Summary: Mr X complained about the Council actions when his temporary accommodation needed urgent repairs, and how it communicated with him about a property offer. This caused him significant frustration, distress and uncertainty. We found the Council at fault for poor record keeping and communication. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
1. The Council failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation when his temporary accommodation needed urgent repairs. It did not provide adequate support on the day, and Mr X had to refer himself to the out-of-hours team to find accommodation for him over the weekend; and
2. The Council offered permanent accommodation to him months later but did not communicate with him about it. Mr X later found out it withdrew the offer and allocated it to another applicant.
2. The above caused significant distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr X, negatively impacting on his vulnerabilities, including his physical and mental well-being.

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, 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. During my investigation, Mr X raised additional concerns, including new and separable events since his original formal complaints to the Council. Mr X is entitled to make a new complaint direct to the Council about these. I have not considered these as we expect councils to have the opportunity to formally respond to new or ongoing matters through its complaints procedure first before we investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I wrote to Mr X about his complaint. I considered his views and information he provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
7. Mr X 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

Background

8. Mr X has mental health and physical health conditions and other vulnerabilities.
9. Prior to the events of this complaint, Mr X lived in temporary accommodation provided by the Council (Property 1).

What happened – summary of key relevant events

Part a) of the complaint

10. In late 2024, the Managing Agent for Property 1 contacted the Council. It said Property 1 needed urgent repairs relating to hot water. Mr X needed to be temporarily relocated.
11. Council Officer 1 found Property 2 as an alternative. Mr X attended a viewing. He refused it and raised concerns about its suitability to Officer 1, including the layout of facilities for his medical needs. He said Officer 1 left him without making a referral and did not respond to his further contacts. He no longer had the keys for Property 1 and had nowhere to go. He went to the police who advised him to approach the out-of-hours service. The service put him in Property 3 on the Friday evening. Mr X immediately sent a formal complaint to the Council. He also sent photos of Property 3’s condition to the service. He did not get a response.
12. Three days later, on the Monday, the Council moved him into Property 4.
13. In early 2025, the Council responded at Stage 1. It said on the day in question, Officer 1 addressed his suitability concerns. His medical report did not specify facilities he needed. Based on the information, they deemed Property 2 as suitable and encouraged him to accept it as it was the evening and only temporary. It said it told him rejecting the offer at the time meant he had to make his own arrangements.
14. It said Mr X attended the Council office on the Monday with a GP letter advising on facilities he needed. With the new information, the Council offered him the alternative accommodation at Property 4 that day.

Part b) of the complaint

15. In spring 2025, Mr X emailed the Council. He said the previous month, the Council allocated him Property 5 via a housing association. Mr X had concerns about its suitability but accepted it.
16. Mr X later did not hear back about Property 5. He contacted the housing association, and it said it allocated the property to someone else. He had uncertainty on where he stood with his housing situation as it did not tell him this at the time. He wanted to know when he’d be offered another property. This impacted on Mr X’s mental health, leading him to liaise with the crisis team.
17. During the above events, Mr X sent several emails to the Council with inappropriate language. A Senior at the Council said it was unacceptable and they would not respond to further contact from him. Mr X said this impacted on his mental health.
18. In summer 2025, the Council sent Mr X a Stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged its accommodation offer, but the housing association had reclassed it for a specific client group, which sat outside its allocation scheme. It could not give a timeframe for another offer due to long waiting times. Mr X escalated his complaint.
19. In autumn 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It generally maintained its previous findings. It was satisfied with its actions despite Mr X’s contact which it viewed as threatening and aggressive. It advised it had now made a permanent offer of social housing to him.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

20. In response to our enquiries, for part a):
• the Council said it did not have records around Mr X’s refusal of Property 2 or evidence of how it had considered his reasons. It did not have a supporting suitability assessment.
• It said this highlighted the need to strengthen its record keeping practices. Since the events, it had improved these processes with training sessions for its staff to ensure it maintained complete records.
• It did not have his evidence about the condition of Property 3 so could not comment on it.
• It said it should have acted differently in late 2024. It offered an apology and £200 to recognise Mr X’s inconvenience and distress.
21. With part b), the Council explained it felt it acted in Mr X’s best interests around the Property 5 offer. But it recognised its error in not updating him.
22. It accepted it did not respond to Mr X’s complaints in a timely manner, generally due to staffing issues.

Analysis

Part a) of the complaint

23. That night, Mr X referred himself to the out-of-hours service (after contacting the police). But the Council should have advised him to do this considering his refusal of Property 1, his vulnerabilities and he had no other accommodation. This is fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration.
24. The Council accepted poor record keeping around the events of that evening in late 2024. This is fault. It also could not evidence assessing or acting on Mr X’s evidence sent while he was at Property 3. This caused injustice to Mr X with some uncertainty about how or whether it properly considered his concerns around suitability.
25. However, while it did not record it at the time, the Council clarified its actions in its Stage 1 response. It appropriately considered his medical information that day and explained why it felt Property 1 was suitable on what it had. In addition, in my view, given the nature of emergency accommodation at short notice, it may be considered suitable in the short term, but not the long term. This appears to be what the Council suggested here. I also note Mr X stayed in Property 3 for a few days, which is not a significantly long period. The Council made another decision after reviewing his new evidence from the GP and then promptly made another offer. I consider this appropriate.

Part b) of the complaint

26. The housing association did not proceed with its Property 5 offer to Mr X. The Council later explained the reasons why and it was entitled to make this decision when assessing the circumstances of the property. It may have been well intentioned; however, the Council was at fault for failing to tell Mr X about the withdrawal at the time. This caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.

Complaints handling and contact

27. The Council accepted fault with its complaints handling. It sent late responses to Mr X at both stages, most notably at Stage 2 (after two and a half months). This was not within 20 working days per its policy, causing Mr X avoidable frustration.
28. With the Council’s contact, I appreciate Mr X has mental health conditions and he was frustrated. But the Council is entitled to consider the nature and impact of an individual’s communications and manage this for the wellbeing of its staff. I can also see it did later respond to Mr X’s complaints (albeit late, as above) and with him on some other general housing concerns since (not in the scope of this investigation). On balance, I do not find the Council formally at fault for this part.
29. The Council has now made a positive offer to acknowledge Mr X’s injustice (but in response to my enquiries, rather than through its own complaints process). I consider this in line with our guidance on remedies and payments are intended to be symbolic only. We do not assess damages or award compensation. If that is Mr X’s primary aim, we cannot achieve this and he will need to go to court.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions it offered during my investigation, within one month of the final decision:
• Send an apology to Mr X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the identified faults; and
• Pay Mr X the symbolic payment of £200 to recognise his injustice.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman