Summary: Ms X complains for Mr Y the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation as it had banned him from using single person homeless accommodation causing distress. We found fault because despite banning Mr Y from that accommodation the Council had made a statutory decision, he was owed a relief duty under housing legislation and homelessness guidance. So owed a duty to Mr Y to provide him with interim accommodation. We have made suitable recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y so have completed our investigation

The complaint

1. Ms X complains for Mr Y the Council failed to provide him with interim accommodation when he was homeless due to his criminal record and failed to take account of his vulnerability. Ms X says that as a result Mr Y had to live in a tent without any support causing distress and affecting his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we 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. We refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated matters from 21 July 2025 when Mr Y applied as homeless to the Council to 31 October 2025 when Council decided to end the relief duty towards Mr Y. This is because Mr Y had the right to seek a review of the Council’s decision to end the relief duty, and its decision he was not in priority need followed by an appeal to the county court. It is reasonable to expect Mr Y to have sought a review and then an appeal to the courts. This is because the courts can decide on the facts of the case and whether the Council’s original decision was correct.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms 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 statutory guidance

8. 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.
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). This is the relief duty.
10. After completing inquiries, the council must give the applicant a decision in writing. If it is an adverse decision, the letter must fully explain the reasons. All letters must include information about the right to request a review and the timescale for doing so. (Housing Act 1996, section 184, Homelessness Code of Guidance 18.30)
11. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. Applicants can challenge many decisions about homelessness by asking for a review and then appealing to the county court on a point of law. Decisions with a statutory right of review and appeal include:
• what (if any) duty the council owes (i.e. a decision the applicant is not homeless, a decision to accept the prevention duty, a decision to accept the relief duty);
• the main housing duty is not owed/will not be owed because the applicant does not have a priority need;
• the steps the authority is to take in the personalised housing plan;
• a notice to end the relief duty.

What happened in this case.

15. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include all the information I considered as part of my investigation.

Background information

16. Mr Y contacted the Council’s homelessness prevention service in January 2024. The service assessed Mr Y and accepted a relief duty towards him. Mr Y was referred to and offered a room at a hostel through the Single Homeless Pathway (SHP). This provides temporary accommodation to homeless and single and childless couple households. Applicants in the SHP are assessed and provided with temporary accommodation under the legal framework of the Homelessness Reduction Act.
17. Applicants must agree to and sign a license agreement when taking on temporary accommodation under the SHP. The license agreement gives an applicant responsibilities, defines the meaning of harassment and gives the Council the right to withdraw or terminate the service users stay. The responsibilities including not breaking any terms of the agreement and not materially damaging any part of the accommodation.
18. Mr Y was evicted from the hostel in June 2024 as he failed to pay his rent despite being warned about non-payment. Mr Y was referred to the hostel again in July 2024. It was reported that on giving Mr Y advice he was abusive and threatening to staff members. Mr Y also caused significant damage to the hostel’s reception area which the Council had to repair. The incident was discussed by senior Council officers. Mr Y was not using the SHP or living there when the incident took place. But the Council decided to place a ban under the terms of the SHP and to withdraw services to him until 26 July 2025. The Council told Mr Y of its decision.
19. The Council closed Mr Y’s homelessness case and ended the relief duty as he did not respond to contact.

Events from July 2025

20. Mr Y made a homeless application to the Council on 21 July 2025. The Council’s Housing Options team (team) interviewed Mr Y to see if he was homeless, eligible for assistance and had priority need. The team told Mr Y it had reason to believe he was eligible, homeless, had a priority need and owed a s188 duty. The team drew up a personal housing plan for Mr Y. But said as he was currently on a withdrawal of service from the SHP it could not provide him with any suitable interim accommodation. The team noted from recent conversations officers considered he showed no remorse for his actions or the damage he caused at the hostel so extended the withdrawal of service until 26 October 2025.
21. The team advised Mr Y to make his own accommodation arrangements and to contact it urgently if he was rough sleeping so it could provide advice. The team said it would make regular efforts to find suitable interim accommodation for him outside the SHP so the Council could discharge the outstanding duty owed to him.
22. Ms X acting as an advocate for Mr Y complained to the Council about extending the withdrawal of service. Ms X said Mr Y wanted to challenge the ban as the incident happened a year ago and he had served a custodial prison sentence as a result. Ms X reported Mr Y was living in a tent at the side of a canal which was affecting his mental health.
23. Ms X said the Council had a statutory duty to assess and provide suitable accommodation and support for vulnerable individuals who were homeless and in priority need due to mental illness and other vulnerabilities. Ms X stated Mr Y suffered with his mental health and as an ex-offender was vulnerable and in priority need. In addition, the Council had a duty on it to assess and meet the eligible care and support needs of adults under the Care Act 2014. Ms X said the Council had failed to assess Mr Y or provide any support.
24. The Council confirmed that Mr Y was on a withdrawal of service from the SHP due to his actions and damage caused. This had been extended to October 2025 due to a lack of remorse when speaking to officers. The Council confirmed it would make a referral to ASC as Mr Y was sleeping rough and possibly in priority need. The Council advised that Mr Y urgently needed to make a housing application so he could access priority banding when bidding for social housing. The Council provided information on the schemes it had available if Mr Y wanted to access to private rented accommodation.
25. In response to my enquiries the Council says there have been limited options for interim accommodation outside the SHP for Mr Y. He had previously been evicted from hostel accommodation due to rent arrears, given advice about accessing accommodation in the private rented sector and how the Council could support him. The Council considered this was a quicker option for him to access accommodation rather than waiting for his withdrawal of service to expire or for an offer on the housing register.
26. The Council made a referral to Adult Social Care in October 2025. But reported the service did not respond so it has not carried out a Care Act assessment on Mr Y.
27. The Council says during the Relief Duty period it took steps to assist Mr Y to secure accommodation and completed its enquiries regarding what housing duty, if any, was owed. Following those enquiries, the Council determined that Mr Y was not in priority need and notified him accordingly on 31 October 2025. The Relief Duty therefore ended after the 56-day statutory period had expired, notwithstanding that Mr Y may have remained homeless. The Council wrote to advise Mr Y of its decision and said he could request a review of the decision.
28. The Council says if Mr Y considers he was in priority need and has evidence to support this he can send it to the Council. It will then carry out a new assessment.
29. Mr Y has made housing application, but it is currently suspended due to rent arrears of £3000. Mr Y was awarded band 2 relief on 8 April 2025. Following the not in priority need decision in October 2025 Mr Y will be in band 3.

My assessment

30. The documents provided show the Council made a decision in July 2025 and accepted a relief duty towards Mr X. This means it accepted the S188 interim accommodation duty to Mr X but did not meet this duty as it did not provide him with interim accommodation. Instead, in its letter accepting the S188 duty the Council referred to a decision made about the SHP to withdraw services to Mr Y and so it could not provide him with interim accommodation.
31. But the decision the Council made on Mr Y’s homeless application was a statutory one, so the Council had an absolute duty and one that arises immediately to provide interim accommodation. There were no grounds for the decision on the SHP to affect the Council’s legal duty to ensure Mr Y had interim accommodation. Even if one provider cannot accommodate an applicant because of a ban, then the Council should look to use another provider or find other accommodation such a bed and breakfast hotel. I consider therefore there was fault by the Council as it made a decision that there was reason to believe Mr Y was eligible, homeless and in priority need. Because of this it should have provided interim accommodation for Mr Y when the duty arose, and it did not do so.
32. The fault has caused an injustice to Mr Y as he was in unsuitable accommodation between July 2025 to October 2025. This was while the Council carried out enquiries and made decision to end the relief duty as it did not consider he was in priority need. Mr Y then had a statutory right of review and appeal against the decision which we would expect him to use as explained in paragraph five. The Council also said it would continue to look for suitable interim accommodation for Mr Y. There is no evidence in the case notes that it made any such efforts. Therefore, to remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y by the Council’s failure to provide interim accommodation and to make efforts to look for other suitable interim accommodation it should apologise to Mr Y.
33. It should also pay him a symbolic amount to recognise the distress caused to Mr Y for living in unsuitable accommodation. Our Guidance on Remedies recommends a Council makes payment of between £150 to £350 a month to homeless applicants for being deprived of suitable accommodation. I recommend the Council pays Mr Y £150 for each month to recognise the distress he was caused being in unsuitable accommodation between July 2025 to October 2025 (three months) so a total of £450. This is at the lower end of our Guidance on Remedies for distress because while I recognise the difficult situation Mr Y was in, he has contributed to the fact he was in that position.
34. The Council has said the Housing Options team made a referral to Adult Social care, but it did not respond so it is unlikely Mr Y has had a Care Act assessment. There is no evidence Mr X has pursued the issue of a Care Act assessment further and the Council’s alleged failure to respond. It is therefore, an issue Mr Y needs to pursue as a new complaint to the Council first.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. To remedy the injustice identified in this decision the Council will within one month of the final decision;
• Send a written apology to Mr Y for the distress caused by the fault identified above. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £450 in recognition of the distress caused to Mr Y by failing to provide him with interim accommodation between 21 July 2025 and 31 October 2025.
• Clarify its guidance to officers when a homeless applicant is subject to a withdrawal of service on the SHP, but the Council has made a decision where it has a statutory duty to provide interim or other accommodation.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman