Summary: Mr X has complained the Council failed to complete an assessment of his and his disabled child’s housing needs and offered unsuitable interim accommodation. Mr X also complains the Council said he refused a home visit and/or a Team Around the Family meeting which was not the case. We have not found fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained the Council failed to complete an assessment of his and his disabled child’s housing needs and offered unsuitable interim accommodation. Mr X also complains the Council said he refused a home visit and/or a Team Around the Family meeting which was not the case.
2. Mr X says this has caused him and his family a great deal of distress.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and The Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. 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.
8. 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)
9. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
10. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. This is called the relief duty. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
11. 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)
12. When a council makes inquiries to determine whether an applicant is eligible for assistance and owed a duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, it may also make inquiries to establish an applicant’s local connection. A person has a local connection with a council if they:
1. are, or were in the past, normally resident there, and that residence was of their own choice; or,
2. are employed there; or,
3. have family associations living there; or,
4. have any special circumstances. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 10.3 & 10.4 & Housing Act 1996, section 199(1))

What happened

13. Mr X sent the Council a copy of a Court Order in late April 2025 he received saying he had to leave his property in May 2025.
14. The Council emailed Mr X to arrange an appointment to discuss housing options the same day and noted Mr X’s son is disabled and would require adapted accommodation.
15. The Council completed an assessment in early May 2025 and noted Mr X would lose his current property at the end of May. The Council also noted Mr X’s son would need accommodation to be adapted. The Council wrote to Mr X to say it accepted the prevention duty.
16. The Council offered Mr X a property in mid-May 2025. However, when Mr X visited the property, it was a two-bed property and was not suitable.
17. The Council offered a further two bed property.
18. Mr X was unhappy the Council had offered him accommodation which he thought was not suitable. Mr X said he required the specifications of any properties offered to him and its suitability for adaptions.
19. The Council emailed Mr X in mid-May and said it understood the property originally offered was a three-bed bungalow and was adapted or adaptable to meet Mr X’s sons needs. The Council apologised for this and said it would continue to work with the family to address their needs. It also explained its options were limited and explained the only alternatives at the time of the offer were a one-bed flat and Bed & Breakfast accommodation.
20. The Council made a further offer of accommodation to Mr X in mid-May 2025. It said the property housed up to six people and was the most suitable option at the time. The Council explained the accommodation was close to transport links, schools, shops and a GP surgery. The Council said it understood it would be a difficult transition from a fully adapted property to temporary accommodation, but it would continue to work to secure suitable accommodation. The Council also said due to the urgency of the matter it would like to arrange a Team Around the Family meeting.
21. Mr X raised a complaint in mid-May 2025 and said the offers made by the Council did not offer space for adaptions such as a hydrotherapy or therapy room. Mr X said he did not feel the Council were valuing his son’s needs. Mr X said he was objecting to a Team Around the Family meeting on legal and strategic safeguarding grounds.
22. The Council responded to the complaint the following day and said it apologised for the first offer made and explained again it understood the property was three bed. It said it offered the other two bed property as emergency accommodation and it considered the three bed property was reasonable. The Council also said Mr X had remained in his property for longer than it originally thought he could. It said had it known that it may not have made the offers it had as the situation was not as urgent as it originally appeared. The Council also said it was not in a position to agree to Mr X’s requirements such as a hydrotherapy pool as this was a matter for Health and Social Care. The Council asked Mr X to confirm if he had accommodation for his children.
23. Mr X raised a stage two complaint the following day and said the Council ignored multiple breaches of statutory duty and the offers it had made were just not suitable. Mr X also said he was unhappy the Council had made a safeguarding referral.
24. The Council responded in mid-June 2025 and said it considered the three offers it made were suitable in the short-term on an emergency basis. The Council said the Housing Officer in the case would contact Mr X.
25. Mr X emailed the Council several days later to say he was still unhappy.
26. The Council emailed Mr X to offer a home visit. Mr X declined this and said he did not want any contact until the referral to children’s services was withdrawn. The Council then offered to meet Mr X to discus his complaint.
27. The Council emailed Mr X in early July 2025 and said it had started assessing his family’s needs in early May. It recorded Mr Y’s son would require a wheelchair accessible property and sought additional advice such as Occupational Health advice surrounding other needs. The Council explained over the coming days Mr X explained his son’s needs were greater than the Council had originally indicated and the Council suggested a Team Around the Family meeting. The Council said Mr X refused this. The Council also said although Mr X expressed a long list of adaptions, many of these are not able to be provided by a housing authority. The Council confirmed other agencies would need to be involved in assessing/determining of what can be provided. The Council apologised for contact made after the stage two response if Mr X was not expecting it but said it was outlined in the response. The Council also noted Mr X said he did not want any contact. The Council said it made a referral to children’s services inline with procedure.
28. Mr X sent a further email in early July 2025 explaining why he was unhappy and the Council responded to say its position remained unchanged.
29. Mr X continued to write to the Council explaining he was unhappy with its approach. The Council offered further home visits.
30. The Council closed Mr X’s case in January 2026 following no contact.

Analysis

31. The Council completed an assessment shortly after Mr X advised he had received notification to say he had to leave his property. The Council began to try to locate accommodation for Mr X and his family and made offers of accommodation.
32. Mr X did not think the offers of accommodation were suitable based on his son’s needs. The Council has consistently explained to Mr X that it could not meet the list of requirements that Mr X wanted for the property as some of the requirements were Health and Social care related. The Council also explained it had limited options available to it and made offers due to what it understood was the emergency nature of the situation at the time.
33. The Council has explained it made offers on the basis that it understood the family were imminently being made homeless and were made as emergency accommodation. The Council has acknowledged the accommodation may not have been suitable long-term but was suitable as emergency accommodation.
34. The list of requirements Mr X said needed to be in place for accommodation for his son was extensive. While I appreciate Mr X’s son had significant needs, it would be very difficult for the Council to obtain a property which met those needs at short notice. I have not found fault in the Councils action in relation to its assessment or the offers made to Mr X for emergency accommodation.
35. Mr X complained the Council said he had refused a Team Around the Family meeting or home visits but that this was not the case. However, I have seen Mr X said he was refusing a Team Around the Family meeting in May 2025 and a said he did not want any contact following the offer of a home visit in June 2025. I have not found fault in relation to this element of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman