Summary: Miss D says the Council made unsuitable offers of accommodation. I have found the Council at fault because it failed to sufficiently assess whether a property offer was suitable for the assessed medical needs of Miss D’s family before they moved into the home. The Council has agreed to pay redress to Miss D and to meet with her to explain what steps it will take to rehouse her.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) says the Council made her unsuitable offers of permanent housing in 2024 and 2025. She is concerned the Council has not taken account of professional recommendations about the type of accommodation her family needs, has been unclear about why the July 2024 offer was withdrawn and failed to respond to her concerns about the suitability of the subsequent offer which she says she raised several times before moving into the property. Miss D feels the Council’s errors have resulted in her living in unsuitable accommodation which has impacted her family including her disabled child.
2. In her complaint Miss D also referred to issues with temporary accommodation and having to move home several time between prior to 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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

7. I am investigating events covering January 2024 through to mid-June 2025 (when the review decision was issued). I have advised Miss D that I am not looking at events prior to 2024 and am not going back several years because we expect a complaint to be made to us within 12 months of the problem arising. In addition my investigation is looking at the key issues Miss D complained about to the Council in 2024 and the 2025 subsequent review which focussed on the two direct offers of accommodation.
8. Events after the review in June 2025 are currently being complained about by Miss D to the Council. It is open to her to pursue a new complaint to the Ombudsman, about events happening after the June 2025 review decision was issued, once she has completed the Council’s complaints process.
9. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

12. Miss D was placed into temporary accommodation in May 2013. She was assessed as band B (homeless duty) for the housing register. She had four children, two of each sex.

2024

13. In January 2024 Miss D was in contact with the Council because she was facing eviction from her temporary accommodation. On 3 April Miss D emailed the Council detailing her accommodation history and the impact she felt it had on her family. She said the Council had failed to provide a reasonable service to her family and asked for a response. On 9 April the Council responded and provided information on how an applicant could source accommodation in the private sector. On 16 April Miss D submitted a medical form to the Council. On 23 April the Council’s Medical Adviser considered information supplied by Miss D. They noted Miss D’s child did not have a confirmed diagnosis and there was no medical evidence that the current accommodation was causing medical harm. They recommended a property up to the first floor without a lift or any floor with a lift. They said medical priority did not apply.
14. On 30 April the Council wrote to Miss D’s MP. It explained a possession hearing about the temporary accommodation was scheduled for 14 May. It had carried out a medical assessment and did not find there was a medical priority. It said Miss D could submit further medical evidence and it would be assessed again. On 15 May Miss D asked the Council to review its decision not to award medical priority. She said she did not have a confirmed diagnosis for her child because of delays caused by moving between boroughs. The medical assessment also failed to take account of the OT recommendations about the need for the child to have their own room. It was also included in letters provided by the GP and a psychologist. She also queried why she only had a three bedroom entitlement for the housing register.
15. On 17 May the Council told Miss D that she had been assessed as needing a three bedroom property because the two boys could share a room and the two girls could also share a room. On 19 May Miss D sent the Council a copy of her 3 April email along with medical information. She was concerned the family were due to be evicted from their accommodation and the impact this was having on them. On 20 May the Council forwarded the medical review request to the Medical Adviser. On the same day the Medical Adviser gave the Council their recommendations. I do not have a record of what evidence was considered. The Medical Adviser said that due to the child’s condition the family needed a maximum first floor self-contained accommodation. A permanent placement was needed due to the impact of temporary accommodation. The child required their own room. Band B medical priority applied. The Council agreed with the recommendation and notified Miss D.
16. On 24 May the Head of Housing Solutions wrote to Miss D in response to her 19 May email. He said the Council was looking at social housing options and alternative temporary accommodation for the family. A recent medical assessment had recommended permanent accommodation but there was a shortage of available housing. If a permanent property was not available at the time of eviction the Council would have to offer temporary accommodation. On 17 July the Council emailed Miss D, it was still waiting for an eviction date for her accommodation. On 24 July the Council made a direct offer of accommodation to Miss D (for property A). It noted Miss D required four bedrooms. On 25 July Miss D emailed the Council about the direct offer for property A. She said her child needed a private outdoor space because of their condition. She felt the Council had not taken account of professional recommendations. On 30 July the Council notified Miss D it had considered her reasons for refusing the direct offer and had withdrawn it. It did not provide any detail why the decision had been made.
17. On 3 September the Ombudsman notified the Council we had received a complaint from Miss D; we asked the Council to respond. On 19 September the Council issued its initial stage complaint response to Miss D. Miss D was unhappy with the offer for property A. The Council said the offer was withdrawn because the upper level of the property would be on the second floor. This was not in line with the assessed needs in the recent medical assessment of a first floor property. It said the offer was not suitable ‘and should not have been offered to you’. It apologised for this error. It said the withdrawal of the offer had not resulted in any penalty to Miss D. However there was a scarcity of four bedroom homes. It said Miss D should keep bidding for advertised social housing. The Council had also considered if Miss D was in the correct housing band. Miss D now had band B for homelessness and for medical need. This meant she was in the correct band.
18. On 22 September Miss D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She said she had not refused the direct offer of housing, instead the Council had withdrawn the offer because it was unsuitable. The Council was also ignoring recommendations made about the type of accommodation needed by the family and it had not taken account of an OT report or information from a psychologist. She also asked about the banding process and whether she should have additional housing priority because she was band B for both homelessness and medical need. Miss D also said it was incorrect for the Head of Service to reply to her initial complaint as she had been involved in the case.
19. On 8 October the Council made a direct offer of housing to Miss D for a property (property B). It said the property had four bedrooms. On 9 October Miss D emailed the Council querying the suitability of the offer. The area was not safe for her child’s medical needs. Miss D said she was not refusing the offer but was stating why medical recommendations were not met by the offer. On 17 October Miss D emailed the Council, she had asked for review for the offer of property B on 9 October and not had a response. The Council issued its final stage complaint response on 24 October. It accepted the previous reply had failed to make clear the direct offer of accommodation had been withdrawn because property A was not suitable for the family’s housing needs. It said Miss D was correctly assessed as band B. The Head of Service was the correct Officer to deal with the initial complaint, and the Council had adhered to the complaints process.
20. On 19 November the Council uploaded medical documents supplied by Miss D to be considered by the Medical Team. The Council then referred documents previously provided by Miss D, including the key points of concern raised by Miss D, to the Medical Team to assess the suitability of the direct offer for property B. On 22 November a Medical Adviser stated the accommodation was medically suitable. 5 December the Council completed a review checklist document. It had received a review request from Miss D/ her representative about the suitability of property B. On 11 December the Council noted that Miss D was due to be evicted on 9 January 2025.
21. On 13 December the Council notified the representative it had received the request for a suitability review regarding property B. It intended to carry out the review by 7 February 2025. The representative could submit further evidence up to 10 January. On 17 December The Council told Miss D’s representative it understood she was willing to accept property B but wanted a review of the suitability of the property. The Council was arranging for an external OT service to view the property and assess if it was suitable so ‘an informed decision can be made’. On 24 December Miss D’s representative asked the Council when an OT check of property B would take place and what that assessment would cover. They raised concerns over the suitability of the property and that it was unsuitable for the assessed medical needs of the family. On 24 December the Council contacted the Temporary Allocations Team. Miss D was due to be evicted. She had been offered accommodation which was not ready yet so the family may need emergency accommodation in the interim.

2025

22. On 6 January 2025 Miss D called the Council, she had understood an OT would review property B to make sure it was suitable for the family before they moved in. She asked for a copy of the OT report and an explanation about what was happening. She had been asked to sign for the tenancy of property B because it was now ready to occupy. An Allocations Officer responded that Miss D should sign the tenancy documents and once she was in the property the Council would have an OT assessment carried out.
23. On 7 January Miss D emailed the Council. She had read the tenancy agreement for property B and noticed it referred to the property having three bedrooms. She had also seen this when she viewed the house but had been told it was a four bedroom home. She was entitled to a four bedroom property and asked the Council to investigate this urgently. She also queried why she was being asked to move into the property before an OT assessment was carried out. That same day a Council Officer emailed a colleague, the record for the property on the housing system needed to be updated as it showed as three bedrooms. On 8 January the Housing Demand Manager emailed colleagues. She said her Team had allocated property B to Miss D in October 2024 after being advised that three bedroom parlour style homes can be offered to applicants requiring a four bedroom property. Miss D was due to be evicted the next day, and the matter needed to be resolved. On 9 January the Council noted that Miss D had signed the tenancy for property B and received the keys. The tenancy start date was 13 January.
24. On 5 February the Council made an OT referral for an assessment of property B. On 11 March Miss D/ her representative asked the Council to carry out a statutory review about the suitability of the accommodation. On 9 April the Council sent another referral for an OT assessment of property B. On 10 April the Council wrote to the representative. The suitability review had been on hold waiting for the OT report. Once that was received and the representative had commented the Council would complete the review within four weeks.
25. On 6 May I understand the Council received the OT report. I have not seen a copy of this document despite requests to the Council. On 16 June the Council wrote to Miss D/ her representative with its review decision. It had considered whether the offer of property B was suitable and if it was correct to end its main housing duty. It had sought advice from the Medical Adviser and considered a recent OT report. The Medical Adviser had stated that property B was “probably unsuitable”. The Council accepted that property B was not suitable for the family because of medical needs. It would reinstate its main housing duty towards Miss D.

Events after the investigation timeframe

26. In November Miss D told the Council she wanted to receive a permanent offer of housing rather than temporary accommodation. In December the Council made a direct offer of a property which was withdrawn. A further direct offer was made in February 2026. Miss D pursued a new complaint with the Council in March 2026 about more recent events. In April the Council told Miss D it was looking for alternative temporary accommodation.

What should have happened

The main housing duty

27. 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). 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)

Temporary accommodation

28. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

Review rights

29. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the a range of decisions including 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. Council must complete a review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. The timeframe can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Housing register banding

30. The Council assesses a housing register applicant’s housing need to determine what level of priority they have to be rehoused. The applicant will be placed into a housing band, these run from band A for emergency and top priority cases to band B for an urgent need to move and band C for an identified housing need. Applicants are also given a priority date which is the date they were placed into the band. They can then bid for advertised social housing. The Council will usually award a property to the bidder with the highest band and earliest priority date.
31. Where an applicant has been assessed as having multiple housing needs, for example they are in band B for homelessness and band B for medical need, they do not have additional priority to an applicant who only has one assessed type of housing need. When bidding for a home their priority is still assessed by their housing band and priority date.

Medical need

32. A housing register applicant can ask the Council to assess if they have a medical need to be rehoused. The applicant should show their condition is made worse by their accommodation and the property cannot be improved by aids and adaptations. They complete an online medical assessment form and provide supporting evidence from medical and health care professionals. The Council’s Medical Adviser will assess the evidence and provide recommendations to the Council. A Council Officer will determine if the applicant has any medical housing priority. The Council’s allocations policy says medical assessments are made on the applicant, or members of their household, in relation to the effect present housing may have on their state of health. If there is an adverse effect, due to current housing, the Medical Adviser will consider whether the overall effect on the household is of a nature to warrant the recommendation for inclusion in a higher band. Having a medical illness or a disability is not a guarantee of being awarded medical priority as the Council may consider that despite the noted conditions, the accommodation is suitable for the applicant’s continued occupation.

Bedrooms

33. The Council assesses a housing register applicant’s household composition to determine how many bedrooms they require. Two children of the same sex of any age are expected to share a room.
34. If an applicant feels there is medical need for an additional bedroom, they can ask the Council to consider this. They should submit evidence from professionals and the Medical Adviser will recommend to the Council if an extra bedroom is needed. The Council will then decide if it should allow an extra bedroom.

Suitability of housing offers

35. When looking for temporary accommodation for a homelessness applicant the Council must identify suitable accommodation to meet the assessed needs of that person. The Council carries out a suitability assessment before offering accommodation and looks at a range of factors including the composition of the household, medical needs, proximity to essential services, the household’s employment, education and support networks.
36. When the Council makes a direct offer of permanent accommodation to an applicant under its homelessness duty an Officer should review the information on the applicant’s file to identify if there are any housing needs and specific requirements. The Officer should take account of any suitability recommendations already made by the Council and ‘is aligned with the characteristics of properties that are available at the time’.
37. Where an applicant tells the Council a direct offer is medically unsuitable the Council should review the medical information on the applicant’s file. If necessary, the Council can request additional medical evidence from the applicant. The Council should reach a decision on whether the offer is suitable.
38. An applicant can request the Council have an OT assess the suitability of a property offer to see if it meets their assessed medical needs. The Council will consider if an OT assessment is warranted and where it agrees to take action it will make a referral to an OT service by completing a form. The OT will then contact the applicant, arrange to visit the property and produce a report to the Council assessing the suitability of the home. The Council should then consider the report and reach a decision on whether the property is suitable for the applicant.

Was there fault by the Council

39. Miss D says the Council failed to clarify why the offer of property A was withdrawn. The evidence shows me the Council did not explain how it had reached the decision to withdraw the offer when it wrote to Miss D on 30 July 2024. In the initial complaint response the Council referred to the offer having been withdrawn because part of the property would have been on the second floor. In October the Council told Miss D it was withdrawn because the offer was not suitable for the housing needs of the family. The Council has confirmed to me that property A was considered unsuitable because of ‘location based safety concerns’ Miss D had highlighted. I can see why Miss D was caused avoidable confusion by the Council in this matter.
40. Miss D says the Council should not have offered her property B and that it failed to reply to her concerns about suitability before she had to move in. In December 2024 the Council told Miss D it would carry out an OT assessment of property B so ‘an informed decision’ could be made about whether the property met the family’s medical needs. However the Council failed to make a referral to the OT service until February 2025, after Miss D had moved into the home. The OT report was not received until early May. I cannot see the Council informed Miss D that it had failed to progress the OT referral, as it had promised, in December 2024. The Council has told me, ‘the OT assessment was not completed prior to occupation due to delays in commissioning the referral’. The failure by the Council to make a referral in December 2024 meant the suitability of property B was not fully assessed prior to Miss D moving in. Given the subsequent review in 2025, which took account of the OT report, found the property was unsuitable it is reasonable to conclude this error by the Council contributed to Miss D being accommodated in a home that she had correctly flagged as unsuitable. The Council has told me the review decision indicated ‘that not all relevant factors were fully or sufficiently assessed at the time of the original offer and decision making process’.
41. The Council initially told Miss D in October 2024 that property B was a four bedroom home. In January 2025 Miss D queried whether the property had three or four bedrooms. I understand this type of parlour home has an additional living space which the Council classes as a bedroom. That means the property could be classed as a four bedroom home by the Council for purposes of allocations. However there is fault in this matter because I have no evidence the Council explained this to Miss D after her contact in January. The Council has told me it accepts it did not provide Miss D with a written explanation about why the property was a considered to be a four bedroom home.
42. Miss D asked the Council to review the suitability of the property B offer in October 2024. It took until 13 December for the Council to confirm it would carry out a suitability review, and it would issue a decision by 7 February 2025. It is unclear to me why a response was not issued in February. This meant Miss D’s representative had to request a review in March. The Council held off issuing a decision because it needed to see the OT report and a review decision was issued in June. The Council found that property B was not suitable for the family. There is fault by the Council. It failed to progress the initial review request, had it taken forward a review in October (and sought an OT assessment promptly soon after this) a decision could have been issued before the end of 2024 and before Miss D had to move. Miss D had to wait six months longer to receive the review decision.
43. Miss D is concerned if she is in the correct housing band because she has two band B housing needs (homelessness and medical). The Council’s allocations policy does not award additional priority to an applicant with two band B needs. I am satisfied the Council has correctly advised Miss D that she does not have any additional priority on the basis of having two sets of band B assessed housing need. I appreciate Miss D may feel she should be in a higher band, but I have not seen evidence of procedural fault in how her requests were handled. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong: that applies to this part of the complaint.
44. The Council says that it was unable to move Miss D sooner due to the shortfall in available temporary accommodation properties and this is not indicative of a lack of effort on its part. The Ombudsman recognises the reality that a shortage of available accommodation means councils are not always able to fulfil their immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation.

Did the fault cause an injustice

45. The faults by the Council meant Miss D was offered property B which she felt compelled to accept given she was being evicted from her temporary accommodation. That property was not suitable for the family and did not meet the needs of Miss D’s disabled child. The family have remained in property B for around 20 months due to a shortage of four bedroom social housing properties that would meet their assessed needs. The Council says that it was unable to move Miss D sooner due to the shortfall in available temporary accommodation properties. In addition the Council delayed progressing a suitability review and failed to keep Miss D updated. It also did not explain why it considered property B to be a four bedroom home. Those failings meant Miss D incurred avoidable time and trouble pursuing her case.

Back to top

Action

46. To remedy the injustice to Miss D and her family the Council has agreed to my recommendations and will:
• Pay Miss D for the time spent in unsuitable accommodation at property B at a rate of £250 per month. For the period I have investigated that would be £250 x five months (January 2025 to mid-June) totalling £1,250. The Council should also consider applying the same rate of redress for the subsequent period, from mid-June 2025 onwards, spent in property B.
• Pay Miss D £250 for avoidable time and trouble caused by the poor handling of parts of her case.
• Offer to meet Miss D to discuss what steps are being taken to secure suitable accommodation for her family and to confirm its understanding of the type of accommodation the family needs. The Council should confirm the outcome of that meeting in writing for Miss D.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

48. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman