Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing needs. We found the Council had failed to keep the suitability of Miss X’s temporary accommodation under review. We also found avoidable delay by the Council in both the review of Miss X’s housing register priority banding and its complaint handling. These faults caused Miss X significant distress and put her to avoidable time and trouble. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her housing needs because:

• Having accepted she was in unsuitable temporary accommodation, it failed to provide suitable alternative housing.
• It delayed dealing with her request for a review of its decision about her priority banding on its housing register.

2. Miss X said living in unsuitable accommodation severely affected her and her family’s health and wellbeing. Miss X wanted the Council to provide a suitable home for her and her family and compensate her for the five years she lived in unsuitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I 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. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. When Miss X first contacted us, she had been occupying Council arranged temporary accommodation (‘the Property’) for over five years. Miss X had asked, more than four years earlier, to move from the Property on the ground it did not provide suitable accommodation for her family. There was evidence Miss X had raised concerns about the suitability of the Property with the Council over the previous four years. There was also evidence that Miss X had received support from various people, including solicitors, about her housing circumstances between 2020 and 2024.
9. I found Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of the Property was a late complaint as it dated back to 2020. I also found no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate that complaint back to 2020 (see paragraph 4). However, as Miss X’s concerns about the suitability of the Property were continuing, I exercised discretion to consider this part of the complaint over the 12 months before Miss X complained to us. These 12 months also covered that part of Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in reviewing her priority banding on its housing register. I saw no evidence the Council told Miss X she could appeal to the courts about the delay and found it unreasonable to expect Miss X to have done so (see paragraph 5). I therefore exercised discretion to consider this part of the complaint.
10. After Miss X first contacted us, the Council completed its consideration of her complaint under its complaints procedure. Miss X’s solicitors had also contacted the Council, which continued to deal with her housing needs. The Council had written to Miss X agreeing the Property was not suitable for her and her family’s housing needs. And Miss X had moved from the Property to alternative temporary accommodation. The Council had also responded to Miss X’s priority banding review. And Miss X had disagreed with the Council’s review decision.
11. We must normally give councils an opportunity to resolve a complaint before we may investigate. And, here, I did not investigate the Council’s actions and decision-making taking place after Miss X complained to us. However, as necessary and relevant to my investigation, I took account of events from both before and after the 12 months covered by my investigation. The aim being to give context to the investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance including:

• Parts 6 (allocation of housing) and 7 (homelessness) of the Housing Act 1996 (the 1996 Act).
• The Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code).
• The Allocation of accommodation: guidance for local housing authorities in England (the Guidance).

13. I also asked for and considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and its supporting papers. I shared Council information with Miss X. And I gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Homelessness

14. Part 7 of the 1996 Act and the Code set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
15. If satisfied an applicant is unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, a council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is ‘the main housing duty’. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is ‘temporary accommodation’. (Section 193 of the 1996 Act)
16. The law says councils must ensure all temporary accommodation is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Section 206 of the 1996 Act and paragraph 17.2 of the Code) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Section 202 of the 1996 Act)
17. The person dealing with any review must have had no part in making the original decision and be senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the time before the decision (even if received afterwards) and any new relevant information received since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018 and Chapter 19 of the Code)
18. Councils must complete reviews of decisions about the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of an applicant asking for a review. A time extension is possible if the applicant agrees in writing. Applicants have the right to appeal to the county court if councils take more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Sections 202, 203 and 204 of the 1996 Act)
19. If reviews find accommodation is unsuitable, councils must provide suitable accommodation. If reviews find accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Section 204 of the 1996 Act)
20. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability of accommodation under review, and respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability. (Paragraph 17.8 of the Code)

Housing allocations

21. Councils that are local housing authorities must publish an allocations scheme. The scheme sets out how each council prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. Councils must make allocations strictly in line with their published scheme. (Section 166A(1) & (14) of the 1996 Act)
22. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. The Guidance says:

• Review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage.
• There should be a timescale for asking for a review - 21 days is considered reasonable.
• The reviewer should be a more senior officer than the original decision maker or a panel not including the original decision maker.
• There should be a timescale for completing a review - 8 weeks is considered reasonable.

The Council’s housing allocations policy

23. The Council has a Housing Allocations Policy 2015, as amended (the Policy). The Policy has three housing needs bands: Band A, Band B and Band C. An applicant’s housing band reflects the Council’s assessment of their housing needs. For example, Band A includes applicants with an urgent need to move because of critical medical or welfare needs. Band B includes applicants with a serious medical or welfare need to move. Band C includes applicants assessed with a moderate medical or welfare need to move.
24. The Policy says where the Council has accepted the main housing duty for a homeless applicant (see paragraph 15), they will be placed in priority Band B. Exceptionally, where the Council assesses such an applicant as being in ‘severe need’, they may be placed in priority Band A. The Policy gives examples of ‘severe need’ including applicants or household members having:

• Severe mental health problems or ‘sectioned’ under the Mental Health Act and unable to cope with living in temporary accommodation.
• Critical medical or welfare needs, including cases with critical safeguarding implications.

The Policy also says homeless applicants owed the main housing duty will not normally be eligible for medical priority because,

• if their temporary accommodation is detrimental to their health or
• a move to more suitable accommodation would have a positive effect on their health,

the Council will first look to provide alternative temporary accommodation. (See paragraphs 15.7, 15.8 and 15.20 of the Policy).

25. The Policy includes information about applicants’ right to ask for a review of certain housing decisions (see chapter 17 of the Policy). Applicants should write asking for a review within 21 days of the date of their decision letter. The Council has eight weeks to respond from the date it receives the review.

The Council’s corporate complaints procedure

26. The Council has a two stage complaints procedure (the Procedure). The Procedure says the Council will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and, at stage 2, within 20 working days. At both stages, the Council may tell the complainant it needs more time and give them a new date for its response.

A summary of what happened

Early events

27. Many years ago, the Council had accepted the main housing duty for Miss X and her family (see paragraph 15). In carrying out that duty, the Council had arranged temporary accommodation for them. The Council had also accepted Miss X onto its housing register assessing her housing needs as priority Band B (see paragraphs 23 and 24). Joining the housing register meant Miss X could bid for a home under the Policy.
28. On complaining to the Ombudsman, Miss X and her family were occupying the Property. They had been occupying the Property as temporary accommodation for over four years. Miss X considered the Property was unsuitable for her family’s housing needs. Miss X had first asked the Council to move her family from the Property after they had lived there for about a year. Miss X said the Council’s response was to agree the Property was unsuitable and so she should move. The Council said Miss X’s Transfer Request form showed it had refused her request to move. The Council said it had not found the Property unsuitable for the family.
29. Nearly two years later, Miss X’s then solicitors wrote to the Council saying the Property was unsuitable. The Council recognised it should have reviewed the suitability of the Property. The Council said its decision letter would have found the Property suitable and given Miss X a right to ask for a review of that decision. However, it did not carry out a formal review or issue a decision letter. It had placed Miss X on its Transfer List, backdated about two years to when she had first asked to move (see paragraph 28). The Council said being on the Transfer List meant Miss X could move when an alternative property became available. The Council said this would have recognised the Property was not, long term, ideal accommodation for a growing family.
30. About 18 months later, Miss X asked the Council to reconsider her priority banding under the Policy and provided supporting medical information.

Events investigated

31. About seven months after asking it to reconsider her priority banding, the Council sent Miss X its decision. The Council said, having taken medical advice, Miss X’s application remained assessed as priority Band B. The letter told Miss X she had a right to ask for a review of the decision. Miss X immediately asked for a review (the Review).
32. About three months later, Miss X complained to the Council about its delay in dealing with the Review. Over two months later, the Council sent its stage 1 complaint response, apologising for its delay. The Council said the lack of available housing with increased homelessness had substantially added to pressures on its housing services. This included more applicants asking for reviews of various housing decisions. The Council said it was working to get more officers in place to meet demand for reviews but this would take time. The Council said it aimed to deal with existing but undecided reviews within the next three months.
33. Nearly three months later, the Council wrote to Miss X apologising for its further delay in dealing with the Review. Miss X then immediately asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. Miss X also first contacted the Ombudsman.
34. Meanwhile, Miss X’s health was worsening and third parties were assessing and addressing the health and welfare needs of a family member. In her contacts with the Council, while awaiting its decision on the Review, Miss X had referred to her and her family’s changing circumstances. People supporting Miss X had also written to the Council detailing the family’s circumstances. Following an intervention, in which the Council played a part, a temporary change had also taken place affecting Miss X’s household. The Council had also received various documents, including about the health and welfare of Miss X’s family.

Events after Miss X complained to us

35. About a month later, Miss X’s then solicitors wrote to the Council and asked it to review the suitability of the Property (the Suitability Review). The Council also continued to receive various documents, including about the health and welfare of Miss X’s family.
36. The following month, the Council sent Miss X its stage 2 complaint response. The Council sincerely apologised for its delay, which was due to a backlog of complaints. The Council said unprecedented demand had placed pressures on its housing services resulting in significant delays in housing assessments and reviews. The Council said its officers were working hard to meet demand. The challenges facing the service meant it could not regularly contact residents. It confirmed it backdated decisions so residents were not disadvantaged by its delays (there being no realistic prospect they would have moved but for the delay). The Council said it aimed to complete the Review within the next three days. And, in recognition of its delay, the Council offered Miss X £75. The Council signposted Miss X back to the Ombudsman if she was dissatisfied with its response.
37. The same day as sending its stage 2 complaint response, the Council wrote to Miss X’s solicitors with its decision on the Suitability Review. The Council’s letter said the Property was not suitable accommodation. Two weeks later, the Council offered Miss X alternative temporary accommodation, which she accepted (Property Two).
38. Three days after sending it stage 2 complaint response, the Council wrote to Miss X about the Review. The Council apologised for not issuing a decision on the Review that day and said it needed to refer Miss X’s case back to its medical adviser. The medical adviser then said it needed more time to seek a specialist report. Miss X continued to contact the Council and sent it further information. The Council then said, as Miss X had now moved, it needed to reassess her housing application based on her current circumstances. It had therefore closed its file on the Review.
39. Following further correspondence, the Council agreed to reopen its file on the Review. The Council gave Miss X an opportunity to send information showing the impact of Property Two on her housing needs. Miss X sent the Council information, including about her family’s health.
40. Meanwhile, the Council received a report from its medical adviser that, referring to the Property, said priority Band A should apply to Miss X’s case.
41. About 13 months after Miss X asked for the Review, the Council wrote to her setting out its decision. The Council upheld its original decision saying Miss X’s application had priority Band B. Miss X asked for a copy of the medical adviser’s report. The Council provided a copy, pointing out that it had sought medical advice when Miss X was living at the Property. And, it had received the advice after she had moved to Property Two. Miss X replied saying the medical advice showed she should have had Band A priority while living at the Property. And the medical advice said living at the Property had contributed to the worsening health of her family.

A summary of the Council’s response to the complaint

On suitable temporary accommodation

42. The Council said it had not formally found the Property unsuitable accommodation for Miss X and her family before deciding the Suitability Review. The medical evidence it held when deciding the Suitability Review showed a greater medical concern than in the evidence previously available to it. It therefore had not been previously aware of the severity of the family’s health care needs. The Council accepted not moving them sooner had negatively impacted the family.
43. The Council said its case file showed there was continuing contact with Miss X but this could have been more regular. It accepted it should have kept up to date with, and fully understood the family’s circumstances, including when it received information about changes to the household. Increased awareness of the family’s circumstances would have ensured it could clearly assess the continuing suitability of the Property. However, different Council officers had dealt with specific issues on Miss X’s housing file. This meant no officer had considered all available information and taken an overall view of the family’s housing circumstances. The Council therefore accepted shortcomings in fulfilling its duty to provide Miss X and her family with suitable accommodation.
44. The Council said properties suitable for temporary accommodation were scarce. And, given unprecedented demand for accommodation it had used hotels. But, the difference between supply and demand meant it could not move families to alternative accommodation quickly.

On priority banding under the Policy

45. The Council said it received added information about Miss X and her family after she asked for the Review. It had given most weight to comments from Miss X and medical information received shortly before it decided the Review. The recent medical evidence had suggested more severe health concerns than previous evidence. Its Review decision considered whether Miss X’s application should have priority Band A based on Property Two being the family’s temporary accommodation.
46. The Council said Miss X had joined its housing register after it accepted it owed her the main housing duty (see paragraph 15). Under the Policy, such applicants were not normally eligible for Band A medical priority. Instead, the Policy said it would look to provide alternative temporary accommodation. So, if it had received its medical adviser’s recommendation for Band A while Miss X occupied the Property, the outcome would have been the same. That is, it would have decided the Property was unsuitable and offered Miss X alternative, suitable, temporary accommodation.
47. The Council accepted its communication with Miss X did not meet acceptable administrative standards, including about the delayed Review. The Council said it had staff shortages in its housing services. It could not meet demand for reviews of its housing decisions. So it had prioritised reviews of homelessness decisions. The Council said this was because homelessness decisions usually had a greater and more immediate impact for applicants. It prioritised some housing register reviews that might have a significant short-term impact. The Council said its delayed Review decision did not cause Miss X significant harm. This was relevant when considering review priorities.  
48. The Council said its backlog of housing register reviews was decreasing following an increase in housing staff. And, for housing register reviews received in 2025, its average response time now met the eight-week time target.

Consideration

Introduction

49. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. Instead, we look at the procedures a council has followed to reach a decision. If we consider it followed those procedures correctly, we cannot question whether any resulting decision is right or wrong, regardless of how strongly a complainant may disagree with it.
50. As a publicly funded body we also 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 a council did or how it acted.

Suitable temporary accommodation

51. Miss X said the Council had accepted the Property was unsuitable temporary accommodation for her family but failed to move them to suitable accommodation. The Council denied finding the Property unsuitable before responding to the Suitability Review, which resulted in the family moving to Property Two.
52. The background to the complaint I investigated did not show the Council had formally found the Property unsuitable before deciding the Suitability Review. However, throughout her occupation of the Property, Miss X, and others supporting her, had continued to write to the Council about the family’s housing circumstances. And, about seven months before the Suitability Review, the Council was receiving evidence to show Miss X’s health was worsening, her family’s circumstances were changing, and she was asking to move to suitable accommodation. The Council was also party to other formal proceedings affecting Miss X’s family. Later emails from Miss X to the Council continued to express concerns about her housing circumstances. And some of Miss X’s emails to Council housing officers expressly raised the Council’s part in the formal proceedings and the unsuitability of the Property for her family.
53. The Code refers to the Council’s duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review (see paragraph 20). The Council accepted it had not taken a holistic view of Miss X’s case. If the Council had viewed Miss X’s case holistically, it had enough information to trigger formal consideration of the suitability of the Property about seven months before the Suitability Review. Around this time and in the weeks that followed, Miss X and her family faced severe challenges which led to temporary changes to the household. The Council was party to proceedings that led to those changes. I could not know whether those proceedings would have been avoided or might have ended differently. However, directing itself to its continuing duty to keep suitability under review and then actively engaging with Miss X about her family’s needs for suitable accommodation, might have averted a crisis.
54. If the Council had engaged with Miss X about seven months before the Suitability Review, if needed, it could have sought further information about her family’s then medical, health and welfare issues. And, on balance, I found the Council would more likely than not have then decided the Property was unsuitable temporary accommodation for Miss X’s family.
55. In conclusion, I found the Council’s failure to take an overview of Miss X’s housing case and properly engage with her when first made aware of changing circumstances and then apply its duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review, was fault. I further found this fault, more likely than not, led to Miss X occupying the Property when it was unsuitable for about seven months longer then she ought to have done. I therefore found the fault caused injustice.

Priority banding under the Policy

56. Miss X said the Council delayed dealing with the Review. The Council did not deny this and explained why there were delays in completing reviews. The Council also recognised it had not met acceptable administrative standards in communicating with Miss X while she waited for its Review decision.
57. While likely of little comfort to Miss X, I thanked the Council for recognising its delay in deciding the Review and failure to meet appropriate communication standards. I found fault here. I also found avoidable delay, which was fault, in the Council’s complaint handling. The Council’s avoidable delays and poor communication would have added to Miss X’s distress and put her to unnecessary time and trouble at what was already a challenging and stressful time for her family. I therefore found the identified faults caused injustice.
58. To provide context for my investigation, I considered events that took place after Miss X complained to us. The Council had decided the Review and so brought an end to the avoidable delay. I recognised the Council’s Review decision was to confirm Miss X’s application remained a Band B priority although its medical adviser had recommended applying priority Band A. This recommendation was based on the family’s housing circumstances when they were occupying the Property. However, the Council had moved Miss X from the Property when it received the banding recommendation. And, generally, the Policy said the Council would move applicants, like Miss X, to alternative suitable temporary accommodation rather than award a medical priority (see paragraph 24). Here, the Council had already acted and moved Miss X to Property Two.

Back to top

Action

59. Since Miss X complained to us, the Council decided both the Review and the Suitability Review. It had also completed its consideration of Miss X’s complaint under its complaints procedure. And Miss X had moved to Property Two. However, my investigation found fault causing injustice, and not suitably addressed, before the Council made its review decisions and moved Miss X to Property Two (see paragraphs 55 and 57). As a proportionate, reasonable and appropriate remedy for the injustice, the Council agreed my recommendation to (within 20 working days of this statement):

• send a written apology and
• make a symbolic payment of £1,450

to Miss X. The apology and payment recognise Miss X’s avoidable time and trouble, distress and deprivation of suitable temporary accommodation for about seven months arising from the identified Council faults. Those faults were the Council’s avoidable delays and failure to consider Miss X’s housing case holistically and to then apply its continuing duty to consider the suitability of temporary accommodation when first aware of changes to her family’s health and welfare.

60. Given the events in Miss X’s complaint, I considered whether I should recommend service improvements for the Council. We had already issued final decision statements in 2025 on other complaints about the Council’s housing services and some contained agreed service improvements. These service improvements included:

• reminding staff about the continuing duty to keep the suitability of accommodation under review;
• dealing with the backlog of delayed housing reviews;
• reminding officers of the importance of keeping people updated about missed deadlines; and
• reminding officers of the importance of effective complaint handling.

I therefore found no need now to make further service improvements.

61. The Council should consider our Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in making the apology recommended at paragraph 59. I have taken this guidance into account in recommending the £1,450 symbolic payment also referred to at paragraph 59.
62. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it had complied with the actions set out at paragraph 59.

Back to top

Decision

63. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman