Summary: We upheld Miss B’s complaint that the Council failed to move her quickly enough from unsuitable temporary accommodation. The failure caused injustice because of the time Miss B had to remain in that unsuitable temporary accommodation. At the end of this statement, we set out action the Council has agreed to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss B complained to the Council in January 2025 that it had placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. Miss B is a victim of domestic abuse and told the Council the house it had placed her in was close to where her ex-partner (Mr C) worked. Miss B complained to us as while the Council had agreed to move her in March 2025, it did not do so until November.
2. Miss B also told us the property had disrepair; was too small and unsuitable because of a medical condition she has.
3. Miss B said while she remained in the property, her and her children were at risk from Mr C. Along with the poor living conditions, this caused them distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. Our view, based on caselaw, is that ‘service failure’ is an objective, factual question about what happened. A finding of service failure does not imply blame, intent or bad faith by the council involved. There may be circumstances where we decide service failure has occurred and caused an injustice to the complainant despite the best efforts of the council. This still amounts to fault. (R (on the application of ER) v CLA (LGO) [2014] EWCA civ 1407) 
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. If 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 did and did not investigate

9. Miss B complained to us in August 2025. I decided that I could only investigate events relevant to the complaint that happened from August 2024 onward. This was despite Miss B’s complaint inviting us to consider earlier events.
10. Specifically, Miss B wanted us to investigate the Council’s decision to move her to ‘Property X’ in September 2022. I noted that before then, the Council had housed Miss B in temporary accommodation since 2013, because of homelessness. Miss B said Property X was never suitable because of its location. I noted that before Miss B moved to Property X, the Council had completed a housing suitability assessment. This identified Miss B was a victim of domestic abuse from Mr C. It also set out certain areas where Miss B might be at high risk of meeting Mr C. This included near his place of work. Yet despite this, Property X was just half a mile from Mr C’s place of work and on a major road.
11. Given the evidence set out above, I considered if my investigation should include looking at how the Council came to identify Property X as suitable for Miss B. But clearly, any complaint about that decision was late. So, to investigate it I would have to find there were good reasons which prevented Miss B complaining to us sooner.
12. I could not identify such reasons. I asked the Council if it had any record of Miss B contacting it before January 2025 (when she made her complaint to it) that Property X was unsuitable for her. It had none. Nor did it receive any contact from any other organisation, such as the police or an advocacy service, raising concerns on her behalf.
13. Nor did I find evidence that Miss B may have wanted to complain earlier but could not do so. I noted that Miss B had various health conditions. But there was also no evidence any of these resulted in her being unable to complain between September 2022 and July 2024.
14. I also found no evidence that Miss B raised concerns about the suitability of Property X for any reason other than its location. While Miss B told us she thought the property overcrowded and in poor repair, there was no record she raised these concerns with the Council. So, there was no evidence on which I could potentially find the Council at fault for failing to respond to those concerns.

Back to top

How I have considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. I gave Miss B and the Council a draft version of this decision statement to comment on. I considered any comments they made, or further evidence they provided in response, before putting this decision statement in its final format.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

17. 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.
18. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them and anyone who lives with them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
19. If a council finds an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need then usually it has a duty to make accommodation available to them. This is the “main housing duty”.
20. Where a council owes the main housing duty it must secure accommodation for the household. “Temporary accommodation” is the accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
21. Homeless applicants can ask for a review of certain decisions taken by the Council in connection with their homelessness. This includes asking for a review of the suitability of any accommodation offered to them once the Council has accepted it owes the main housing duty. Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer. They must do so within 21 days of the Council offering them accommodation.
22. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless households is suitable for their needs. This duty applies to temporary accommodation (see Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2).
23. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when considering if it is suitable for the applicant and their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

24. If the Council agrees accommodation is unsuitable it is under a duty to find alternative accommodation. That duty is immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified (see Elkundi, R (On the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601).
25. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless because of domestic abuse, it should make interim accommodation available to them immediately while it investigates. (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 21.25)

Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)

26. A MARAC is a meeting where agencies share information on high-risk domestic abuse cases. The meetings can include representatives from the police, health, child protection, housing, probation and other relevant specialists. The MARAC provides a plan to safeguard the adult victim.

The key facts

27. Miss B is a single parent with four children. The Council accepted she was homeless and it owed her the main housing duty in 2013. It placed the family in temporary accommodation and periodically they had to move when that became unsuitable or was no longer available. They moved to Property X, as temporary accommodation, in September 2022. When Miss B moved to Property X the Council knew Miss B had been a victim of domestic abuse and the perpetrator was Mr C.
28. In December 2024 Miss B contacted her Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA), who works for an organisation forming part of the Council’s Early Help service (part of its Children’s social services). Miss B said that she had been trying to contact her housing officer without success. She also said she had contacted the MARAC.
29. An email sent by the IDVA to Miss B in January 2025, suggested the MARAC had awareness of her case. The IDVA understood the MARAC had contacted the housing service. It said this was because Mr C had located Property X.
30. In January 2025 Miss B made a complaint to the Council. She said Property X was unsuitable for her because it was in a risk area, close to where Mr C worked. Miss B said she had repeatedly tried to contact her housing officer without success.
31. The Council replied early in February 2025. It apologised for poor communications from its housing officer. It said it wanted to set up “a better line of communication” for Miss B and gave her an alternative email address she could use for urgent enquiries. It said the Council would review the suitability of Property X. It would then look to find her “a suitable property”. Its housing officer would also liaise with the police to assess the risk she faced. The Council said if this was high, then it would “request emergency accommodation” for her.
32. In the next few days, the Council contacted the police, which said Miss B had not reported any recent incidents. The police also explained ongoing support provided to Miss B to help safeguard her.
33. Next, the IDVA, completed a risk assessment with Miss B. In this they recorded Mr C had approached Miss B in a public place in August 2024 and telephoned her in November 2024. It said Miss B worried Mr C might know the address of Property X but did not say he did know it.
34. Then, in early March 2025 the Council completed a housing suitability review. This referred to Mr C "harassing the family and making unauthorised visits”. Miss B gave the Council two crime numbers for incidents recorded in September 2024.
35. Next, the Council made an offer of alternative temporary accommodation to Miss B outside of the Borough. Officer notes show the Council considered journey times for Miss B to get to work and her children to get to school. The Council sent details of the property to Miss B but recorded she did not respond in the time requested.
36. An email sent by a Council housing officer to Miss B’s IDVA in April 2025 suggested Miss B had declined the property because of concerns it was an area known to Mr C. However, the IDVA said this was wrong and Miss B had declined the property because it was again temporary accommodation and she wanted permanent accommodation. The IDVA indicated they supported this and said that communications with Miss B’s Housing Officer remained poor.
37. Before this, in late March 2025, a MARAC meeting had considered Miss B’s case. The Council housing service representative recorded some discussion over Miss B’s housing options and resolved to find out more. The meeting took place a few days after the Council sent Miss B a letter confirming that it considered Property X unsuitable to meet her housing needs and promising to re-house her.
38. The Council told us that after the MARAC meeting it continued to assess the risk posed to Miss B by remaining in Property X and explore alternative options. The Council said the case had complexities because of the concerns about domestic abuse and that Miss B did not want to move to another temporary property.
39. In June 2025 Miss B escalated her complaint, dissatisfied that she had not had more contact from her Housing Officer. While it considered its reply the Council made another offer of temporary accommodation to Miss B. This was in a similar location to the property offered in March. Miss B challenged the suitability of the accommodation saying it was close to members of Mr C’s family, and her children would face too long a journey to school. The Council agreed to withdraw the offer.
40. In early August, the Council gave its final reply to Miss B’s complaint. It said it was “not happy with the speed of contact with yourself or the speed with which this matter has progressed overall”. Around the same time it completed another housing suitability assessment.
41. In October 2025 the Council made a third offer to Miss B of temporary accommodation out of Borough. But it then withdrew this offer.
42. In November 2025 the Council made another offer of temporary accommodation to Miss B. This was again out of Borough but involved a shorter home to school journey than previous offers. Miss B accepted the offer.

My findings

43. I located no exact record of when, in 2024, Miss B first tried to contact the Council to let it know Mr C had contacted her and / or discovered her address. But the emails she exchanged with her IDVA referred to Miss B trying to contact her housing officer in December 2024 because of concerns for her safety. Miss B also referred to contacting the MARAC around this time, presumably because of the same concerns.
44. I found it likely therefore that December 2024 was when the Council’s housing service should have learnt of Miss B’s concerns. I found this view reinforced when I considered the reply it gave to Miss B’s complaint. In this, the Council accepted that it did not provide good customer service to Miss B because its housing officer failed to return her calls. The Council’s poor customer service here was a fault. And its delay in responding to her contacts, caused Miss B an injustice, which I discuss later in this statement.
45. In its reply to Miss B’s complaint, the Council apologised which I thought appropriate. It also took some sensible and proportionate actions to review Miss B’s housing. It asked her IDVA to complete a risk assessment and contacted the police force.
46. Those sources of information provided a confusing picture of what recent contact Miss B had with Mr C. The risk assessment did not explain that Mr C had learnt the address of Property X. While the police force said it had received no ‘recent contact’ from Miss B, without explaining how it defined that. I noted that later Miss B provided crime reference numbers from September 2024. This suggested she had contacted the police in the six months before the Council’s enquiry.
47. The Council considered these responses when it assessed the risk posed to Miss B by Mr C. I am concerned it therefore did so without necessarily knowing all relevant information. However, I could not say the Council was at fault here, as it relied either on information from a third party (the police) or that Miss B gave to her IDVA.
48. In addition, I noted that soon afterwards, in early March 2025, the Council completed its own suitability review of Miss B’s housing. That identified Mr C had learnt of Miss B’s address, and she had contacted the police about his contacts.
49. The suitability review led the Council to find Property X no long suitable for Miss B. So, from that time on, it had an immediate and unqualified duty to move Miss B to more suitable accommodation.
50. The Council failed to do that, until November 2025. I noted there was evidence showing the Council made efforts to try and secure some alternative temporary accommodation for Miss B before then. But the weight of evidence suggested the offers it made in March, July and October 2025 were all unsuitable. This was either because of their distance from the children’s school and / or because they were in areas known to Mr C.
51. So, even though it clearly made efforts, I have to find the Council at fault for not offering suitable alternative temporary accommodation to Miss B sooner. I considered this most likely resulted from a service failure, given the extent of housing need the Council faces.
52. The result of the delay in the Council finding suitable alternative housing for Miss B was that she remained in unsuitable accommodation for around eight months. To this, I also needed to take account of the two-month delay in the Council responding to Miss B when she let it know Mr C had contacted her. I considered had the Council acted more promptly, it would have accepted a need to move Miss B sooner. So, that delay added to the time she spent living in Property X which had become unsuitable. That was an injustice to her.
53. I went on to recommend actions I wanted the Council to take to remedy the injustice to Miss B of living in unsuitable temporary accommodation for ten months. The Council accepted these, set out in the ‘agreed action’ section below. Before recommending actions, I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. This recommends we consider a symbolic payment when a complainant has not had suitable accommodation during an already stressful time in their life. My recommended remedy fell within the range recommended in these circumstances.

Back to top

Agreed Action

54. Within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint, the Council has therefore agreed, it will:
1. apologise to Miss B, accepting the findings of this investigation. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
2. make a symbolic payment to Miss B of £1500 in recognition of her injustice.
55. The Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with these actions.
56. I decided against making any recommendation designed to improve the Council’s service. There were two reasons for this. First, I did not consider there was enough evidence that I could conclude the poor customer service Miss B received was anything other than due to specific failings in this case. Second, I noted that in November 2025 we issued a decision on another case which required the Council to update us on efforts to improve the stock of temporary housing available to it. I considered it would be premature for us to make a further similar recommendation, as I had to allow time for those efforts to deliver results.

Back to top

Decision

57. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Miss B. The Council accepted this finding and agreed to take action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I could complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman