Summary: Mrs F complained about how the Council has handled her homelessness. The Council has accepted there was a delay in placing Mrs F in temporary accommodation. This caused Mrs F distress whilst she was awaiting eviction. The Council has already made a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs F complained about how the Council has handled her homelessness. In particular that the Council:
1. Placed her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation between 2003 and 2014 and wrongly ended its homelessness duty in 2014.
2. Did not offer her social housing when it accepted the main housing duty in August 2024.
3. Wrongly placed her in Band C of the housing register in 2024.
4. Delayed considering the medical officer’s recommendation of December 2024 and did not communicate with her.
5. Failed to give her review rights about the banding decision in February 2025.
6. Refused to offer social housing in February 2025.
7. Delayed placing her family in temporary accommodation.
8. Placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation in March 2025.
2. She says this has caused the family significant distress, affecting her physical and mental health and has prevented access to education.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
6. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

7. 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)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I have not investigated parts a), b) and c) of Mrs F’s complaint. This is because we have already considered a previous complaint about these matters and decided not to investigate [our ref: 24010036]. We shall not revisit our previous decision now.
11. I have not investigated part h) of Mrs F’s complaint. This is because it was reasonable for Mrs F to request a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996 and appeal the decision to the County Court under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996. As set out in paragraphs 6 and 7, normally we would not investigate complaints about decisions where these review and appeal rights apply, provided we are satisfied the council told the complainant about their right to ask for a review.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I spoke to Mrs F about her complaint and considered the information she and the Council’s sent and relevant law and guidance.
13. Mrs F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

14. If someone contacts a council seeking 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)

Relief duty and interim accommodation

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) This is the relief duty.
16. If the council decides the person is in priority need and not intentionally homeless, the relief duty ends automatically after 56 days, even if the applicant has not found accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section189B(7)(c))

Main housing duty and temporary accommodation

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. (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)
19. Councils can meet this duty by offering either social housing or helping to secure private rented housing.

Suitability of accommodation and reviews

20. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
21. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of the Council accepting the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
22. The person has a right to appeal the Council’s review decision to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
23. We expect people to use their review and appeal rights and therefore we usually do not investigate when someone has these rights. However, we may exercise discretion to investigate in exceptional cases. For instance, where the Council has failed to inform someone of their right to seek a review.

Housing Allocations

24. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out its procedures for allocating housing and how it prioritises applicants. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
25. Councils usually place housing applications into bands according to an applicant’s housing needs. In Brent, Band C is for those who are homeless. Band B is for those who have an urgent medical need.
26. Councils must give reasonable preference to applicants who need to move on medical grounds. The council will do a medical assessment if an applicant says their physical or mental health conditions are made worse by their current housing situation. The assessment decides if they qualify for medical priority under the allocation scheme. When considering their request, councils may seek advice from external independent medical advisers. But the decision about whether the applicant qualifies for priority, and at what level, is for the council to make based on its allocation scheme and all the evidence provided.
27. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which means once an applicant is given a priority band, they can bid on homes advertised by the Council.

What happened

28. I have set out the key events. This is not meant to describe everything that happened.
29. Mrs F had applied to the Council as homeless in January 2024. The Council accepted the main housing duty in August 2024. She had a four-bedroom housing need. Following a medical assessment, Mrs F’s housing register application had been placed in Band C.
30. In December 2024, the medical information was reconsidered by the medical officer and medical priority was recommended. The Council asked its panel to determine Mrs F’s banding.
31. The Council called Mrs F on 7 February 2025. It said the panel would be considering Mrs F’s case. Mrs F said there had been poor communication from the Council since August 2024 and errors in the way the medical information had been considered. She said she did not want to be offered private rented accommodation as she needed stable housing.
32. The panel considered Mrs F’s case on 14 February 2025. It decided Mrs F should be awarded Band B and this would be backdated to 29 May 2024, which was when the medical information had first been considered. The Council would not make a direct offer of social housing. There was a 20 year wait for a four-bedroom council house and even if Mrs F’s household was split up, there was a five year wait for two-bedroom social housing.
33. The Council advised Mrs F of the banding outcome on 17 February. It has accepted it failed to set out Mrs F’s rights to ask for a review of the decision.
34. Mrs F made a complaint on 25 February. She said that the delay since December had meant she had missed out on bidding on suitable properties.
35. The Council offered Mrs F temporary accommodation of a five-bedroom house (Property 1) on 5 March. Mrs F was evicted from her previous accommodation on 7 March and moved into Property 1. At this point she had the right to ask for a review of Property 1’s suitability.
36. The Council replied to Mrs F’s complaint on 21 March. It said Mrs F’s case had been managed appropriately and officers had been in regular contact with her since February. Mrs F remained dissatisfied and made a further complaint that she had not been given review rights about the Band B banding decision. She also asked to escalate her complaint to the final stage. She said she had been placed in an area that she had previously fled due to domestic abuse.
37. The Council responded to Mrs F’s further complaint on 10 April. It accepted it should have given her review rights on the banding decision. There were no rights to review the decision not to offer social housing or not to split the household.
38. The Council’s final complaint response on 14 May said:
• The medical officer had reconsidered the information in December 2024 and recommended Band B. As this was different to the previous medical recommendation in May 2024, the Council had backdated the Band B award to May 2024. It had checked and Mrs F had not missed out on a property between May 2024 and February 2025.
• The Council had not sent the banding decision in writing with review rights. It would now issue this.
• The Council acknowledged it had not placed her in temporary accommodation until the day before her eviction.
• Property 1 was approximately 14 miles from her daughter’s school, which was 1 hr 15 min in rush hour via public transport, in line with the DfE guidance.
• Mrs F had told the Council in August 2024 that she was fleeing domestic violence and was at risk in Area X. Property 1 was outside Area X and there was no record Mrs F told the Council she was at risk there when Property 1 was offered. Mrs F could now advise which areas she was at risk in.
• The Council apologised for poor communications and a delay in replying to her complaint. It offered Mrs F £500 to rectify this and the delay in placing her in temporary accommodation. This was paid to Mrs F on 29 May.
39. The Council re-issued the Band B decision on 22 May. Mrs F could then ask for this to be reviewed. Mrs F came to the Ombudsman.
40. In September, the Council made a direct offer of two social housing flats. Mrs F said they were not suitable.

My findings

Delayed considering the medical officer’s recommendation of December 2024 and did not communicate with her.

41. The Council has accepted it should have considered the medical officer’s new recommendation sooner than February 2025. This is fault which could have caused Mrs F to miss out on a property. However, the Council has checked and determined that Mrs F did not miss out on any properties between May 2024 and February 2025. The delay therefore did not cause a significant injustice.

Failed to give her review rights about the banding decision in February 2025, following the medical officer’s new recommendation.

42. The Council told Mrs F that the panel had agreed to place her housing register application in Band B. However it has accepted it failed to advise her of her right to ask for a review of this decision. This was fault.
43. The Council has already remedied this by issuing a new decision on 22 May 2025, which gave Mrs F a new right of review.
44. I can achieve nothing further so I have decided not to investigate this further, in line with paragraphs 5 and 6.

Refused to offer social housing in February 2025.

45. The panel considered Mrs F’s case and decided not to offer social housing. This was because of the long waits for suitable council housing. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make; it can meet its homelessness duty by offering either social housing or private rented housing. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the panel made its decision. As set out in paragraph 4, I therefore cannot criticise the decision.

Delayed in placing in temp accommodation.

46. The Council accepted the main housing duty in August 2024 and provided temporary accommodation in March 2025, the day before Mrs F was due to be evicted. Tenants are legally entitled to stay beyond the expiry of a possession order, but the Code says housing authorities should not consider this to be reasonable. The Council has therefore accepted there was a delay in placing Mrs F in temporary accommodation. This is fault which caused Mrs F distress whilst she was awaiting eviction.
47. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says that a symbolic, moderate payment up to £500 may be appropriate to remedy distress caused by fault.
48. The Council has already paid Mrs F £500 as redress on 29 May. This is a suitable, proportionate remedy in line with our guidance.
49. In response to my draft decision, Mrs F said that the delay meant she had been unable to ask for a review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The family had therefore had to move to unsuitable accommodation. This disrupted her daughter’s education and GCSEs as she was unable to travel to school due to her mental health issues and special educational needs. Mrs F said the injustice caused was therefore more significant than distress. I appreciate that Mrs F considered the accommodation to be unsuitable, but this is not a decision I can make and I have seen no evidence the Council found it to be unsuitable. So I cannot find that her daughter’s problems travelling to school were an injustice caused by being in unsuitable accommodation or by being delayed seeking a review of that accommodation. I am satisfied the £500 the Council has already paid remedies the distress caused.

Back to top

Decision

50. There was fault by the Council. I am satisfied that the actions the Council has already taken remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman