Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her housing. The Council was at fault for delaying in deciding the main housing duty, communicating poorly about her rent and service charge and failing to provide individual support to Miss X. This caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty and delayed her right to a statutory review. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. It should also correct any errors on her rent account.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her housing, she says the Council;
1. created confusion by telling her it owed her a relief duty, despite this having expired;
2. ignored medical evidence and wrongly denied her the main housing duty;
3. incorrectly added debt to her rent account;
4. placed her in unsuitable interim accommodation;
5. failed to make reasonable adjustments in accordance with the equality act and failed to make any trauma informed adjustments by refusing to allocate her case to a new officer; and
6. poorly responded to her complaints.
2. Miss X says the Council’s actions caused her mental and physical health to decline and she considers she has been retraumatised by the services that were supposed to safeguard her.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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

6. I have investigated matters relating to Miss X’s complaint from April 2025 to mid-September 2025. I have not investigated any matters after mid-September 2025 because Miss X complained to the Ombudsman at this time and I cannot consider any ongoing matters after this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

Legislation and guidance

Homelessness

9. 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)

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)

Interim and temporary accommodation

13. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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.
17. 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)
18. 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.

Review rights

19. 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;
• giving notice to bring the relief duty to an end;
• the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Right of appeal

20. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. (Housing Act 1996)

What happened?

21. Miss X made a homelessness application to the Council on 24 April 2025.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X on 28 April awarding her the relief duty, noting it had reason to believe she was homeless.
23. The same day it offered her interim accommodation, which was within a House in Multiple Occupation. The Council completed an internal suitability assessment and decided the accommodation was suitable for Miss X. In doing so, the Council considered the information Miss X gave during the homelessness assessment, which included a GP letter and information about her therapy and medication.
24. Miss X moved into the property the following day but told the Council it was unsuitable because of her needs relating to a traumatic past.
25. Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council on 19 May about the same issues as this complaint.
26. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint on 6 June. It did not uphold any of her complaints.
27. On 3 July, internal Council records noted its housing wellbeing team had been supporting Miss X with her housing situation.
28. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two on 8 July because she was unhappy with its response at stage one.
29. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint on 10 July. The Council:

• acknowledged it could have made better effort in tailoring support to her mental health needs;
• understood Miss X’s uncertainty about her housing status. It explained the nature of emergency accommodation was that it was temporary, and it could have explained this more clearly to her;
• did not uphold Miss X’s complaint that the accommodation was unsuitable; and
• partially upheld that there had been a miscommunication about her rent and service charges, and apologised for this. It asked the income team to contact her to clarify her rent account and any necessary adjustments.

30. Internal Council records from 14 July noted that the Council’s medical advisor did not consider Miss X to be more vulnerable compared to the “ordinary person”. It also noted Miss X did not have any specific psychiatric housing needs.
31. Miss X contacted the Council again on 15 July explaining that her accommodation was unsafe and was making her mentally and physically unwell as it was unsuitable for her needs.
32. The same day, Miss X emailed the Council again, unhappy with its complaint handling. She said one of the Council officers named in her complaint had contacted her which she felt was a breach of professional boundaries.
33. Miss X contacted the Council on 16 July, noting the relief duty period had ended but the Council still had not provided suitable and long-term accommodation. Miss X also raised concerns about a specific Council officer and asked for different member of staff to assist her.
34. Internal Council records from 21 July noted that a Council officer would be allocated to complete a health assessment with Miss X.
35. Shortly after, the Council allocated a new housing advisor to Miss X.
36. On 29 August, the Council’s medical advisor considered Miss X’s case again. It advised the Council that no medical priority should apply.
37. The Council wrote to Miss X on 8 September, ending its relief duty and awarding her the main housing duty. It noted her accommodation would remain the same but now be classed as temporary rather than interim accommodation which allowed her to request a suitability assessment.
38. Miss X asked the Council to review the suitability of her temporary accommodation on 17 September.
39. On 23 September, the Council’s medical advisor noted that medical priority should not apply to Miss X
40. The Council completed its suitability assessment at the end of September and decided Miss X’s accommodation was suitable.

Findings

The relief duty and main housing duty

41. The Council accepted the relief duty at the end of April 2025. The Code says a council should be able to decide whether it owes a main housing duty within 57 days of awarding the relief duty. This means the Council should have decided whether it owed Miss X a main housing duty by the end of June 2025. But, the Council did not make this decision until September 2025. The delay of over ten weeks to accept the main housing duty was fault.
42. Given the Council went on to accept the main housing duty, it is likely the Council would have made the same decision in June 2025, as Miss X’s circumstances had not changed. This means that Miss X should have had a statutory right of review of her accommodation since June 2025. The Council’s fault denied Miss X earlier access to her statutory right of review, which is an injustice. It also caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.

Medical evidence

43. The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made their decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or not properly explained a decision it has made.
44. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on councils’ behalf, provide a right of appeal against their decisions, or seek to replace their judgement with our own. If a council has made a decision without fault then we cannot criticise it, no matter how strongly a complainant feels it is wrong. We do not uphold complaints simply because someone feels a council should have done something different.
45. What that means in this particular case is that it is not for me to make my own judgement about whether the Council should have awarded Miss X medical priority. However, I can consider whether the Council properly made its decision about this.
46. There is no evidence that the Council ignored Miss X’s medical submissions. The Council evidenced that it considered the information Miss X provided in its initial suitability assessment in April 2025. The Council also sought advice from its medical advisors in July, August and September 2025.
47. The medical advisor did not consider Miss X to be more vulnerable compared to the “ordinary person”. It also noted Miss X did not have any specific psychiatric housing needs. This gives support to the decision reached by the Council that Miss X did not have medical priority.
48. The Council has evidenced that it considered all the information Miss X provided at the time in making this decision and this is a decision it was entitled to make. There is no fault here.
49. I have not investigated the way in which the Council considered Miss X’s medical information during the suitability assessment in September 2025, because this is outside the timeframe of my investigation. If Miss X remains unhappy following the Council’s suitability review, it is open to her to appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Rent

50. The Council partially upheld that there had been miscommunication about service charges related to Miss X’s accommodation. This miscommunication was fault which caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has already apologised for this and said it would make the necessary adjustments to her account. I will ask the Council for evidence that this matter has been resolved.

Suitability of accommodation

51. The Council completed a suitability assessment of Miss X’s accommodation before offering it to her in April 2025. In this, the Council used the information from Miss X to consider her needs. There is no evidence of any fault in its completion of this.
52. When the Council awarded Miss X the main housing duty in September 2025, Miss X asked it to complete a suitability assessment of her accommodation. The Council completed this and decided it was suitable for her needs.
53. I have not investigated the way in which the Council completed the suitability assessment, because this is outside the timeframe of my investigation. If Miss X remains unhappy following the Council’s suitability review, it is open to her to appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Reasonable adjustments and request for a new case officer

54. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments in accordance with the Equality Act when allocating her accommodation. This is because this relates to the suitability of accommodation, and Miss X had a right to appeal to a county court if she disagreed with the outcome of her suitability assessment.
55. But the Council did acknowledge that it could have made better efforts to tailor support to her mental health needs, particularly during the transition into temporary accommodation and partially upheld her complaint about this matter. The Council failing to provide individual support to Miss X was fault, which caused Miss X frustration.
56. When Miss X asked for a new case officer in July 2025, it quickly responded by allocating a new case officer to work with her. There was no fault in the actions of the Council here.

Complaint handling

57. Miss X complained that the Council poorly responded to her complaints by arranging for a Council officer she had complained about to contact her as a follow up to her complaint response.
58. There is no evidence that the Council asked a Council officer directly named in Miss X’s complaint to contact her as a follow up to the complaint response. So, there was no fault in the actions of the Council related to this matter.

Injustice

59. I recognise that Miss X says the impact of the Council’s faults went beyond frustration and uncertainty because of the distress associated with this situation which she feels caused her severe emotional, psychological and physical harm.
60. However, to recommend a remedy, I must first find fault by the Council. I have found fault in the Council delaying in awarding the main housing duty, incorrectly adding debt to Miss X’s rent account and failing to provide tailored support to Miss X. But, in the absence of additional fault, I cannot say the wider impact described by Miss X was caused by maladministration by the Council.
61. We also cannot make clinical findings, so I would be unable to say if any emotional, psychological or physical harm was of a direct result of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Action

62. Within a month of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her by its faults. 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 its apology;
• make a payment of £100 to Miss X to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council delaying in deciding the main housing duty, communicating poorly about her rent and service charge and failing to provide individual support to Miss X;
• complete a review of Miss X’s rent and service charge account and provide evidence that any errors of this have been corrected;
• provide Miss X with a written statement of her rent and service charge account; and
• provide written clarification of the service charges Miss X remains liable for.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman