Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the temporary accommodation it housed her in. She said the condition of the property affected her health and medical needs and the Council did not make a proper decision when she requested additional medical priority. We found the Council at fault for poor communication, delays with her review request and complaint, and failure to carry out any suitability reviews. This caused Mrs X frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council housed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation with damp and mould for several years, which she says has severely impacted on her health and medical conditions. Specifically:
1. She says it offered her alternative temporary accommodation at short notice which was unsuitable and caused her distress and frustration; and
2. She also complains about the decision it made on her medical priority and how it handled her review request.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. 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

5. Mrs X referred to her housing between 2021 and 2023. Mrs X complained to us in April 2025. Part of the complaint is therefore late (see Paragraph 3). I will not consider that far back as I am satisfied Mrs X could have complained to us sooner about this earlier period. Referring to Paragraph 1 summarising Mrs X’s complaint:
• For part a): I am considering events from April 2024, and this is within 12 months of coming to us.
• For part b): I am investigating from January 2025 (when the Council made its decision) to April 2025 (when Mrs X came to us).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views and information she provided.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

The Council’s allocation scheme

9. Applicants are placed in one of three housing need bands (A to C). Band A is for those with the highest need, and Band C is for those with the lowest need. The Council only awards priority under one heading: medical, welfare or hardship.
10. The scheme says applicants with an urgent need to move because they have a critical medical condition or very serious disability that is being made much worse by their current housing will be placed in Bands A or B. Where it is decided that the applicant has a medical condition, but it is decided that this is not being significantly worsened by their current housing, no medical priority will be awarded. Band B also applies for those whom the Council has accepted a full housing duty under homelessness legislation.

Suitability of temporary accommodation

11. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2) The duty to provide suitable accommodation is an ongoing duty. Councils must keep the issue of suitability under review (Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17.8)
12. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. This carries a statutory right of review and if an applicant remains dissatisfied, this review decision carries a right of appeal to court.

Background

13. Mrs X lived in Property 1 since 2021. This was temporary accommodation provided by the Council. With her housing register application, she was on housing Band B as the Council had accepted the main homeless duty to her. She has health conditions which includes breathing difficulties and affects her mobility.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

14. In April 2024, after receiving an eviction notice, the Council wrote to Mrs X offering temporary accommodation (Property 2). It told her to move into it within three days. The letter said if she did not accept, it would treat it as a formal refusal and end the housing duty. She went to collect the keys and found it was above a commercial premises. Mrs X said she tried to contact the Council on the day but had no response. She then made a formal complaint. She could not accept the offer due to unsafe access but worried about the consequences.
15. In July 2024, the Council responded at Stage 1. It apologised for the delay. It agreed Property 2 was not suitable and should not have been offered. It upheld this part and apologised for any distress. The officer told her it would withdraw the offer. It offered £50 as discretionary compensation.
16. In September 2024, Mrs X escalated her complaint. She did not accept the £50. She said it had not contacted her about her housing situation or about the withdrawn offer. She wanted to know when she would be rehoused. The mould and damp in Property 1 impacted on her health conditions.
17. In March 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It accepted it had no records that it informed her about the withdrawn offer for Property 2. It could not advise how long it would take to rehouse her.

Medical banding appeal

18. In January 2025, the Council sent a medical banding outcome letter to Mrs X. It reviewed the supporting medical evidence she sent. Her form said the staircase caused problems for her due to her medical conditions with breathing. The Medical Advisor said her evidence showed she could accomplish some stairs. The Council did not award any medical priority, but her housing band remained as Band B.
19. In February 2025, Mrs X wrote to the Council to request to review the decision. She said it did not take her medical needs into proper consideration. She believed her circumstances warranted a higher priority band due to her mobility and difficulties with her breathing with the damp and mould. She included additional medical evidence and photos of Property 1. The Council acknowledged her review request.
20. In April 2025, Mrs X chased the Council for an outcome to her medical review. She then complained to us. She wanted the Council to relocate her.
21. In mid-May 2025, Mrs X chased the Council again. A few days later, the Council wrote to Mrs X to offer her new temporary accommodation at Property 3. Mrs X has been in Property 3 since late May 2025.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it moved her because Property 1 needed extensive repairs which could not be carried out while occupied. It also reassessed Mrs X’s medical priority in summer 2025 and decided she remained on Band B.

Analysis

The offer of Property 2

23. The Council accepted it had no evidence of keeping Mrs X informed of the status of the offer for Property 2 and apologised. This fault caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and distress. I consider its offer of £50 an appropriate remedy for this part of Mrs X’s complaint around poor communication.

Suitability of Property 1

24. In the period I am considering, in Mrs X’s complaint escalation request in September 2024, she made clear to the Council her concerns about the conditions of her flat on her medical conditions. She raised it again in February 2025 as part of her appeal request about medical priority (I consider this separately later).
25. The Council is responsible for ensuring homeless households live in suitable accommodation, which includes relevant considerations around significant disrepair or impacts on health needs. At the above dates, the Council failed to consider if Mrs X’s reports meant the property was unsuitable for her. The Council missed opportunities to formally assess the condition of Property 1 as part of a suitability review. This is fault. The Council said Mrs X did not request one. However, this is an ongoing duty, and the Council must proactively keep it under review. It should have considered this and provided Mrs X with a written decision about whether it considered it suitable for Mrs X’s needs and circumstances, and why. I am unable to say what the outcome is likely to have been had it done this at the time. But it creates a level of uncertainty about whether this would have made a difference to Mrs X’s living situation sooner. This uncertainty is injustice. It also denied her a statutory right of review.

Medical priority and review

26. Mrs X wanted increased medical priority to help with her housing situation. This is a separate consideration under the Council’s allocations policy.
27. Mrs X requested a review of a medical priority decision in February 2025. The Council should have completed this within eight weeks. It did not contact Mrs X about this or act on this promptly. It was at fault with delay here and it did not make another medical decision until several months later.
28. I note the Council later considered her additional evidence and decided she would remain on Band B. On balance, had it made an earlier decision when it should have, it may not have changed this outcome. If Mrs X is not happy with the new decision itself in summer 2025, this is outside the scope of my investigation as she could have asked for another review. But the delays to this point still caused Mrs X avoidable frustration.

Complaint handling

29. Mrs X formally complained in April 2024 and the Council responded in July 2024 which is three months later. She escalated in September 2024 and the Council responded in March 2025 which was six months later. There were delays with both responses, most notably at the second stage. This is fault, causing Mrs X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X in writing for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology); and
• Pay Mrs X a £250 symbolic payment to recognise her uncertainty, distress and frustration with these (this includes the £50 it originally offered her).
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
32. In previous decisions since the events of Mrs X’s complaint, we have made service recommendations around similar fault. I do not consider it necessary to repeat these or make further ones.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman