Summary: We upheld Ms X’s complaint about the Council delaying in making payments promised to her after she made an earlier complaint. This caused her injustice as avoidable frustration, time and trouble. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action we recommended to remedy this injustice and improve its service. This included it agreeing to consider the continuing impact on Ms X of living in unsuitable accommodation, something which led to her original complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed in making payments to her, which it had agreed after she made a complaint about its failure to find suitable housing for her. Ms X also asked us to consider her ongoing housing need as part of her complaint.
2. Ms X said the delay in payments caused her distress and inconvenience in chasing the Council. She found this frustrating and exhausting. She said she had also felt dismissed and disregarded by the Council in its response to her housing need.

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. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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

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. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before putting this statement in its final format.

Back to top

What I found

The key facts

8. Ms X complained in December 2024 about the Council’s response to her housing need. It upheld her complaint that in 2021 it had failed to recognise that it owed her the ‘main housing duty’ and so had to find housing for her. Because of this error it had not allowed her to bid for properties from its housing register. It believed had she done so, she would have successfully bid for a property in early 2022. So, the Council accepted Ms X had lived in unsuitable housing between early 2022 and May 2025.
9. Ms X asked us to first look at her complaint in April 2025. To remedy it, the Council said it had offered to take two actions. First, in March 2025 it offered Ms X a symbolic payment of £6200, equivalent to around £150 a month, for the 40 months she lived in unsuitable accommodation unnecessarily. Second, it said it would make Ms X a direct offer of accommodation, which followed in June 2025.
10. We welcomed these actions but considered they did not go far enough. So, we asked the Council to pay Ms X an extra £450. This comprised £150 to recognise that Ms X lived in unsuitable accommodation for a further month after the Council made its offer. Plus another £300 as the Council had further recognised it had delayed offering support and emergency accommodation to Ms X when she made it aware she had fled domestic abuse.
11. We decided not to investigate Ms X’s complaint after the Council agreed this remedy. We closed our assessment of her case in July 2025.
12. Separately, in May 2025, Ms X had contacted the Council as it had failed to pay the £6200 offered in March, despite her giving it bank details and chasing a response. It did not make that payment until the end of May 2025.
13. In recognition of that delay the Council offered to make a further payment of £500 to Ms X. However, the Council then delayed in paying that also. When Ms X followed up her complaint the Council said in late July 2025 it would make a further payment of £50 to Ms X, in recognition of this further delay.
14. However, the Council made neither the payment promised in May 2025, nor that promised in July, until March 2026. By this time Ms X had asked us to look again at her complaint, and we had agreed to investigate. In reply to my enquiries the Council said it had no record of paying Ms X £550, despite Ms X telling me she had received the money.
15. In addition, when she made her second complaint to us Ms X had moved in with friends or family. She had moved into the property offered by the Council in June 2025 but did not stay there, saying it was unsuitable.
16. Ms X challenged its suitability because of its location, which she considered too close to the home of the perpetrator of domestic abuse. But also, she said it was unsuitable for her daughter who has additional needs. Ms X also raised concerns about her ability to access her work, schooling and meet caring responsibilities she has for a relative.
17. The Council never determined Ms X’s suitability review. It said that it had not previously recorded the flat’s location as unsafe for Ms X. But it withdrew the offer of the property.
18. At the beginning of May 2026 the Council made another direct offer of a property to Ms X. She moved into the property but made a review request, challenging its suitability. The Council decided that review earlier this month, finding the property was unsuitable. So, it will now look for another property to offer Ms X to discharge the full housing duty it owes her.
19. Ms X has another complaint outstanding with the Council, which concerns her liability to pay rent for the property she moved into in July 2025. This centres on when Ms X returned the keys for the property and the advice she received on when she should do so.

My findings

20. The Council was at fault for delay in paying Ms X the £500 it offered her in May 2025 after recognising its delay in paying her £6200 previously agreed. It then further delayed in paying her the £50 offered in July 2025 in recognition of delay in paying the £500. I considered in each case Ms X could reasonably expect to wait up to a month for payment. But for her to wait between eight and ten months for those payments was unacceptable.
21. These delays caused Ms X injustice. As they caused her to experience unnecessary frustration, time and trouble. The Council accepted this finding and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out in the “agreed action” section below.
22. I considered next what the repeated delay in making payments to Ms X indicated about the Council’s customer service. For the Council to make one payment late could be an unfortunate mistake. But for this to have happened on three occasions suggested it had an inadequate procedure to manage such payments. It was also concerning the Council had not recorded making payments to Ms X in March 2026, despite her telling me she had received these. I recommended therefore the Council review its procedure here, which it has also agreed to (see the ‘agreed action’ section below).
23. Next, I considered Ms X’s ongoing housing need, which remains unmet. I recognised that in June 2025 and May 2026 the Council offered Ms X properties it believed suitable at the time. But its actions in withdrawing the property offered in July 2025 property following Ms X challenging its suitability, suggested it was not suitable. While in the second case the Council had accepted the property was unsuitable during this investigation.
24. I found therefore that Ms X had experienced a further period of over twelve months without suitable accommodation; either that offered by the Council or staying with family and friends. She said the Council had not offered her any temporary accommodation in between and I was unaware of any consideration it had given to this.
25. This suggested an ongoing service failure by Council, which would usually result in us making a further finding of fault. However, I stopped short of making the finding here. This was because I could not safely come to a view on the extent of the Council’s fault. For example, I did not know if the Council had considered offering Ms X temporary accommodation or the reasons why it did not do so.
26. I also considered that even I could make a finding the Council was at fault, I could come to no view on the extent of her injustice at this time. I would need to know more about the extent of the unsuitability of the different accommodation Ms X had lived in since June 2025.
27. This factor would also influence any recommendation I made about whether the Council should make another symbolic payment to Ms X. This could also be impacted by her outstanding complaint. Because if this was not upheld it would result in Ms X having an outstanding rent liability to the Council, which might potentially be offset against such a recommendation.
28. I therefore recommended action designed to ensure a thorough consideration of these matters, as set out below. This also took account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on “cumulative injustice”. This suggests that any remedy for an ongoing injustice experienced by a complainant should usually be limited to a maximum six months. This is because any injustice caused by an ongoing fault may change over time.

Back to top

Agreed Action

29. The Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it will:
1. make a further apology to Ms X, accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making its apology;
2. pay Ms X £250 in recognition of her time and trouble for making the delayed payments offered in May and July 2025;
3. conclude its consideration of Ms X’s outstanding complaint which went to stage two of its complaint procedure in June 2026 (if it has not already done so);
4. commit that once the action at c) has completed, it will, within the following 20 working days, consider if it should make another symbolic payment to Ms X to recognise any time she has spent since July 2025 living in unsuitable accommodation, which results from ongoing service failure, taking account of my findings above. It can consider extending any symbolic payment for up to six months from the date of its decision, should Ms X continue to live in unsuitable accommodation. It will put its thinking on all these matters in writing to Ms X.
30. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the outcome of the action at 29d) above then she can complain directly to this office again, without going through the Council’s complaint procedure first.
31. In addition, within two months of a decision on this complaint the Council has agreed that it will complete a review of the procedure it uses when making symbolic payments as part of its complaint process. It will find out why on three occasions Ms X received payments late. It will consider what it can do to avoid a repeat and whether it needs to amend its internal procedures and / or give further advice to relevant staff on its procedures to avoid such delays. The Council will write to tell us what it has found and what action it has taken or proposes to take.
32. So, the Council will provide us with evidence when it has complied with the actions set out in paragraphs 34 and 36.

Back to top

Decision

33. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms X. The Council agreed action that I considered would remedy that injustice. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman