order, it was apparent eviction was likely inevitable. The Council also accepted Mrs X was not considered for interim accommodation at that stage, despite it being clear further negotiations would not prevent eviction.
35. The Council then accepted the main housing duty on 27 August 2024. However, it did not provide accommodation until 4 December 2024, the day Mrs X was evicted. The Council’s records show it was making arrangements for accommodation on the eviction date in late November 2024, and it told Mrs X it would assist her on the day of eviction.
36. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it did not act in accordance with guidance. It said the correct process would have been to formally offer temporary accommodation before the eviction date, giving Mrs X the right to request a review of suitability if she considered it unsuitable. It also acknowledged that references to “interim” or “emergency” accommodation were incorrect and that the accommodation provided on 4 December 2024 should be treated as temporary accommodation following acceptance of the main housing duty.
37. On this point, I have made a finding of fault. The Council was aware eviction was likely unavoidable from mid-June 2024. It accepted the main housing duty in August 2024. In those circumstances, it should have taken timely steps to secure accommodation before the eviction date. Instead, it only arranged accommodation for the day of eviction. This was contrary to the approach set out in statutory guidance and the Council has accepted it should have acted earlier and made a formal offer in writing with review rights.
38. This fault caused injustice. It left Mrs X and her family facing an avoidable crisis at the point of eviction and caused distress and uncertainty about whether they would have accommodation, and where they would be placed, until the last moment. The Council offered a payment as part of its complaint response to recognise the distress and worry caused by the delay in making efforts to provide accommodation before the eviction date.

Suitability and location of the temporary accommodation

39. Mrs X complained the Council placed her family in out-of-borough accommodation which she considered unsuitable, particularly because of the impact on her children’s education and her partner’s employment. She also said the Council did not properly assess their needs or respond to concerns about the accommodation’s condition or location.
40. I have not made a finding on whether the accommodation was suitable. Applicants have a statutory right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation, and that is the appropriate route to determine suitability. However, I can consider whether the Council took appropriate steps when making the placement and whether it gave Mrs X clear information about her review rights.
41. The Council’s enquiries response indicates it relied on a suitability form completed earlier in the case. It also said it did not fully explore the location of the household’s employment and acknowledged that travel times could be significantly longer at peak times. It said it should look to move the family to accommodation that is more suitable for the household’s circumstances.
42. The Council said it advised Mrs X of her right to request a suitability review during the complaint process and again in correspondence after the placement. It also accepted that, where temporary accommodation is offered, the correct process is to make the offer formally in writing and include information about review rights.
43. Finding on this point: I do not make a finding that the accommodation was unsuitable, because that is a matter for the statutory review process. However, I find fault in the Council’s approach to the placement insofar as it failed to make a timely, formal written offer before eviction (as set out under complaint point 2) and the Council has accepted it should have provided clear review information as part of the offer. The Council’s acknowledgement that it did not fully explore employment location also supports that it did not gather and consider all relevant circumstances as fully as it should have before placing the family out of borough.
44. This fault caused injustice because it contributed to uncertainty and distress about where the family would be placed and limited Mrs X’s ability to promptly challenge suitability through the review process.
45. In light of the Council’s acceptance that it did not fully explore all relevant circumstances when arranging the placement, I consider it would be proportionate for the Council to write to Mrs X again to clearly explain her right to request a suitability review and how to do so, so she has a fair opportunity to use the statutory review process.

Personalised Housing Plan and assessment of needs

46. Mrs X complained the Council failed to assess her family’s needs properly and did not share a Personalised Housing Plan (PHP). She also said the PHP process was inadequate.
47. The Council said it completed a PHP on 15 August 2024 and shared it with Mrs X on that date. The PHP set out steps for Mrs X and the Council, including actions to find alternative accommodation and information about what emergency accommodation may be like, including that it is often outside London.
48. The Council also said it accepted the main housing duty shortly afterwards, on 27 August 2024, and therefore it did not consider it necessary to review the PHP.
49. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied the Council did create a PHP and has provided evidence it shared this with Mrs X in August 2024. On that point, I do not find fault.
50. However, the existence of a PHP does not remove the Council’s responsibility to progress the case promptly and to take appropriate steps as circumstances change. In this case, the Council has already accepted there was an unacceptable lack of progress over a prolonged period and that it did not act in line with guidance when it delayed securing accommodation until the day of eviction.
51. I do not find fault in the Council’s failure to produce or share a PHP in August 2024, because the evidence shows it did so. To the extent Mrs X complains the PHP process was inadequate, I have not made a separate fault finding about the content of the PHP. The principal injustice in this case arises from the Council’s delays and its failure to secure accommodation sooner which I have addressed under previous headings.

Complaint handling and remedy offer

52. Mrs X complained about delays in the Council’s complaint handling, as well as the substantive issues about how her homelessness application was managed. The Council’s records show Mrs X’s stage one complaint was logged in December 2024, and the Council issued its stage one response in January 2025.
53. In its final review response, the Council accepted there was delay in issuing the stage one complaint response. It said the response was due early in January 2025, but the case was placed on hold until later in January 2025 when the response was issued. The Council accepted that, where a delay was unavoidable, it should have notified Mrs X and provided a revised response date, and it said there was no evidence this was done.
54. On this point, I make a further finding of fault. The Council delayed responding at stage one and did not keep Mrs X properly informed about the delay. This caused injustice because it prolonged Mrs X’s uncertainty about the Council’s position and.
55. In the Council’s final response, it said it would award Mrs X £650, in addition to reimbursing £355 claimant costs once Mrs X provided evidence she had paid them. It said the £650 was to acknowledge distress and worry caused by delay in making efforts to provide accommodation before the eviction date and for delay in issuing the stage one response.
56. In response to my enquiries, the Council also explained it calculated the £650 as £500 for not providing accommodation before the eviction date and £150 for delay issuing the stage one response and communication failures. It accepted this did not fully reflect the extent of the wider delay in case progression and proposed a further payment of £500 for the lack of progress in the homelessness application.
57. I have considered the Council’s explanations and the remedies it has proposed. In my view, the combined offer of £650 (for the delay in securing accommodation before eviction and delay at stage one) and a further £500 (to recognise the wider lack of progress in progressing the homelessness application) is proportionate to the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults I have identified.

Back to top

Agreed action

58. To remedy injustice in this complaint and prevent similar occurrences, the Council will:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X for fault and injustice identified in this complaint.
2. Proceed to make the remedy payment of £1,150 as proposed.
3. Write to Mrs X, to clearly explain her right to request a section 202 suitability review, how to do so, and confirm it will consider accepting a review request made outside the normal time limit, given the Council’s admitted failings.
4. Produce an action plan setting out how it will address the issues identified in this case, including ensuring homelessness cases are progressed without avoidable drift, that accommodation is secured in good time when eviction is imminent and duties are owed, and that temporary accommodation offers are made formally and include clear information about suitability review rights.
59. The Council should complete actions a to c within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action point d within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

60. We found fault in the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s homelessness application. There was avoidable delay and lack of progress in progressing the case, and after accepting the main housing duty the Council did not secure temporary accommodation until the day of eviction. These faults caused Mrs X and her family distress and uncertainty. The Council has offered a sufficient financial remedy and should also write to Mrs X again to clearly explain how to request a suitability review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman