Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his review request of accommodation it sourced for him linked to his homelessness application. We found fault because the Council took too long to complete a suitability review of the accommodation. This caused him avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council offered him homeless accommodation which was out of the area and was not suitable for the needs of him and his family. He says it took too long to review the suitability of the accommodation offer when he requested this.
2. Mr X says this caused him distress, frustration and uncertainty and affected his family’s quality of life.

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. 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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation begins when Mr X presented as homeless to the Council in December 2024.
7. My investigation ends in August 2025 when the Council made its suitability decision on the property it had offered him in January 2025.
8. Mr X had the right to appeal to the county court when the Council took longer than eight weeks to complete his suitability review. However, the Council did not notify him of this. I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate the delay in completing the review as I am satisfied it is appropriate in the circumstances of this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
10. Mr 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

11. 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.
12. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)

The prevention duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

14. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

15. 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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer, or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Suitable accommodation

16. Homelessness accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) This applies to accommodation offered under the prevention, relief or main housing duties.
17. Anyone who believes accommodation offered by a housing authority (in this case the Council) is unsuitable can ask it to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) This is regardless of which duty the accommodation is offered under. We refer to this as an S202 review in this decision.
18. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
19. Councils must complete reviews within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
20. Councils 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)
21. 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)
22. 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)

What happened

23. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
24. Mr X approached the Council in December 2024 to say that he and his family were going to become homeless. He spoke with an allocated worker and submitted evidence to support his claim.
25. On 20 December 2024, the Council made the decision it owed him the relief duty under its homelessness powers.

2025

26. On 10 January 2025, the Council offered Mr X an option of accommodation (Property A) in the private rental sector (PRS). The offer made was in a town over 200 miles away by car from the Council’s area (Town A). The letter said the offer was a final accommodation offer which would bring the relief duty to an end. The Council advised Mr X he had a right to request a review of the suitability of this offer within 21 days.
27. Mr X emailed the Council on 14 January. He said he could not accept Property A for various reasons:
• he was being interviewed for several jobs in London;
• Town A was not safe for him to live in due to distant family connections with gang-related activity there;
• Town A had a high crime rate;
• Property A was too small for his growing family;
• medical needs of his partner were being dealt with in the Council’s area; and
• living in Town A and Property A would be detrimental to his mental health and cause risk to his family.
28. Mr X asked for an S202 review of the Council’s offer and for him to be considered for social housing in the Council’s area. He offered to provide any extra information the Council required.
29. The Council acknowledged his review request on 15 January and said it would give him its decision by the eight-week deadline of 11 March.
30. Mr X sent information to the Council on 16 January to support his reasoning for saying the family could not move to Town A.
31. On 17 January, the Council emailed Mr X to formally end its homelessness relief duty to him. It said this was because he had refused an offer of final accommodation at Property A.
32. The letter explained it had offered Mr X two extensions to decide whether he wished to accept Property A. It said he had not responded to contacts made on 17 January and so the Council was satisfied it could end its duties as he had been told this would happen if he did not accept Property A. The letter responded in detail to Mr X’s reasons for not wanting to move to Town A or accept Property A. It said it considered that it was satisfied Property A was ‘suitable and reasonable’ for him to accept. The officer writing the letter did not specifically respond to or mention Mr X’s S202 review request despite being aware Mr X had made it.
33. The Council’s letter said Mr X had 21 days to seek a review of its decision to end its duty. It said any review request would review whether Property A was suitable as well as its decision to end its duty. Mr X did not request a further review.
34. Mr X contacted the Council over the coming months about his application to join its housing register.
35. In mid-June, Mr X complained to us about the Council’s lack of action relating to his homelessness. At the end of June, Mr X complained to the Council about delays in assessing his housing register application. The Council responded to this by the end of July.
36. In August, we communicated with the Council about Mr X’s complaint to us regarding his delayed suitability review. On 14 August, the Council confirmed to us it had not yet completed his January 2025 S202 review due to backlogs within the review team. It explained it had recently been in touch with Mr X to request evidence for the review and the decision would soon be issued.
37. On 15 August, the Council completed an internal review of the January offer. Review documents show that when making its January offer of Property A, it had not evidenced its consideration of available properties in the borough before it offered Mr X a property out of the borough. The review also concluded the Council’s decision letter had not reflected the enquiries made and was therefore lacking in necessary detail. The Council made the decision to review Mr X’s case.
38. The Council emailed Mr X the same day to advise ‘further evaluation’ was needed, somebody would be in touch and his review request was now closed.

After the period of my investigation

39. On 22 September 2025 and having reassessed his case, the Council issued a letter to Mr X to confirm its homelessness decision for him. It decided it owed him the main housing duty as he was eligible for assistance, in priority need and had a connection to the borough. The letter explained the Council had a duty to secure accommodation for him on an ongoing basis until the duty ended. The letter explained some of the reasons the duty would be ended.
40. The Council also sent Mr X a personal housing plan setting out what steps needed to be taken by both parties. This included Mr X searching for PRS accommodation in the area.
41. In October 2025, Mr X’s personal circumstances changed. The Council nominated him for PRS accommodation in November 2025.
42. Early in 2026, Mr X told the Council he had secured a tenancy outside of the borough. The Council sent him a notification letter advising it would end its main housing duty to him because he had settled accommodation where he had been living since late 2025.

Analysis

Suitable accommodation review request

43. When Mr X made his S202 request in January 2025, the Council should have given him a formal decision within eight weeks and by the middle of March. This did not happen. The Council confirmed to us in August 2025 that it had not yet completed his review due to backlogs in the relevant team.
44. It then progressed his review as a matter of urgency. It decided it could not say the offer of Property A had been suitable due to a lack of compliance documentation on the case from when the offer was made.
45. Not completing the review within eight weeks was fault. I acknowledge Mr X and his family were not without accommodation during the five-month delay of the review being completed. However, I am satisfied the Council’s inaction caused him avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty whilst he waited for the decision to be made. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
46. By mid-September 2025, the Council had completed its reconsideration of Mr X’s homelessness status and had confirmed it owed him the main housing duty. I therefore make no further recommendations relating to his homelessness case.

Review backlog

47. As part of my enquiries, I asked the Council what steps it had taken to deal with the review backlog.
48. In response, the Council said it had taken a variety of steps such as:
• staff recruitment;
• administration support;
• monitoring and statistic work; and
• extra training for relevant caseworkers.
49. The Council also provided evidence to show it had significantly reduced the number of cases waiting longer than eight weeks for a review decision between December 2024 and December 2025. It further explained it had processed a higher number of new review cases within eight weeks in the 12 months from December 2024 to December 2025.
50. I welcome the Council’s progress in dealing with S202 reviews within the statutory timescale. In an unrelated but similar complaint to us, the Council has also recently agreed to review its processes to progress reviews within the statutory timescale. With these points in mind, I do not intend to make any service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

51. 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 Mr X for the identified injustice; and
• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £150 to remedy the identified injustice.
52. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
53. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

55. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman