Summary: The Council sent an inappropriate and insulting email to Miss B. There was no other fault in the way it handled her homelessness application. The Council offered Miss B a suitable remedy when it responded to her complaint. We do not consider a further remedy is justified.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council failed to provide her with temporary accommodation for nearly a month after she made a homelessness application. She says the Council encouraged her to approach another council and to accept refuge accommodation, which she considered unsuitable for her mental and physical health needs.
2. Miss B also complains about the conduct of a Council officer who sent her an inappropriate and insulting email after she questioned the suitability and legality of accommodation offered to her. She considers the Council’s subsequent apology and offer of £50 inadequate given the distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 B and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss B and the Council have 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 legislation and government guidance

Homelessness

7. 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.

Interim accommodation

8. A council must secure that accommodation is available 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)

Relief duty

9. The relief duty applies when a council is satisfied that an applicant is homeless (rather than just threatened with homelessness) and eligible for assistance. The council has a duty to take reasonable steps to help the applicant secure accommodation that will be available for at least six months. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 13.2)
10. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant has a priority need and has become homeless unintentionally, the relief duty comes to an end after 56 days. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 14.16)

Main housing duty and temporary accommodation

11. 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)

Suitable accommodation

12. 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)
13. Accommodation that is suitable for a short period, for example accommodation used to discharge an interim duty pending enquiries under section 188, may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period, for example to discharge a duty under section 193(2). (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.7)
14. Councils should recognise that placing an applicant in a refuge will generally be on a short-term basis, except where a longer period of support is required to enable applicants to prepare to manage independently. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 16.41)

Background and key events

15. Miss B made a homelessness application to the Council on 12 June 2025. She said she was staying with friends and family after leaving her home the previous night because of domestic abuse. She asked the Council to contact her by email before calling her.
16. There were initial difficulties establishing telephone contact. The Council’s records show that it emailed Miss B and made several attempts to telephone her, but the calls did not connect. Miss B continued to contact the Council by email, explaining that she needed accommodation and was sleeping outside.
17. The Council successfully contacted Miss B by telephone on 16 June. After that conversation, it recorded that Miss B had approached another council and no longer required assistance. However, Miss B said that the officer had told her to approach the other council. The Council considered there may have been a misunderstanding because English was not Miss B’s first language and continued its attempts to engage with her.
18. The Council subsequently spoke with Miss B with the assistance of her brother as an interpreter. He confirmed that Miss B had been staying with friends and family since leaving her home. The Council assessed her circumstances and discussed refuge accommodation which Miss B declined. She agreed to consider it further but declined again a few days later, explaining that she did not consider refuge accommodation suitable because of the effect it would have on her mental health.
19. The Council continued to try to contact Miss B and spoke to her again about refuge accommodation which she continued to decline.
20. Following a complaint made on Miss B’s behalf about the Council’s failure to provide temporary accommodation, the Council offered her self-contained emergency accommodation through a partner organisation providing accommodation for people fleeing domestic abuse. Miss B questioned whether this was refuge accommodation and raised concerns about its suitability and legality. She also asked for a formal written offer of temporary accommodation.
21. In response, a Council officer sent Miss B an inappropriate and insulting email. The Council immediately apologised and acknowledged that the officer’s conduct was unacceptable. It said the matter would be investigated and appropriate action would be taken.
22. The Council subsequently offered Miss B alternative accommodation, which she did not initially accept. Following further contact between her family and the Council, she later accepted the accommodation and moved in on 17 July 2025.
23. The Council accepted the relief duty to Miss B and subsequently the main housing duty. Miss B was also accepted onto the Council’s housing register and began bidding for social housing.
24. The Council investigated Miss B’s complaints. It did not uphold her complaint that it had failed to provide temporary accommodation. It explained that refuge accommodation can be an appropriate form of emergency accommodation for victims of domestic abuse and that it considered the accommodation options offered to Miss B to be reasonable.
25. However, the Council upheld Miss B’s complaint about the officer’s conduct. It apologised for the distress caused, confirmed that action had been taken in response to the officer’s behaviour and later confirmed that the officer no longer worked for the Council. It also offered Miss B £50 in recognition of the upset caused.
26. Miss B remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Emergency accommodation

27. I have considered Miss B’s claim that the Council encouraged her to approach another council. There is insufficient evidence available to enable me to establish what was said during the telephone conversation on 16 June 2025. On the evidence available, I do not consider it likely that the Council encouraged or directed Miss B to approach another council.
28. There was a short delay between Miss B approaching the Council on 12 June and it completing its assessment of her circumstances on 20 June. This was due to difficulties reaching Miss B by telephone, and the misunderstanding about whether she wanted to proceed with her application.
29. When the Council completed its assessment, it had reason to believe Miss B was homeless and in priority need. It therefore had a duty to secure that accommodation was available for her.
30. The Council offered Miss B refuge accommodation, which she declined. She said she did not want to share accommodation and she was safe staying with her brother. I am satisfied that the Council complied with its interim accommodation duty by offering refuge accommodation to Miss B.
31. A few days later, Miss B told the Council that refuge accommodation was not suitable for her mental health. The Council asked Miss B to provide various documents, including medical evidence to support her application.
32. The medical evidence Miss B provided was considered by the relevant officer, who then discussed the suitability of refuge accommodation with Miss B on 30 June. The officer considered refuge accommodation would be suitable for Miss B. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in the way this decision was reached.

Officer’s conduct

33. There is clear evidence of fault in relation to the officer’s conduct. The email sent to Miss B contained inappropriate and insulting language and fell below an acceptable standard. The Council accepted this and took action in response. It apologised, investigated the matter and confirmed that the officer no longer worked for the Council. The Council also offered Miss B £50 to recognise the upset caused. I am satisfied that the Council took appropriate steps to acknowledge and address the officer’s conduct once it became aware of it.
34. I consider the apology and payment already offered to be a suitable remedy. If Miss B has not accepted the £50 offered, the Council should remake the offer after our final decision has been issued. I do not consider a further remedy is justified.

Back to top

Decision

35. I have completed my investigation and uphold Miss B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has already offered to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman