Summary: The Council was at fault in how it helped Miss X when she was being evicted and for failing to tell her of her right to ask for a review of her homelessness accommodation’s suitability and her priority on the social housing register. The faults caused Miss X avoidable distress, confusion and uncertainty and meant she remained in unsuitable accommodation for too long. The Council will apologise to Miss X, make a symbolic payment, review her priority and take action to prevent similar fault in future.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council placed her in unsuitable homelessness accommodation. She also complained the Council did not tell her it had decided she could live in any location. Miss X said this exacerbated her health condition, risked her child’s education and isolated her.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

7. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
8. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
9. Where a local authority is satisfied that an applicant is homeless and eligible, it must take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure that accommodation becomes available for at least six months. This is the relief duty. It can last for up to 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
10. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. As part of the assessment the council decides what accommodation the person needs, including where the accommodation should be and how many bedrooms it should have. 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)

Interim accommodation and priority need

11. If a council has reason to believe an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, it must secure interim accommodation for them. The duty to secure interim accommodation is immediate. This means councils must provide accommodation straight away. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
12. A council may decide an applicant is in priority need if they meet certain criteria. This includes people who have children or are pregnant.
13. The threshold for triggering the interim accommodation duty is low as the council only has to have a reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.5)

The main housing duty

14. 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. This is the main housing duty. The accommodation councils provide after they accept a main housing duty is called temporary accommodation, rather than interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
15. Councils can end the main housing duty in a range of ways. This includes when an applicant accepts an offer of a fully assured tenancy from a private landlord, including a housing association.

Accommodation suitability

16. 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 accommodation and temporary accommodation (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
17. Applicants do not have a statutory right of review regarding the suitability of their interim accommodation. They do, however, have a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation. When a council accepts the main housing duty, it writes to the applicant with its decision and must tell the applicant of their right to request a suitability review. The applicant has 21 days after the date of the council’s main housing duty decision to request a review. If the council does not agree the accommodation is unsuitable, the applicant can appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Evictions

18. Where a tenant has an assured shorthold tenancy, the landlord can issue a section 21 notice asking the tenant to leave.
19. If the person does not leave after the notice expires, the landlord can obtain an eviction (possession) order from the courts. This accrues costs which the tenant normally has to pay.
20. The person remains in the home, the landlord can obtain a warrant or writ of possession from the courts. This allows the landlord to appoint enforcement agents (bailiffs) to evict the tenant. Each stage of the bailiffs eviction process also accrues costs.

Housing register

21. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating social housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
22. When people apply to the Council for social housing, it uses its allocation scheme to place applicants in one of four bands. Band 1 applicants have the highest priority and band 4 applicants have the least. Applicants are then added to the Council’s housing register.
23. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables applicants on its housing register to bid for available properties which it advertises. Once bidding on a property closes, the Council decides which applicants the property is suitable for, based on the size of the property and the applicant’s needs. Within the group of people for whom the property is suitable, it is awarded to the person with the highest band. If more than one person from the highest band bid on the property, it is allocated to the person who has been in that band for the longest. If there is more than one person with same priority band date, the property goes to the person with the oldest application date.
24. For people making a new application to join the housing register, their application date is the same as their band priority date.
25. Band 3 applicants include people who are owed the relief duty. For those applicants, their application date is the date they were owed the duty.
26. If applicants disagree with a decision the Council has made, including the decision on what priority band a person should have, they can ask for a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision.

What happened

27. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
28. Miss X has a degenerative condition which affects her mobility and ability to manage day-to-day tasks. The condition is exacerbated by stress and involves periodic relapses, each of which results in a permanent increase in needs. At the time Miss X applied to the Council she had one child and was pregnant.
29. In April 2024, Miss X told the Council her landlord had told her she needed to move out because the landlord was selling the property. The landlord had given Miss X a section 21 notice.
30. The Council met with Miss X in late May. It said the section 21 notice was not valid. Miss X told her landlord, who sent a valid replacement which expired at the end of July. Miss X told the Council and in late August, she added that her landlord was pursuing a possession order. The Council told Miss X to let it know when she received the possession order. Miss X received the possession order in mid-February 2025.
31. In early June 2025, Miss X told the Council she had received the order. In response, the Council arranged an emergency appointment with Miss X and assured her it had prioritised looking for a property for her to move into. It said it would not leave it until the last minute to find her a home.
32. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the relief duty in mid-June. Shortly after, Miss X said bailiffs were due to come to her home in mid-July to evict her.
33. The Council decided it owed Miss X the duty to provide interim accommodation. It moved her into that home (accommodation A) four days before the bailiffs were due. The accommodation was outside of the Council’s area. Miss X was unhappy with the accommodation for several reasons which include that it was far from her support network and her son’s school. She contacted her MP in mid-July and said she wanted the Council to reconsider her circumstances as she felt the accommodation was unsuitable.
34. In early August, the Council made an offer of private rental accommodation to Miss X (accommodation B). Its decision letter said it was satisfied that accommodation was suitable, so it was ending the main housing duty. The Council had not yet told Miss X it owed her the main housing duty.
35. Miss X viewed accommodation B and accepted the offer.
36. In early October, the Council sent Miss X a decision letter which stated:

• It had completed its assessment of her homelessness application;
• It accepted it owed her the main housing duty;
• Her interim accommodation was now temporary accommodation; and
• It had added her to its housing register. It had decided she needed a two-bed property and would be in band 3.

37. In response, and on the same day, Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to accept the main housing duty because she felt her banding was wrong. She said she needed to be near her support network and hospital due to her health condition. Miss X also said her child was being assessed for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This is a document which sets out a child’s special educational needs and what support is necessary to meet them. Miss X said her child needed educational stability.
38. Around a week later, Miss X told her MP that she was having more frequent relapses of her health condition.
39. Miss X heard that accommodation B’s landlord had withdrawn their offer in mid-November. She continued to live in accommodation A.
40. In mid-February 2026, following contact from the Ombudsman about Miss X’s complaint, the Council carried out a suitability review of accommodation A. As part of that review, Miss X described the impact of the housing on her health condition and told the Council her child now had a diagnosis of neurodivergence and an EHC Plan.
41. The Council concluded the accommodation was unsuitable. In early March 2026, Miss X moved to new temporary accommodation and she remains there.

Findings

Eviction

42. The Council has a duty to house people in interim accommodation when it has reason to believe they may be eligible for support, homeless, and in priority need. Miss X was eligible for homelessness assistance and was in priority need because she had one child and was pregnant. Therefore, when Miss X applied to the Council for support in April 2024, the question that remained was whether the Council had reason to believe she was homeless.
43. At each stage of the eviction process, the Council should have considered whether it was reasonable for Miss X to remain in the property. If it was not reasonable, then Miss X would have been classed as homeless despite still occupying the home.
44. The Code says it is unlikely to be reasonable for a tenant to stay beyond the expiry of a (section 21) notice if the landlord intends to recover possession and there would be no defence to an application for a possession order (paragraph 6.35). However, it can be reasonable to expect the person to stay beyond the notice’s expiry, if the council is taking steps to persuade the landlord to allow the person to stay for a ‘reasonable period’ to allow time to find the person other housing.
45. There is no evidence the Council considered whether it was reasonable for Miss X to remain in her home after the valid section 21 notice expired in July 2024, which was fault. There is also no evidence the Council thought about whether Miss X could continue to stay in her home after she told the Council her landlord was seeking a possession order in August 2024, which was further fault. In accordance with paragraph 6.35 of the Code, had the Council not been at fault it would have, on balance, decided Miss X could not stay at her home in August 2024. This means the Council would have decided Miss X was homeless, which would have meant it owed her the relief duty. The relief duty requires councils to take reasonable steps to support a resident to secure accommodation for at least six months. The fault leaves Miss X with uncertainty about whether the Council could have helped her do this.
46. The fault also meant the Council added Miss X to its housing register with a later application and band priority date than it should have done. Miss X’s application and band priority date should have been August 2024, when the Council should have concluded it owed her the relief duty.
47. But for the fault, it is likely the Council would have decided it owed Miss X the interim accommodation duty in August 2024 as well. However, I cannot say, even on balance, when the Council would have arranged alternative accommodation for Miss X. Councils can decided a person’s existing accommodation is suitable as interim accommodation for a short period. It was unlikely the Council could have prevented Miss X from being evicted altogether, given the landlord wanted to sell the property. However, at that time, the property was otherwise suitable for Miss X. It might, therefore, have been reasonable for her to stay beyond the notice at least for a short period. As a result, the Council’s fault leaves Miss X with avoidable uncertainty.
48. The Code goes on to say it is highly unlikely to be reasonable for a tenant to continue to occupy a property beyond the date a court has issued a possession order (paragraph 6.36). Miss X received a possession order in February and told the Council in early June. The Council accepted it owed her the relief duty at that point, because it was unreasonable for her to continue to remain in her home after the court issued the possession order. At that point, the Council accepted it owed Miss X the interim accommodation duty as well.
49. When Miss X told the Council she had the possession order, there could be no persuasive argument that her home was suitable as interim accommodation for a short time. Therefore, the Council needed to find alternative housing for her the same day. Instead, it placed Miss X in accommodation A five weeks later, and just four days before she was due to be evicted. The fault caused Miss X significant avoidable distress but it did not result in her paying court or bailiffs costs, because her landlord paid them.
50. A previous Ombudsman investigation identified that the Council failed to act in accordance with homelessness legislation when the complainant was being evicted. The Council agreed to provide training and guidance to staff on the increasing likelihood an applicant is homeless as the possession process proceeds and the need to revisit decisions about whether an applicant is homeless before each stage and with any other relevant change in circumstances. The Council completed that recommendation in January 2026, after the date of the faults in Miss X’s case. As a result, I have not made further recommendations.

Assessment and main housing duty

51. Councils must complete an assessment of a homeless person’s case and prepare a PHP when it accepts it owes them the prevention or relief duty. The Council accepted it owed Miss X the relief duty in mid-June 2025 and offered her accommodation B in August, for the purpose of ending the main housing duty. This indicates that at the time of the offer, the Council had completed Miss X’s assessment and decided it owed her the main housing duty. However, it delayed telling her this until October and failed to send her a PHP altogether. This was fault. It caused Miss X uncertainty and confusion, particularly when the Council told her it had ended the main housing duty before telling her it accepted it.

Accommodation A

52. Interim and temporary accommodation must be suitable for the homeless person living in them. Applicants do not have a right to ask for a review of the suitability of interim accommodation, but councils should still consider if the property is suitable when the applicant raises concerns. Conversely, councils must tell applicants of their right to ask for a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation.
53. Miss X felt accommodation A was unsuitable and told her MP this in July 2025. At that time, it was interim accommodation. However, there is no evidence the MP told the Council of Miss X’s concerns at that time, and Miss X did not tell the Council directly herself. The Council was not at fault for not considering whether Miss X’s concerns meant accommodation A was unsuitable.
54. When accommodation A became temporary accommodation in October 2024, the Council failed to tell Miss X of her right to ask for a review of its suitability. This was fault.
55. In August 2025, in response to a previous Ombudsman investigation, the Council amended its main housing duty decision letter to include a section on the person’s right to request a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation. It is not clear why it failed to use that letter in Miss X’s case. I have therefore made a recommendation to prevent similar fault in future.
56. I cannot say, even on balance, that but for the fault, the Council would have agreed accommodation A was unsuitable when it was interim accommodation or when it became temporary accommodation. When the Council decided, in February 2026, that the accommodation was unsuitable, it still did not agree that Miss X needed to live closer to her support network, hospital or her child’s school. This makes it unlikely that the Council would have decided the location made accommodation A unsuitable had the Council considered its suitability when it should have done. In addition, by February 2026, Miss X’s health had worsened because of relapses, and her son now had a new diagnosis and an EHC Plan. Therefore, the Council’s failure to tell Miss X of her review right caused her significant avoidable frustration and uncertainty about what the Council might have decided, had it not been at fault.
57. After accepting accommodation A was unsuitable, the Council took almost two weeks to move Miss X. This was fault. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate so the Council should have found suitable housing straight away. The delay was long enough to amount to a significant personal injustice for Miss X.
58. If Miss X feels her current temporary accommodation is unsuitable, she can ask for a review of its suitability within 21 days of the date the Council offered the housing. If Miss X is unhappy with the outcome of that review, she can pursue a case to the county court.

Accommodation B

59. The Council was at fault for poor communication with Miss X after she accepted the offer of accommodation B in August 2025. When the landlord withdrew the offer, the Council should have told Miss X without delay, instead of waiting until November. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.

Social register banding

60. Miss X is unhappy the Council did not tell her it had decided she could live in any location. However, the Council set out its decision on what accommodation she needed in its assessment outcome letter. If it had decided Miss X needed to live within a certain area, it would have said so in that letter, where it set out that she needed two bedrooms. The Council was not at fault.
61. In response to the Council’s decision to accept the main housing duty, Miss X mistakenly asked the Council to review its decision to accept the main housing duty. However, her request was clearly a request for the Council to review its decision to place her in band 3. The Council was at fault for failing to act on that request, which caused Miss X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Action

62. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Miss X for the uncertainty, frustration, distress and confusion she felt because of the faults set out in this decision. 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.
2. Pay Miss X £750 to recognise that injustice. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we normally recommend up to £500 for such injustice. A higher amount is appropriate in this case given Miss X experienced injustice from a wide range of faults and given the impact on her was greater because of her health.
3. Pay Miss X £100 to recognise the impact of having to remain in accommodation A for two weeks after the Council had accepted it was unsuitable.
4. Complete a review of Miss X’s priority band on the housing register. The Council should give Miss X a one-week period to submit comments and evidence in support of her review request. If the review results in the Council increasing Miss X’s banding, it should consider whether it would have come to the same conclusion in October 2025, when Miss X requested the review. If it would have, the Council should backdate Miss X’s band priority to October 2025.
5. Amend Miss X’s application date and priority band date on the housing register to reflect the fact she was owed the relief duty in August 2024.
6. Amend its main housing duty decision letters so that they ensure the Council tells an applicant of their right to request a review of their housing register band priority.
7. Review why the Council failed to use the version of the main housing duty decision letter it created following the Ombudsman’s previous investigation, with the section on the applicant’s right to request a review of the suitability of their temporary accommodation. The Council will consider what steps it needs to take to prevent similar fault in future and tell the Ombudsman its decision, along with timescales for completing the steps.
8. Identify why the Council failed to communicate its decision on the outcome of Miss X’s assessment, on whether it owed her the main housing duty and on the landlord’s decision not to let accommodation B to her in a timely way. The Council will tell the Ombudsman what steps it will take to improve its communication in future and when it will complete those steps by.
63. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

64. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman