Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application because it delayed accepting a main housing duty, failed to keep her personalised housing plan under review and failed to offer temporary accommodation when it should have done. The Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the uncertainty caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. She said the Council delayed making decisions, failed to keep her personalised housing plan under review, failed to provide temporary accommodation, refused help with a deposit and rent in advance. Ms X said the Council’s failings caused avoidable distress and she incurred financial losses due to it not providing temporary accommodation.
2. After complaining to us, Ms X made a further complaint to the Council about delays in completing voids works in a property offered to her and its subsequent withdrawal. She said this caused her anxiety and further financial losses.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

7. Ms X approached the Council for assistance after leaving her private rented property because the landlord wanted to sell. At the time, she was staying with a friend but said she would need to leave in about a month. The Council accepted a relief duty and issued a personalised housing plan (PHP) on 14 May 2025. It also accepted a housing register application so she could bid for social housing.
8. In May 2025, Council records show it discussed temporary accommodation (TA) with Ms X, who said her friend did not want her to have to move and had agreed she could stay longer. Also in May, in response to a complaint, the Council said it had no TA available in its area, so any TA offered would be outside the area. It said it could arrange bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation, but that was a last resort and was restricted to 6 weeks by law. This advice was repeated in a further complaint response in June 2025. Ms X complained to us in early July.
9. On 9 July, the Council offered a housing association property, property A, through its housing register. Ms X was also considered for property B but said she preferred property A. Property A was advertised without an expected start date because works were needed before a tenancy could be offered. The housing association initially said a tenancy was likely to start in mid-August. It later said works would be completed by late August.
10. In early September, the Council changed Ms X’s status on its housing register so she could bid for other properties in view of the delay. At that point, Ms X said she wanted to wait for property A and she asked how much longer it was likely to be. The Council explained the timeframe for completing repairs was a matter for the housing association, and it could not say how long the wait would be, which was why it had advised her to bid for other properties.
11. Ms X made a further complaint. In its complaint response, the Council explained it had no control over how long housing associations took to do repairs but that, in view of the delay, it had allowed her to bid on other properties, which meant it had had to record the offer as withdrawn on its bidding system. However, as it had previously confirmed, Ms X would still be considered for property A when it became available.
12. On 7 October, the housing association confirmed it was taking enforcement action and could not say when property A would be ready to move to. The Council informed Ms X property A was no longer available and advised her to bid for alternative properties.

My assessment

13. The Council accepted a relief duty and issued a PHP on 14 May 2025. The relief duty would usually last 56 days, following which the Council would decide if a main housing duty was owed. I would therefore expect the Council to have accepted a main housing duty on or around 10 June 2025, but it did not do so until 14 October 2025. There is no indication there were ongoing enquiries to account for that delay, and I note the final offer of housing was not made until 7 July, almost a month after the decision should have been made.
14. Since Ms X has a dependent child, she was in priority need. This means that, from 14 April 2025, the Council had a duty to arrange interim accommodation and from 14 October, it had a duty to arrange temporary accommodation (TA). That accommodation did not necessarily need to be in its area. Although there are records of discussions about TA, there is no record the Council made a specific offer of accommodation at any point prior to 7 October 2025.
15. If we were to investigate further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for a delay in accepting the main housing duty, a failure to keep the PHP under review and a failure to offer interim/temporary accommodation. These failings caused an injustice to Ms X who was left uncertain about how the Council would help her. Whilst it is unclear if she would have accepted a B&B or TA outside the Council’s area, there is some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different if the Council had made a specific offer of accommodation, and that is an injustice to Ms X. In addition, Ms X has provided evidence she incurred hotel costs of £424 in the period April to late September 2025 for nights where she was not able to stay with her friend.
16. Therefore, we asked the Council to take action to remedy the injustice, and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• Pay her £900 as a symbolic payment to remedy the uncertainty caused, in particular by its failure to offer interim or temporary accommodation.
17. The Council told us it has already taken the action listed below. It should provide evidence it has done so within one month of this decision.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of making main housing duty decisions without undue delay at the end of the 56 day relief duty period; and
• Remind relevant staff of its duty to provide interim accommodation where it has reason to believe an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, and to arrange temporary accommodation when it accepts a main housing duty.
18. The Council made a final offer of housing on 7 July, which would have meant it could discharge its homelessness duty, had the tenancy been secured. Its records show it communicated appropriately with the housing association about the delay and kept Ms X informed of substantive updates from the housing association. It was appropriate for it to allow Ms X the chance to bid on other properties from early September, even though Ms X was still being considered for property A, although I appreciate Ms X found this confusing because, in order for its system to allow her to bid, it had to record the offer of property A as withdrawn. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in relation to the offer of property A to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her homelessness application. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman