Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to suitably consider its homelessness duty to Mr X for three months causing Mr X to sleep rough. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,500 for the injustice its fault caused. We did not find fault with the Council’s offer of interim accommodation in July 2025 or its decision about bedroom need.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed in its homelessness assessment leaving him sleeping in his car for about a month.
2. Mr X also complained when the Council did consider his situation and needs, it placed him at unsuitable interim accommodation.
3. Mr X complained the Council failed to consider medical evidence when deciding he is eligible to bid on one-bedroom properties when he needs a two-bedroom property because of a medical condition.

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. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. 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

8. I have investigated all matters Mr X raised with the Council in his stage one and stage two complaints resulting in the Council’s final response on 19 August 2025.
9. I have included relevant information about events relating to these complaints which occurred after 19 August 2025 but have not investigated new issues Mr X complained about after this date. For clarity, I have considered the further communication between Mr X and the Council and the Council’s decision making about Mr X’s bedroom need up to 11 February 2026. I have not investigated any new issues which only occurred after 19 August 2025 such as Mr X’s dispute about welfare checks and the notice to quit.
10. Any new issues Mr X has had after 19 August 2025, or new dispute about Mr X’s bedroom need from 12 February 2026, would be the subject of a new complaint with the Council which he would need to raise with the Council first. The Ombudsman will not reinvestigate any matters already considered in any future complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness

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 or help to obtain 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. The threshold for triggering the duty to make inquiries is low. The person does not have to complete a specific form or approach a particular department of the council. (Housing Act 1996, section 184 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 6.2 and 18.5)
15. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
16. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
17. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
18. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
19. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
20. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
21. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Housing needs

22. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
23. The Council’s housing allowance policy says it will grant a one-bedroom need for a single person household.
24. The Council’s policy says there are exceptional circumstances in which it can allocate a higher bedroom need for a single person household. The Council outlines it may exercise its discretion to allow a higher bedroom need and this is considered on a case by case basis. The Council does not provide a full exhaustive list of circumstances it would consider but provides a few examples such as for medical equipment.
25. The Council must notify the applicant of the right to request a review of its housing decisions. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(9))
26. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing needs.
27. The Council’s policy says it will inform a person about the outcome of a review request as soon as practicable.

What happened

28. In April 2025, Mr X made a housing register application with the Council. Mr X stated he lived with his parents but was the victim of domestic violence so needed to move. Mr X went on to confirm he had No Fixed Address despite advising he lived with his parents.
29. The Council responded to Mr X’s application to query his living situation. The Council told Mr X he could make a homelessness application if needed and provided advice about how to make a self-referral.
30. In June 2025, Mr X contacted the Council to advise he was living in his car. Mr X asked for assistance to complete the homelessness referral because of his disabilities. The Council responded the same date and arranged an emergency appointment for Mr X to the following day.
31. At the emergency appointment Mr X could not transfer relevant electronic documents because of a system error. Mr X agreed to return with hard copies of the documents. The Council offered Mr X emergency/interim accommodation to Mr X but he declined this because it was not suitable for his medical needs. The Council confirmed it needed to complete an investigation and assess Mr X for homelessness and began its investigation the same day. Mr X confirmed he wanted communication to only be made by email and returned with hard copies of the information three days later.
32. On 19 June 2025, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Mr X complained:
• The Council had mishandled his emergency homelessness assessment and left him without suitable accommodation since the start of June 2025.
• The Council had been dismissive and discriminatory during the assessment.
• The Council had blocked his access to communicating with the Council by blocking an email he had sent.
33. The Council contacted Mr X by email to discuss next steps with his housing matter.
34. On 24 June 2025, Mr X responded to the Council’s contact. The Council asked Mr X if he needed emergency accommodation
35. Mr X responded the following day to confirm he needed emergency accommodation but rejected the accommodation offered by the Council earlier in the month because it did not meet his needs.
36. The Council asked Mr X for medical evidence to support what properties would suit his needs for interim accommodation. Mr X and the Council liaised about what information it needed and what Mr X had provided.
37. The Council issued a formal stage one complaint response on 26 June 2025. The Council said:
• It was aware Mr X attended the offices for an emergency homelessness assessment at the start of June 2025 but disputed it promised to contact him within 48 hours. The Council said it has since been in contact on 24 June 2025 moving his case forwards.
• It did not discriminate against Mr X during the assessment but pointed out when the information Mr X produced through an Artificial Intelligence tool was not correct.
• It had reason to believe Mr X was homeless, eligible and in priority need and offered Mr X interim accommodation at the start of June 2025 but Mr X had declined this. The Council said this satisfied its duty.
• Mr X could contact it if he wants to proceed with securing interim accommodation.
• It had not blocked Mr X’s access to communicating with the Council but he had used an invalid email address.
38. The Council issued Mr X’s Personal Housing Plan confirming it considered Mr X had a one-bedroom need.
39. On 7 July 2025, the Council decided it owed a relief duty to Mr X and confirmed Mr X was homeless and eligible for help. The Council contacted the landlord of a property (Property 1) to see if it could place Mr X there. The landlord of the property said it could accommodate Mr X but only from 8 July 2025. The Council told Mr X about this property and he agreed to this.
40. Because the landlord could not provide the property until 8 July 2025, the Council offered a place at a Bed & Breakfast for one night. Mr X visited the Bed & Breakfast and contacted the Council after the Council offices had closed for the day to advise it was not suitable for his needs. Mr X did not stay at the Bed & Breakfast.
41. Mr X moved into Property 1 as interim accommodation on 8 July 2025 as planned. Mr X confirmed with the Council Property 1 was the most suitable accommodation he had ever been in.
42. At the end of July 2025, Mr X told the Council he considered the Council had a set a precedent of a two-bedroom property by providing him with interim accommodation in Property 1. Mrs X said he would not accept anything less for future housing. The Council told Mr X it considered he had a one-bedroom need and needed medical evidence from him to show a two-bedroom need. Mr X liaised with the Council about this disagreement over bedroom need.
43. On 1 August 2025, Mr X made a review request about the Council allocating a one-bedroom need. Mr X said he considered he had provided enough evidence already to support his need for a two-bedroom property.
44. On 5 August 2025, the Council did not uphold Mr X’s review request for a two-bedroom need. The Council said it had examined the full medical evidence from Mr X and outlined how this did not justify an exception to the one-bedroom need it had allocated in line with its policy. The Council confirmed to Mr X there was no further review options. The Council reiterated its decision to Mr X later in August 2025 as a formal review letter.
45. Mr X made a request for the Council to consider his complaint at stage two on 7 August 2025. Mr X made various complaint points which the Council addressed in turn in its complaint response of 19 August 2025. Of relevance to this complaint, the Council said:
• It had examined the full medical evidence provided by Mr X but could find no reference to him having a two-bedroom need.
• It had provided Mr X with interim accommodation that met his needs for self-contained accommodation, as evidenced through his medical evidence, and this was included within his Personal Housing Plan moving forwards.
• It had properly considered its housing policy when deciding that Mr X does not justify an exception to its policy for him having a one-bedroom need.
• Offering Mr X interim accommodation which contains two bedrooms did not set a precedent for offering two-bedroom properties in the future. The Council said it placed Mr X in this interim accommodation because he was homeless, eligible and priority need and this property was available and met his needs for a self-contained property.
• It secured the current property as interim accommodation and is not owned by the Council but leased from a private landlord. It has no intention to move Mr X from this property in the short term but private landlords have a right to request return of their properties. The Council said if the landlord did request return of the property it would offer further suitable accommodation.
• It had conducted an assessment of the suitability of Mr X’s interim accommodation and Mr X had confirmed this was suitable for his needs.
• It offered Mr X the Bed & Breakfast accommodation for one night only on the premise that Property 1 would be available the next day. The Council said it told Mr X this information at the time and this offer was made based on availability.
• It has already conducted a review of Mr X’s one-bedroom need and sent the outcome of this to Mr X.
46. Mr X sent medical information about his housing needs in October 2025. The medical information confirmed Mr X’s need for privacy, access to outdoor space and low noise levels. The medical advice confirmed they were not recommending an exception to the Council’s policy outlining Mr X had a one-bedroom need. The Council confirmed with Mr X it maintained its position that he had a one-bedroom need based on this medical information.
47. In October 2025, the Council formally accepted it owed Mr X the main housing duty and ended the relief duty because Mr X was in suitable accommodation. Mr X contacted the Council to advise he considered this letter confirmed the benchmark of his two-bedroom need as the Council said the accommodation offered was suitable for his needs and made a further complaint to the Council about the Council’s stance that he only had a one-bedroom need.
48. The Council responded to Mr X to advise it considered the property Mr X was living in was suitable to meet the current duty it owed Mr X as temporary accommodation. The Council explained that its current duty would come to an end when Mr X accepts a suitable offer of social housing or assured short-hold tenancy and that neither of these circumstances require the property to be the same as that offered through temporary accommodation. The Council reiterated its position that Mr X had a one-bedroom need.
49. Mr X continued to dispute the bedroom need with the Council in October 2025, November 2025 and December 2025.
50. In December 2025, the Council completed a care assessment of Mr X. This care assessment said Mr X’s current living environment was having a positive impact on Mr X and if the Council could meet Mr X’s housing needs there would be no identified requirement for ongoing support from the Adult Social Care team.
51. Mr X raised a request for formal review of the suitability of his temporary accommodation. The Council requested information from Mr X as to why he did not consider his current temporary accommodation was suitable. The Council advised this review process was not a mechanism to dispute the Council’s decision about Mr X’s bedroom need and would only be applicable about specific properties once the Council made an offer to Mr X. Mr X responded to dispute the Council’s decision to provide him temporary accommodation with two bedrooms but only allocate a one-bedroom need moving forwards and raised concerns about the current condition of the temporary accommodation. The Council rejected the review request because Mr X had not raised any reasons why the temporary accommodation was unsuitable for him. The Council raised the disrepair concerns with the temporary accommodation team.
52. Mr X continued to dispute the Council’s decision he had a one-bedroom need and referred the Council to the recent care assessment.
53. In February 2026, the Council provided a formal response to Mr X’s dispute about his bedroom need. The Council referenced the care assessment and the medical information provided in balancing its decision that Mr X had a one-bedroom need. The Council provided its full rationale to Mr X.

Analysis

Homelessness assessment

54. In April 2025, Mr X told the Council he had no fixed address but also told the Council he was living at his parents’ address. Mr X supplemented this by confirming he was the subject of domestic violence from a member of his family. This information from Mr X met the threshold for the Council to consider its homelessness duty under Section 184; the Council failed to do this.
55. While the Council responded to Mr X to seek clarification on the information he had provided about his address, this fell short of it making inquiries into what, if any, duty it owed Mr X. This was fault.
56. When Mr X contacted the Council again at the start of June 2025 it decided it owed Mr X a Section 188 duty and offered him interim accommodation. Had the Council taken the correct steps in April 2025, it would, on the balance of probabilities, have decided it owed Mr X a Section 188 duty two months sooner.
57. When the Council decided it owed Mr X a Section 188 duty in June 2025, it offered Mr X interim accommodation; Mr X rejected this offer. The Council had a duty to offer this interim accommodation but, in theory, had no further duty to provide interim accommodation when Mr X rejected this. However, the Council did have a duty to consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it offered Mr X. The Council’s notes show it did not consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it offered to Mr X in June 2025. This is despite Mr X rejecting the interim accommodation for being unsuitable. The failure to consider the suitability of the interim accommodation it offered to Mr X is fault.
58. Despite Mr X’s further contacts in June 2025, the Council failed to reconsider the suitability of the interim accommodation on offer to Mr X until 7 July 2025; this was fault. This fault meant Mr X went three months without the Council suitably considering its homelessness duty for Mr X. This meant Mr X went without suitable accommodation, sleeping in his car or sofa surfing, for three months because of the Council’s fault.
59. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a payment of between £300 and £1,000 per month where a person has needed to sleep rough because of the Council’s fault. The Council should apologises to Mr X and pay him a total of £1,500 for the injustice its fault caused. I reached this figure by balancing the Council’s failure to exercise its homelessness duty sooner against Mr X rejecting the offer of interim accommodation, albeit one he considered unsuitable, at the start of June 2025. This meant Mr X did not mitigate his own injustice for the final month by opting to sleep rough rather than staying in the interim accommodation offered by the Council.

Interim accommodation offered in July 2025

60. Mr X complained the Council offered him unsuitable accommodation again on 7 July 2025.
61. On 7 July 2025, the Council found accommodation for Mr X at Property 1 which met his criteria. Mr X has himself confirmed this property is the most suitable accommodation he has lived in. However, this accommodation was not available for Mr X until 8 July 2025. I do not find fault with the Council being unable to get a privately owned property sooner; this is not something the Council has control of.
62. The Council offered Mr X emergency accommodation for one night until Property 1 was available. The Council has acknowledged this accommodation did not meet all Mr X’s needs and offered this based on availability to provide a safe place for Mr X to stay until Property 1 was available. Mr X agreed to visit the accommodation but rejected this. Mr X’s rejection of the property only occurred after the Council’s office hours had closed. This meant the Council had no opportunity to review the suitability of this accommodation or find alternative emergency accommodation for Mr X before Property 1 was available on 8 July 2025.
63. Overall, I do not find fault with the Council’s offer of the accommodation from 7 July 2025 in the circumstances.

Allocation of a one-bedroom need rather than two-bedroom need

64. Mr X has disputed the Council’s decision that he has a one-bedroom need rather than a two-bedroom need.
65. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Neither are we a court, and so cannot determine or define the law.
66. The Council decided Mr X had a one-bedroom need because he was a single household; this is a decision in line with its policy.
67. The Council has shown consideration of Mr X’s circumstances and full medical information and decided an exceptional circumstance does not exist for Mr X for it to allocate a two-bedroom need. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
68. The Council completed a review of its decision in August 2025 in line with its policy and maintained its position that Mr X only had a one-bedroom need.
69. Mr X continued to dispute the Council’s decision and raised concerns about the Council setting a benchmark in October 2025 when it formally confirmed the main housing duty and recommendations from the care assessment. The Council was consistent in its position that Mr X had a one-bedroom need, despite consideration of the care assessment, and maintained it had not set a benchmark through its allocation of two-bedroom temporary accommodation.
70. Overall, the Council has considered Mr X’s full circumstances and evidence, the Council has followed its policy and made a discretionary decision in line with its policy and the evidence available to it. The Council has also followed its review process correctly and considered new evidence when this came to light. I do not find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Action

71. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide Mr X with an apology and a payment of £1,500 for the delays in its consideration of its homelessness duty to Mr X including a failure to make suitable inquiries about whether it owed a duty and failing to reconsider the suitability of interim accommodation it offered. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

73. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman