Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in arranging interim accommodation. This is because the Council has provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused during its complaints process.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s delay in arranging interim accommodation when she became homeless. She said its failings meant she and her children had to sleep on the floor in an unfurnished property for two nights.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. Ms X contacted the Council in March 2025 after receiving a notice to leave her private rented sector accommodation by 23 May 2025. The Council carried out an assessment and accepted a prevention duty in April 2025. The officer handling the case was then unexpectedly away from the office, so no progress was made until mid-May, at which point the Council:
• issued a personalised housing plan (PHP) setting out the actions it and Ms X would take to address her housing situation;
• advised Ms X she did not have to vacate the property when the notice expired as the landlord would need to take court action to evict her; and
• asked the landlord to agree an extension to the date Ms X had to leave. The landlord agreed Ms X could stay an additional 2 weeks.
6. The Council advised Ms X it would arrange interim accommodation from 6 June. The day before this, it confirmed the accommodation would be furnished.
7. On 6 June, the Council spoke to the landlord. During the conversation, the landlord indicated he may be willing to extend the time Ms X could stay if an incentive payment was made. On that basis, the Council told Ms X it would not be arranging interim accommodation that day. Council records show Ms X told it she had sold beds and arranged for other furniture to be put in storage, based on its earlier commitment, and also told it the landlord was wanting the keys back that day. Subsequently, Ms X provided an email from the landlord confirming there had been some discussion about an incentive payment, but he had heard nothing further so had attended to collect the keys on 6 June. At that point he had been told the interim accommodation had been cancelled and he allowed Ms X to remain in the property over the weekend because he would not turn out a lady with young children when Council officers were not available to assist her.
8. On 9 June, the Council decided it would not offer an incentive payment. It accepted a relief duty and arranged interim accommodation.
9. In its complaint responses, the Council accepted:
• Ms X had made arrangements to store her belongings based on its advice that accommodation would be arranged from 6 June;
• it provided inaccurate information about its communications with the landlord. The landlord had previously been clear the tenancy had to end as he had plans for the property, but there was some confusion in the call on 6 June about whether he would reconsider if an incentive payment was offered; and that
• negotiations with the landlord could have been more proactive.
10. The Council offered Ms X £500 as a goodwill gesture to remedy the injustice caused.

My assessment

11. The Council carried out an assessment in April, but then delayed by a month taking further steps, including issuing a PHP. Whilst this caused some uncertainty for Ms X, the delay did not cause sufficient injustice to justify further investigation. Once the officer returned, in mid-May, appropriate steps were taken to progress matters, including agreeing the extension with the landlord.
12. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says it is unlikely to be reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy their property after a notice has expired unless the Council is negotiating with the landlord for the applicant to stay whilst alternative accommodation was found. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Council to agree a two-week extension, during which both it and Ms X were seeking alternative private rented accommodation. Any discussions about an incentive to extend the tenancy should have been concluded within that period. Further, Ms X should have been given clear information about the discussions and the potential impact on when interim accommodation would be provided.
13. The Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation on the date it said it would meant Ms X and her children spent two nights in unfurnished accommodation. It apologised and paid Ms X £500. I have considered whether this payment is in line with our guidance on remedies. I have taken into account the family did have shelter, and that whilst they did not have beds, they had other essential items that they would have taken with them into the interim accommodation. I also note this was for one weekend only. I have concluded the payment was sufficient.
14. The Council has provided us with information about the steps it has taken to prevent recurrence, so I am satisfied service improvement recommendations are not needed.
15. Since the Council has provided an appropriate remedy during its complaints process and has taken steps to prevent recurrence, we will not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused and prevent recurrence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman