Summary: We found fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to properly consider his review requests about his banding and his temporary accommodation’s suitability. It did not show it properly made the decision about his banding following an independent medical advisor’s recommendation. Nor did it show it properly investigated his concerns about the suitability and condition of his accommodation. There were failures to tell him about how to challenge decisions. The Council agreed to send a written apology, pay £200 for the avoidable distress caused, review his banding, review suitability, as well as reminding officers of the need to follow the correct procedures.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s failure to:
1. place him in the correct band under its housing allocation scheme;
2. move him from unsuitable temporary accommodation it placed him in;
3. act on his review request; and
4. not lose documents, including medical evidence, about his case.
2. As a result, due to his disabilities, he remains in accommodation that does not meet his needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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(i), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated:

• complaint d) because this is a matter Mr Y can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about; and
• any complaint decided on 17 December 2024 on his previous complaint (23 018 397). This complaint investigated: the suitability of his accommodation (to July 2024); delays with the Personal Housing Plan; lost medical information (which was not investigated as this was for the ICO to investigate); incorrect banding (to July 2024).

6. I have investigated Mr Y’s complaint:

• from January 2024 (with the exception of complaint a) which I investigated from July 2024): This is because he complained to us in January 2025. The law says 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) Any complaint about the Council’s actions that took place before January 2024 will not, therefore, be investigated. I have seen no good reasons why we should exercise discretion to investigate any earlier part now.

Information given about events before this date was only included to help put the complaint in context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness law and 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. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. The Code of Guidance says, rather than advise the applicant to return when homelessness is more imminent, the housing authority may wish to accept a prevention duty and begin to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment.
10. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan. (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
11. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. 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, it 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)

Council housing allocation scheme (November 2013)

14. The Council has a choice based lettings and housing allocation scheme. Anyone applying for social housing has the chance to join the housing register which is shared by all major social housing providers and some private sector rented landlords.
15. It has four priority needs bands. Band 1 is the highest priority. It includes those who are statutorily overcrowded, for example. Band 2 is for those with a severe medical, welfare, or disability where the accommodation is unsuitable or it is unreasonable to remain there. Band 3 is for those who are homeless to whom the Council owes a statutory duty to accommodate and those with moderate medical priority. This is for those whose illness or disability is either made worse by their current living conditions or where a move is likely to lead to an improvement in health. Band 4 is the lowest priority and includes the homeless to whom it owes no duty.
16. To decide an applicant’s priority, the Council assesses each under its priority bands. Within each band, applicants are prioritised by its priority star system. One priority star is awarded to those who are statutorily homeless, for example, and those who need to move on severe medical or severe welfare grounds.

What happened

17. Mr Y presented to the Council in October 2023 as homeless. The Council accepted it owed him the ‘relief duty’ and placed him in temporary accommodation, which has two bathrooms and two toilets. Three other people share the accommodation with him. Mr Y claimed the accommodation, in which he remains, is unsuitable for him because of his health issues and its condition.
18. At the end of 2023, he sent the Council photographs of the condition of the accommodation which included the bathroom. He said insects were biting him and there was black mould in his room on the walls and window.
19. In February 2024, Mr Y completed a vulnerability questionnaire which included details of medical/health issues. The Council sent it to an independent medical advisor (the advisor). The advisor did not recommend any extra medical priority.
20. In May, he asked for the Council to review his file. He also asked the Council to review the relief duty decision.
21. In July, Mr Y contacted the Council about his situation and referred to medical conditions and information he claimed he sent in May. The Council asked him to send it again as it had not received it. It heard nothing further from Mr Y.
22. The same month, it decided it owed him the full housing duty and placed him in Band 3 (Homeless with one priority star) under its housing allocation scheme. Mr Y was unhappy with the banding and believed it should be higher because of his health problems.
23. Mr Y asked for a review of his banding. I have seen an internal Council email passing on his request to the relevant team but no formal review decision or an email to him setting out the decision.
24. Mr Y refused an offer of an alternative property from the Council it considered suitable because he could not view it as he was bedridden.
25. In January 2025, the Council responded to his complaint about pests and mould in the accommodation. It confirmed the property was given grade B by officers who inspect standards of accommodation. Grade A is the highest, with grade F the lowest. Cleaners regularly attend the property at least twice a month. I have not seen evidence of the grade B award. The copy I have seen was grade D from 2023.
26. In March, the Council received a suitability assessment request of the property. This was completed and noted his medical conditions as well as the condition of the property. Mr Y was asked to send all his medical evidence, and told a team would contact him about the claimed conditions of the property. The banding would be decided when a medical assessment was done.
27. An officer visited his accommodation in April and found no problems with the heating or hot water. The officer saw someone there carrying out maintenance of the boiler. As Mr Y was not present, the officer could only inspect the communal areas, not his room. No significant concerns were found.
28. In May, the Council sent a copy of the officer’s internal response following his visit.
29. The Council again asked Mr Y whether he would agree to accept an offer of alternative temporary accommodation. A referral was sent to the advisor setting out his medical condition. It received its response shortly afterwards. No specific property type was recommended. The advisor medically assessed him as band 4 (no medical requirement for a move)
30. In June, the Council told him this meant there was no medical reason to move or to recommend specific accommodation. It confirmed he remained in Band 3.

My findings

Complaint a): banding

31. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. I have seen no evidence of the Council responding to his review request sent in July 2024. This is fault.
2. I have seen evidence of the Council telling him, in June 2025, of the decision on his banding following his request for a review. The email it sent him said it enclosed the medical assessment outcome from its advisor. It explained this showed his banding on the medical assessment was Band 4 which meant there was no medical reason for a move or specific accommodation recommendation. He remained in Band 3.
3. I am satisfied this decision failed to show the Council reached its own decision after receiving the advisor’s assessment. This meant the decision that Mr Y remained in Band 3 was not properly made by the Council. It failed to show it reached this decision after considering the advisor's assessment along with any other relevant information and evidence. The Council merely passed on the advisor’s decision to Mr Y. By doing so, it fettered its discretion as it did not show it had made its own decision. This is fault.
4. Nor have I seen the Council giving Mr Y information about how to challenge this decision. This is fault.
5. I am satisfied the fault caused Mr Y an injustice. This was because he has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the decision on his banding would have been different but for the fault. He also lost the chance to challenge the decision if he wished to do so.

Complaint b): unsuitable accommodation

32. There was no evidence of the Council telling Mr Y the accommodation was suitable, why, and what it considered when reaching that decision. Nor was he told about the right to challenge the decision. The Council merely sent him a copy of an internal email from the officer who had carried out the inspection. These failures were fault.
33. I also consider, as Mr Y’s main concern was the condition of his room, prior arrangements should have been made to gain access to it as part of the inspection. As the inspection failed to check his room, I am not satisfied it was done properly. It failed to fully explore and investigate his reported concerns. This is fault.
34. I am satisfied this caused Mr Y an injustice. He had the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Council properly considered whether the property was suitable for him given his needs. He also lost the right to ask for a review of the decision.

Complaint c): failure to carry out review

35. For reasons I have set out, I am satisfied the Council failed to act on his request for a review made in July 2024.
36. In addition, again for reasons already given, I am satisfied that while it carried out a review in June 2025, this was not done correctly.
37. I am satisfied these failures caused Mr Y an injustice as also set out above.

Back to top

Action

38. I considered our guidance on remedies.
39. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr Y a written apology for the injustice caused by it failing to: respond to his July 2024 review request; show it properly considered his request for an increase in banding in June 2025; give information about how to challenge this decision; properly explain why his accommodation was suitable and how it reached that decision; tell him how to challenge that decision; carry out an inspection of his room.
2. Pay £200 to Mr Y for the avoidable injustice caused by the identified fault.
3. Arrange to carry out a review of his banding and properly explain the decision to him along with any review rights.
4. Arrange to review the suitability of his accommodation and properly explain the decision to him along with any review rights.
5. Should either review result in a change from the previous decisions, unless the change is based on new evidence supplied, it will refer the case back to the Ombudsman for further consideration of any possible injustice caused to Mr Y.
6. Ensure processes are in place so review requests about banding are promptly actioned.
7. Remind relevant officers of the need, when receiving medical advisor’s recommendations, to reach their own decision taking account of the recommendations and all other relevant evidence.
8. Remind relevant officers of the need to fully explain decisions on suitability assessments along with their right to challenge it by way of review.
9. Remind relevant officers of the need to make arrangements to inspect an applicant’s room where there are allegations about its condition.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. I found fault on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice found.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman