Summary: Miss W complained on behalf of her mother Mrs X about how the Council handled her request for homelessness assistance. We find no fault regarding her complaints the Council was rude, wrong to issue a warning notice, lacked fairness and empathy and did not make reasonable adjustments. We find the Council at fault for housing Mrs X and her family in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation that caused significant injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss W complains on behalf of Mrs X about how the Council handled her request for homelessness assistance from March 2025. In particular she complains the Council:
1. Was rude and dismissive during a telephone call on 7 May 2025.
2. Issued a warning notice without sufficient justification.
3. Displayed a general lack of fairness and empathy when it failed to properly take account of her mental and physical health, financial circumstances and children’s needs.
4. Did not make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.
5. Provided unsuitable emergency bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation.
2. She says the Council’s actions caused significant stress, triggered a mental health crisis and caused distress to her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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))
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
7. 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.
8. 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

9. I have investigated from 24 March 2025 when Mrs X applied for assistance until 8 July 2025 when the Council provided its stage two complaint response.
10. Mrs X also raised concerns about Council actions that happened after 8 July including a move to hostel accommodation that she considers unsuitable. I have not investigated any matters beyond 8 July 2025 because the law says the Council should usually be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate matters before we do. I have seen no reason to exercise my discretion to investigate those matters in this case.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

Homelessness relevant law and guidance

13. 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.
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)

Threatened with homelessness and the prevention duty

15. Someone is threatened with homelessness if, when asking for assistance from the council:

• they are likely to become homeless within 56 days; or
• they have been served with a valid Section 21 notice which will expire within 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 175(4) & (5))

16. If councils are satisfied applicants are threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, they must take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. These steps should follow an assessment and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). This is the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
17. Once the council has accepted it owes the prevention duty, it must help the person for at least 56 days. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 14.11)

Relief duty and interim accommodation

18. 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.
19. The relief duty requires an authority to “take reasonable steps” to help the applicant to secure suitable accommodation which is available for occupation for at least six months. “Help to secure” does not mean that the authority has to source and provide accommodation, but that it should try to agree reasonable steps for itself and the applicant which could result in accommodation being found.
20. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188) Applicants in priority need may include people who have dependent children.

Equality Act and reasonable adjustments

21. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
22. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010.
23. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
24. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

What happened

25. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
26. On 24 March 2025 Mrs X applied for homelessness assistance. Her household were at risk of eviction. The eviction was due to happen on 8 May.
27. Her household was composed of Mrs X, her husband and their four children. The youngest child was under the age of 18 and therefore a dependent child. Her three other children were over 18 and therefore adults. One of her adult children had chronic health conditions.
28. On 25 March the Council requested Mrs X provide various documents as evidence of identity, finances, benefits and tenancy.
29. On 26 March the Council said it decided it owed the prevention duty. It said it sent Mrs X a prevention duty notification letter. It also said it sent Mrs X a PHP. The letter informed Mrs X of her right to request a review of her PHP. Miss W said Mrs X did not receive the documents.
30. Throughout April Mrs X said she took various steps to try to find new accommodation.
31. On 1 May Mrs X contacted the Council and said she was worried. She had not been able to find new accommodation. The Council replied the same day. It summarised what it had done to prevent her homelessness. It advised Mrs X to look for properties but to prepare for eviction.
32. In early May letting agents contacted Mrs X about properties she could view. Mrs X told the letting agents she would not view the properties because one was too far away and one had rent she could not afford.
33. On 7 May Mrs X contacted the Council. She was unhappy with its lack of communication about the steps it was taking to help. She said she was very distressed. Miss W spoke to a Council officer on the telephone. She felt the officer was unprofessional, condescending and had a lack of regard for Mrs X’s distressful circumstances.
34. On 8 May Mrs X and her family were evicted in the morning. She emailed the Council. She said her family were now homeless and she was extremely distressed. The Council replied. It had secured them B&B accommodation in a hotel.
35. On 9 May the Council decided it owed the relief duty. It emailed Mrs X a relief duty notification letter, an updated PHP and a warning notice.
36. On 13 May Mrs X viewed a property put forward by the Council. She took photos of the condition of the property. The photos included black mould, stains and broken fixtures. Mrs X said the property was not suitable.
37. On 14 May Miss W complained to the Council on behalf of Mrs X. It was treated as a stage one complaint.
38. In the complaint she explained why Mrs X considered the properties put forward at the beginning of May were unsuitable. She complained about the officer’s manner during the phone call on 7 May and that the Council had failed to properly assess the family’s needs including the chronic health condition of one of her adult children.
39. On 16 May the Council sent a final accommodation offer letter to Mrs X. It was regarding the property she had viewed on 13 May. The Council said the property was suitable and it had decided to close her case. Mrs X asked the Council to review its decision. It withdrew its decision of 16 May and said her homeless application remained open.
40. On 27 May the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage one complaint. It reiterated her homeless application remained open. It said her current B&B interim accommodation was not a form of long term accommodation. It advised she may be required to move into hostel accommodation.
41. In early June the Council contacted Mrs X. It suggested she explore the option that her adult children apply for homelessness assistance independently or financially contribute to make properties in the private rented sector more affordable. It said the average waiting time for a 4 bedroom council property, as required by her household, was 67 years.
42. On 10 June Miss W complained to the Council on behalf of Mrs X. She wrote two complaint letters. They were treated as a stage two complaint. She complained the Council’s response of 27 May failed to address the core issues she raised in her stage one complaint. She also complained that the Council had advised Mrs X that her adult children should apply for assistance independently or financially contribute.
43. On 11 June the Council emailed Mrs X and requested documents to do an updated financial assessment. It gave a one day deadline to provide the documents.
44. Miss W emailed the Council and said Mrs X was having a mental health crisis. She said the family would support her in providing the documents but asked for additional time to respond. The Council replied that the documents related to the adult members of the household. It expected them to be able to respond without delay.
45. On 8 July the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. It acknowledged its stage one complaint did not address all the issues she had raised. It went on to address and respond to eighteen issues that Mrs X had complained about. It concluded it did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint.
46. The Council accepted the main housing duty and secured alternative temporary accommodation for Mrs X after the period I investigated.

Analysis

47. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.
48. The amount of information provided by Miss W and the Council was considerable. In this decision, I have not referred to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
49. I address each part of the complaint in order below.

Rude and dismissive telephone call on 7 May 2025.

50. I have considered Miss W’s account of the telephone call. I note the Council confirmed the telephone call was not recorded.
51. I have decided there is not enough evidence to say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the Council officer was rude and dismissive in the call. For this reason I do not find the Council at fault for this part of the complaint.

Issued a warning notice without sufficient justification.

52. In the warning notice the Council said Mrs X appeared to be deliberately and unreasonably refusing to take steps detailed in her PHP.
53. The Council advised Mrs X in the PHP that she would be put forward to view any property that becomes available which is affordable and suitable for her. It explained it could not guarantee the property would be in the area of her choice. It said if she refused an offer it may close her case.
54. The PHP included a recommended action. It said Mrs X should contact her caseworker as soon as possible if she was unable to attend a property viewing. It said the importance of viewing could not be overstated and should always be a priority.
55. Miss W commented Mrs X has no record she received the prevention duty notification letter and PHP from the Council. Miss W said she thinks the Council did not send those documents to Mrs X. She is of the view that subsequent requests for information from the Council supports this.
56. I have considered Miss W’s comments, the documents, and the subsequent correspondence with the Council. I find the available evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities, the Council sent the letter and PHP to Mrs X. I make this finding in line with paragraphs 7 and 47.
57. I have not considered whether the PHP was appropriate at any stage of my investigation. This is because the Council notified Mrs X she had the right to ask for a review of the PHP. I have decided it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have used that right. I have, however, investigated whether the Council took account of the PHP when it decided to issue the warning notice.
58. The case notes show the Council was notified by a letting agent that Mrs X declined to view a property. The letting agent said Mrs X thought the property was too far away.
59. I acknowledge Mrs X’s opinion that the property was unsuitable due to its location. However, the warning notice specified it was being issued because Mrs X had not contacted her caseworker when she decided not to view the property.
60. I have seen no evidence Mrs X contacted her caseworker when she decided not to view the property. For this reason I find no fault in the way the Council made its decision to issue the warning notice.

Displayed a general lack of fairness and empathy.

61. I acknowledge Miss W’s detailed explanation of the impact of the circumstances on her family. These included:

• The impact on the chronic medical condition suffered by a family member including the difficulty in storing medication that needed to be refrigerated.
• The constant state of housing uncertainty due to the B&B accommodation being approved on a weekly basis.
• The distress Mrs X experienced because she wanted to support her children.

62. In particular I note Miss W complained Mrs X was distressed by the Council’s advice that she explore the option that her non-dependent adult children apply for homelessness assistance independently or financially contribute.
63. I have considered all the evidence of the Council’s actions, decisions and communication. I find the Council acted promptly to assess Mrs X’s application, decide she was eligible and in priority need, and accept its prevention, relief and interim accommodation duties.
64. I acknowledge Mrs X and her family were in a very difficult situation. However, I find the evidence shows the Council’s actions, when considered as a whole, were taken in line with its homelessness duties and with due regard to Mrs X and her family’s circumstances. I have decided there is no evidence the Council displayed a general lack of fairness or empathy. For these reasons I do not find the Council at fault for this part of the complaint.

Did not make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act.

65. Miss W said Mrs X suffered from depression, poor mental health and English was not her first language.
66. She thought the Council should have considered those factors. She said it should have allowed her more time to provide information. She complained it recorded the actions in the PHP because it forced unreasonable deadlines.
67. I have not investigated the content of the PHP for the reason explained in paragraph 57.
68. I have decided there is not enough evidence that any of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, including disability, applied to Mrs X. For this reason I find the Equality Act is not relevant to these issues and I do not find the Council at fault for this part of the complaint.

Provided unsuitable emergency B&B accommodation.

69. The Council secured B&B accommodation the same day Mrs X and her family became homeless. This was 8 May 2025.
70. The Code of Guidance says wherever possible, Councils should avoid using B&B accommodation. It can only be used for households which include a dependent child when no other accommodation is available and then for no more than six weeks.
71. Based on the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to try to relieve Mrs X’s homelessness and there was no other accommodation available. For that reason, I do not find the Council at fault for securing emergency B&B accommodation for the first six weeks.
72. However, the Code of Guidance makes it clear the Council should have found different accommodation after six weeks because Mrs X’s household had a dependent child. It should have done this by 19 June 2025. It failed to do so. This was fault.
73. The Council did not move Mrs X and her household out of B&B accommodation until 22 September 2025. This was about thirteen and a half weeks longer than the maximum six weeks allowed.
74. The Council commented to acknowledge it makes use of B&B accommodation for families on an emergency basis where there are no properties available that are more suitable. It said it makes every effort to move families out of B&B before six weeks, but doing so depended on there being self-contained units available. It said it was working to move away from B&B accommodation but several factors that drive B&B use were not within its control.
75. I am satisfied the fault was due to the acute shortage of temporary accommodation available to councils. I have seen no evidence the Council’s failure was due to intent, flawed policy or process or bad faith. For these reasons I find the fault was due to service failure, not maladministration, as explained in paragraph 4.
76. The fault caused Mrs X and her family significant injustice for the thirteen and a half week period. The Code of Guidance says living in B&B accommodation can be particularly detrimental to the health and development of children. The accommodation would have caused significant injustice in the form of distress to all of Mrs X’s household.
77. I have considered our guidance on remedies. I have decided to recommend the Council apologise and make a symbolic payment of £100 for every week it housed Mrs X’s family in B&B accommodation to remedy the injustice. This is a total payment of £1,350.

Back to top

Action

78. Within four weeks of the date of this final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise for the injustice. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £1,350 to acknowledge the injustice.
79. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

80. I find the Council at fault for housing Mrs X and her household in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation causing injustice, and no fault for the other parts of the complaint for the reasons explained in the analysis section. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice and I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman