Summary: The Council was at fault for delay in reviewing its decision on whether homelessness accommodation it offered to Mr X was suitable. It also failed to keep appropriate records of how it decided other accommodation was suitable for him. This caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty but we cannot say, even on balance, that it meant he missed out on housing he should have had. To remedy Mr X’s injustice, the Council will apologise and pay him £250. The Council will also identify what it needs to do to ensure it keeps proper records in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the accommodation the Council provided after he became homeless. Specifically, Mr X complained:
1. The Council housed Mr X in a hotel in spring 2024 but had to move him to another hotel after he was wrongly accused of damaging his room and being rude to staff;
2. At around the same time, a Council officer made a rude statement about him;
3. The Council made an unsuitable final offer of accommodation under the main housing duty. Mr X said the Council’s decision to end the main housing duty when he refused the offer meant he could not have the surgery he needed;
4. That after he asked for a review of the Council’s decision, it appointed an officer who was not appropriately independent to carry out the review;
5. The Council then offered Mr X accommodation in two flats, but they were both unsuitable; and
6. After Mr X refused that accommodation, the Council stopped housing Mr X altogether, which meant he had to sleep on the streets.
7. After the Council reviewed its decision to end the main housing duty, it offered to arrange accommodation for Mr X, but failed to do so.
2. Mr X is also unhappy about how the Council responded to a complaint made by Mr Z, who was acting on Mr X’s behalf.
3. Mr X said the Council’s failings meant he was unsuitably housed, which had a significant impact on him because he is Disabled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could or should have taken the matter to court. The same restriction applies to matters connected with those which could or should have been taken 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. Mr X complained to us in June 2025 so any matters that occurred before June 2024 are late. I have seen no good reason why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner, so I will not investigate those issues. This is complaint points (a) and (b).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Mr Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X, Mr Z 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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

12. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance (the Code) for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
14. Normally, councils end the main housing duty by making a final offer of accommodation to the applicant. This might be of housing owned by the council, a private landlord or other circumstances. If an applicant refuses a suitable final offer of accommodation, the council no longer owes them the main housing duty. This means it will no longer look for settled accommodation for the applicant and can ask them to leave any temporary accommodation they are staying in. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of certain decisions including the suitability of a final accommodation offer. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer. The Code says “an applicant is not required to provide grounds or reasons for challenging the housing authority’s decision in their request for review, but should be invited to do so”.
16. The council must complete the review within eight weeks. Councils can choose to accommodate an applicant while it carries out a review of the suitability of person’s final accommodation offer, but they do not have to.
17. The law says councils must ensure accommodation provided to homeless applicants, including that offered while a review is ongoing, is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2). The Code notes that accommodation that is suitable in the short-term may not be suitable for a longer period.
18. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)
19. 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)

Complaints

20. The Council operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its policy says “there are some types of complaints that fall outside the scope of this policy because there are other more suitable processes for dealing with them”.

What happened

21. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
22. Mr X is physically disabled and became homeless. In May 2024, the Council accepted it owed him the main housing duty. In early June, the Council made a final offer of accommodation. It offered accommodation A, which was a supported living placement for Disabled people where Mr X would have a room of his own and use of shared cooking facilities. Mr X did not accept the Council’s offer of accommodation, so it ended the main housing duty a day later.
23. Despite this, the Council continued to house Mr X in various hotels in London.
24. Mr X was due to have elective surgery at the end of June to address issues with one of the joints in one of his legs. He says it was cancelled because he did not have settled accommodation.
25. At the end of June, Mr X asked the Council to review the suitability of accommodation A. The Council asked Mr X to provide more information on his review request.
26. The Council decided it would continue to house Mr X while it considered his review. Between September 2024 and February 2025, the Council housed Mr X in various short-stay hotels.
27. In mid-December 2024, the Council sent Mr X a letter setting out it did not plan to uphold Mr X’s review. It explained Mr X could send further evidence and comments until mid-January 2025, after which it would make its final decision. Mr X sent one document in January and tried to send more evidence by email without success. The Council agreed Mr X could have more time to bring the evidence to the Council’s office.
28. In mid-February 2025, the Council offered Mr X a flat as temporary housing. Mr X did not accept the offer because it was not located in Camden. As a result, the Council decided it would not fund Mr X’s housing anymore. He began sleeping rough.
29. The Council nonetheles made a further offer of a flat shortly after, which Mr X also did not accept because it was not located in Camden. The Council explained it did not have any other accommodation to offer Mr X and urged him to accept it. The Council explained the accommodation was temporary and that it considered the housing was suitable “for now”. The Council said if Mr X did not accept the offer, it would not make further offers of housing. Mr X did not accept.
30. The flats the Council offered Mr X in February were both located an hour’s travel from his hospital in Camden. I asked the Council how it decided those flats were suitable for Mr X. The Council said it no longer records separate assessments of accommodation’s suitability. Instead, it has a system where officers tick a task if it is complete. A screenshot of the computer system shows officers can tick tasks including “support needs” and “housing needs assessment”. The Council said it would have taken Mr X’s medical needs into account when deciding the properties were suitable.
31. Mr X gave the Council a further document in late February and Mr Z complained to the Council in mid-March 2025. He confirmed he had Mr X’s permission to complain so the Council could send Mr Z its response to the complaint. He said:
• The Council had discriminated against Mr X;
• Was relying on incorrect information to carry out the review; and
• Had not invited Mr X to ask for a review.
32. In early April 2025, the Council issued its review decision. The decision noted Mr X had said accommodation A was unsuitable for several reasons, which included:
• That he felt he would need 24-hour care after his surgery, which would not be possible in accommodation A. He also felt he needed day and nighttime support to wash and use the toilet, because of incontinence; and
• The property did not come with a riser-recliner chair or grab rails, which he felt he needed.
33. The Council’s review noted it had sought medical advice multiple times before it ended the main housing duty and had obtained more advice as part of its consideration of Mr X’s review. Based on that advice and its own consideration of the evidence, it decided:
• Mr X needed to be within 30 minutes’ drive of his hospital, for his surgery and after care;
• Mr X did not need 24-hour care, a riser recliner chair or grab rails. It noted that if Mr X needed equipment after his surgery, that could be provided by the hospital or Council, but it was unlikely to include a riser recliner or grab rails as those were not normally needed after surgery of Mr X’s type;
• There was no evidence Mr X had issues with incontinence, other than what he reported. It found the needs he reported could be met by purchasing continence pads; and
• Although it did not agree Mr X needed 24-hour care, it had asked accommodation A if it would allow a family member to support Mr X all day and night. The Council said accommodation A agreed that was possible, which the Council noted Mr X disputed.
34. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s review and confirmed it did not owe him the main housing duty. It said Mr X had the right to appeal the review decision to county court. It explained that nonetheless, if Mr X would confirm he would accept a property similar to accommodation A, it would “enquire about whether we have any which could be offered on a discretionary basis”.
35. On the same day, the Council told Mr Z it had closed his complaint because it related only to Mr Z’s review. It said those concerns did not come under its complaints procedure because the review was the correct mechanism to use to address them. It also told Mr Z it had completed the review and that if he did not agree with the outcome, he should appeal on behalf of Mr X.
36. At the end of the month, Mr Z told the Council he was unhappy it had sent the review outcome directly to Mr X.
37. After the review, the Council spoke to Mr X and Mr Z multiple times between April and July 2025. It repeated its offer to arrange accommodation like accommodation A, if Mr X would accept it. Mr Z and Mr X were of the view that kind of accommodation would be unsuitable because Mr X needed 24-hour care and either a studio or one bed flat. Mr X did not accept the offer.

Findings

Suitability of the final offer and review

38. Mr X could have appealed to county court about the Council’s delay responding to his review request. We do not normally investigate a matter where a person had a right of appeal to court and should have used it. However, it was not reasonable for Mr X to appeal because until he received the review outcome, he was unaware of his right to do so.
39. Mr X made his review request in late June 2024 so he should have received the outcome eight weeks later, by mid-August. The Council responded in early April 2025, almost eight months late.
40. There is no requirement for applicants to provide details of the reason why they have asked for a review so when it became clear Mr X would not send further details after the Council asked him to in June 2024, it should have progressed the review promptly. There was a short period of delay in early 2025 when Mr X found it difficult to send the Council evidence he wanted it to see, which was not Council fault. Nonetheless, most of the almost eight months of delay was down to the Council, which was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable frustration and uncertainty about what the review outcome might be.
41. The Council was not at fault for sending Mr X its review decision directly. Although Mr Z said he had authority to act on Mr X’s behalf in relation to the March 2025 complaint, he did not say he was also acting on Mr X’s behalf with regards to the review.
42. Mr X feels accommodation A was unsuitable and that he had no choice but to refuse it. He says this meant that by the time his surgery was due, he was not in settled accommodation, which meant the surgery was cancelled. However, as set out above, the Ombudsman cannot consider matters that should have been considered by the courts, or that are linked to matters which should have been to court. The Council’s April 2025 review decision was clear it did not uphold Mr X’s review request and that he had the right to appeal to county court if he disagreed with its decision. Mr Z was aware the Council had issued its decision on the same day the Council sent it to Mr X. Therefore, Mr Z could have obtained the decision and supported Mr X to appeal to court if necessary.
43. I have seen no good reasons why Mr X or Mr Z did not appeal so I cannot investigate the suitability of accommodation A. I also cannot investigate whether the officer that carried out the review was suitably independent. Any failings because of impartiality would presumably have resulted in a flawed decision, which Mr X should have appealed to county court.

Suitability of the accommodation offered while the review was ongoing

44. Once the Council ended the main housing duty it no longer had to house Mr X. However, it chose to do so between June 2024 and February 2025, which was of benefit to Mr X. Any housing the Council provided in that period still had to be suitable for him.
45. Mr X complained the Council offered him two flats in early 2025, which he felt were unsuitable because they were located away from Camden. The Council’s new recording system does not include a way for a caseworker to record how they considered the relevant factors in deciding homelessness accommodation was suitable. This means the Council cannot evidence how it decided the two flats were suitable, including in terms of their location. This was fault.
46. However, I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council not been at fault, it would have decided either accommodation was unsuitable. Although the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s medical needs concluded he should live no more than 30 minutes away from his hospital, this was for the purpose of his surgery and after care. At the time of the February 2025 offers, Mr X’s surgery was not imminent. The Code confirms that even if temporary accommodation would be unsuitable in the long-term, that does not mean it is unsuitable in the short-term. The Council noted it felt the last flat it offered Mr X was suitable “for now”. That suggests it had decided the flat would not be suitable long-term but was adequate in the short-term.
47. The Council was entitled to decide it would no longer house Mr X when he refused the first flat and to not make any further offers of accommodation after he refused the second flat. It was not at fault.

Accommodation after the review outcome

48. Mr X feels the Council has failed to do what it said it would in its review decision; to place him in suitable accommodation. However, the review outcome said that if Mr X would consider it, the Council would explore whether it could offer comparable accommodation to accommodation A. This was not an offer of accommodation but an offer to see if that was possible, if Mr X would accept it.
49. Mr X, Mr Z and the Council have differing opinions on what suitable housing looks like for Mr X. The review upheld the Council’s decision that accommodation A was suitable, despite not meeting the requirements Mr X feels it should have. This meant the Council’s offer of comparable accommodation would be similar to that of accommodation A; supported living, potentially with shared facilities, without a guarantee of 24-hour care and likely without grab rails or a riser recliner chair. The Council made its position clear several times in contact with Mr X and Mr Z after the review decision. Mr X did not confirm he would be willing to live in accommodation like accommodation A. Therefore, the Council was not at fault for not arranging for Mr X to move in.

Complaints handling

50. The Council was not at fault in how it responded to Mr Z’s complaint. Its complaints policy says it does not investigate complaints where the matter could be addressed in an alternative way. This is an approach the Ombudsman recommends councils take in its Complaints Handling Code. At its core, Mr Z’s complaint related to how the Council had decided accommodation A was suitable, and the Council was considering that as part of its review. The Council acted in accordance with its policy and so was not at fault.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty he experienced because of its delay responding to his review and its failure to keep appropriate records of how it decided the two flats it offered him were suitable. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £250 to recognise that injustice.
3. Identify what changes it needs to make to its computer system to allow officers to record their rationale of whether homelessness accommodation is suitable. The Council will tell the Ombudsman what those changes will be and when it intends to complete them by.
52. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman