Summary: We have found fault with the Council for making a delayed relief duty decision, and for failing to secure suitable accommodation for Mr X. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and the injustice of living in unsuitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council failed to provide him with suitable interim and temporary accommodation when he was homeless. He said this has meant he has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. He said the Council failed to award the appropriate mobility category on the housing register.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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.

4. I have investigated the alleged delays and failure to provide interim/temporary accommodation.
5. I have not investigated matters that the Council have reviewed or that Mr X could have requested a review on. This includes the Council’s decision that Mr X was intentionally homeless, and the decision on his mobility category and requirements for an additional bedroom.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Law and guidance

Interim accommodation

8. The section 188 duty to arrange interim accommodation is triggered as soon as the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible, homeless and in priority need. This is a low threshold. It is an absolute duty and the authority cannot postpone it due to a lack of available resources. It arises immediately and councils should have processes in place to find accommodation for households on the day they need it. 
9. The council has to offer interim accommodation. The applicant does not have to accept it. However, if the applicant refuses an offer of interim accommodation, the council has no further duty to provide it. The council will still owe any other duties (e.g. relief duty).

The prevention duty

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

Review rights

13. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• their eligibility for assistance;
• what duty (if any) is owed to them if they are found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the prevention duty stage;
• the steps they are to take in their personalised housing plan at the relief duty stage;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end.

Review timescale and right of appeal

14. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within three weeks of either the date of the review request or the date they receive written representations:
• on the steps they are to take in the personal housing plan at the prevention or relief duty stage; or
• Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:
• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
15. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Council’s mobility criteria

16. In the Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme, it sets out the criteria that applicants are tested against to determine what mobility category they are awarded. This allows the Council to match their mobility and access requirements to the available properties.
17. The categories that are relevant to this complaint are 3 and 4. Category 3 includes applicants with severe mobility problems who require a ground floor or lifted property with level access and no internal stairs. Category 4 covers those applicants with no significant mobility issues.

What happened

Homelessness decision

18. In November 2024, Mr X presented to the Council as homeless. He was sleeping on the sofa at a family member’s home and had been asked to leave.
19. The Council assessed Mr X and made enquiries.
20. In December, the Council determined that Mr X did not have significant mobility issues, awarding him category 4 mobility. The Council based its decision on medical information received from Mr X’s GP.
21. Mr X provided additional medical information that the Council considered. The Council concluded that Mr X did not meet the criteria for an additional bedroom or to change his mobility category from 4 to 3.
22. Mr X requested a review of the Council’s decision. He attached further medical information.
23. The Council carried out a non-statutory review of its decision on Mr X’s mobility and request for an extra bedroom. It considered the additional information provided by Mr X, but its decision remained the same.

Relief duty

24. In January 2025, the Council accepted the relief duty and issued Mr X with a personalised housing plan (PHP). It referred him to the private rented sector and made a request for interim accommodation as it had reason to believe he had priority need. Mr X said he was not interested in privately rented accommodation. The Council removed him from the scheme.

Interim accommodation

25. In January, the Council offered Mr X interim accommodation in a different London borough. Mr X’s sister rejected this on his behalf. This was on the grounds that he needed to remain close to family as they provided care and support for him. The Council accepted the reason for refusal and continued to look for suitable interim accommodation.

Complaint

26. In February, Mr X’s sister complained about how the Council handled his homelessness application. The Council said that it would normally decide whether it owed a homeless duty within a week of assessing an applicant. It apologised that there was a 6-week delay in accepting the relief duty. It offered Mr X £160 in recognition of the delay.
27. Mr X’s sister escalated her complaint stating that the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation for her brother despite accepting he had priority need.

Main housing duty

28. In March, the Council accepted the main housing duty. The Council continued to look for suitable (temporary) accommodation for Mr X.

Complain to LGSCO

29. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025. At this stage, Mr X was still homeless and without temporary accommodation.

My findings

Delayed relief duty decision

30. The Council has accepted it was at fault for the delay in accepting the relief duty. I agree the delay was fault causing Mr X uncertainty and frustration. I consider the Council’s offer of £160 to be in line with our guidance on remedies.
31. The Council has already apologised to Mr X for this delay. The Council has agreed to pay Mr X £160 previously offered.

Failure to secure interim accommodation

32. The Council said it had reason to believe Mr X had a priority need. Therefore, the Council had a duty to secure suitable interim accommodation for Mr X. The Council offered Mr X interim accommodation in January. This was 8 weeks after Mr X presented as homeless. I have found fault here. The Council should have secured interim accommodation as soon as it had reason to believe Mr X had a priority need.
33. After Mr X’s sister rejected the Council’s offer of interim accommodation, the Council could have ended its section 188 duty if it deemed the property to be suitable for Mr X. However, it accepted that Mr X needed to live close to family who provided him care and support. It told Mr X that it would continue to look for alternative accommodation, but supply was limited.
34. While I recognise the lack of availability for accommodation in the area, the Council still had a duty to provide suitable interim accommodation for Mr X. Therefore, I have found fault with the Council for failing to secure suitable interim accommodation.

Failure to secure suitable temporary accommodation

35. When the Council accepted the main housing duty in March 2025, it’s duty to secure interim accommodation ended, and its duty to secure temporary accommodation began. At the time of Mr X’s complaint to us (July 2025), the Council had not secured temporary accommodation. This was fault.

Update

36. At the end of July 2025, Mr X moved into self-contained temporary accommodation. In February 2026, the Council offered, and Mr X moved into permanent accommodation.

Conclusion

37. I have found fault with the Council for failing to secure suitable interim and temporary accommodation for Mr X between November 2024 and July 2025. The lack of suitable accommodation caused Mr X significant distress. In line with our guidance on remedies, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 for each month he spent without suitable accommodation. This amounts to £1200 for the period November 2024-July 2025.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Pay Mr X £160 in recognition of the distress caused by the Council’s delay in making a relief duty decision.
2. Apologise to Mr X for failing to secure suitable accommodation when it had reason to believe he was in priority need.
3. Pay Mr X £1200 in recognition of the distress caused by living in unsuitable accommodation for 8 months.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman