Summary: Mr B complained that the Council offered unsuitable accommodation to discharge its homelessness duty to him. We find the Council was at fault because the property was too small for his family. The Council then failed to move the family to suitable housing for 12 months, including seven months after it became aware that the property was also unsuitable for Mr B’s mobility needs. This caused prolonged overcrowding, daily access difficulties and avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to offer a payment to Mr B and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council offered him unsuitable accommodation to discharge its homelessness duty to him. He says he felt he had to accept the offer because he was told that if he refused it, the Council would end its duty to him and reduce his housing priority.
2. Mr B says that as a result of accepting the unsuitable offer, his family was living in overcrowded accommodation, which he found difficult to leave because the only access was via stairs, which he struggled to use.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, policy and guidance

7. Under the main housing duty, councils must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant and their household until the duty is brought to an end, usually through the offer of a settled home. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraph 17)
8. The Council’s housing allocations scheme sets out the rules for qualifying to join the Housing Register, how applicants are prioritised and how the Council manages the allocation of available properties.
9. The scheme places applicants in a priority band from Band A (highest priority) to Band D (lowest priority). Band A includes applicants who are owed the main housing duty.

Background and key events

10. Mr B joined the Council’s housing register in February 2021. He was assessed as needing a four-bedroom property.
11. When Mr B became homeless in February 2022, he approached the Council for assistance. The Council accepted a duty and placed Mr B, his wife, and their four children in temporary accommodation.
12. In November 2022, the Council agreed to Mr B’s request to allow him to bid on three-bedroom properties due to the scarcity of four-bedroom properties. The Council told Mr B to bid on three-bedroom “parlour type” properties (where one living room can be used as an additional bedroom).
13. In January 2023, Mr and Mrs B had a fifth child.
14. Following the introduction of a new housing scheme in January 2023, Mr B was awarded Band A priority, the highest band.
15. In August 2023, the Council moved the family to alternative temporary accommodation – a four-bedroom house.
16. In November 2024, Mr B successfully bid on a three-bedroom flat. The Council’s offer letter stated that if he refused the property, it would treat its homelessness duty as discharged and reduce his housing priority to Band D. Mr B accepted the offer and moved into the property in January 2025.
17. Later that month, a Council officer queried why a three-bedroom property had been offered when Mr B required four bedrooms. The Council accepted that the flat should not have been offered because it was too small. It decided it still owed Mr B the main housing duty and it reinstated his Band A priority.
18. In March 2025, Mr B made a formal complaint to the Council. He said that the property should not have been offered to him because it was too small and it was unsuitable for his mobility needs as it was on the first floor without a lift. He said that it was unfair that he would have to move again and that he would have to wait to be offered a suitable property. He asked for additional priority on the housing register.
19. The Council upheld Mr B’s complaint. It said that the error occurred because it had not processed a change of circumstances form which would have changed his bedroom need from three bedrooms to four bedrooms. It apologised for not taking this information into account when making the offer.
20. Mr B escalated his complaint, stating that the Council was already aware that he needed four bedrooms before the change of circumstances form was submitted. He reiterated that the accommodation was both overcrowded and unsuitable for his mobility needs.
21. In the Council’s final response, it apologised and offered to pay £250 to Mr B. It said that it could not increase his priority because he was already in Band A and that a discretionary direct let was not appropriate given the scarcity of four-bedroom properties. It advised him how to request a mobility assessment.
22. Mr B had a mobility assessment in May 2025. The Occupational Therapist concluded that Mr B needed a property with ramped or level access, a level access shower and level internal access.
23. After Mr B complained to us, the Council confirmed that because the property was too small, it had not discharged its homelessness duty. It said it would carry out a suitability assessment in light of the Occupational Therapist’s recommendations and, if it was decided that the accommodation was not suitable, it would secure alternative accommodation.
24. In December 2025, the Council advised that Mr B had successfully bid on a house and was awaiting a moving date.

Analysis

25. The evidence shows the Council was aware that Mr B required a four-bedroom property. The error occurred because it failed to check whether the property was a three-bedroom parlour-type property before making the offer. This was fault.
26. Although Mr B bid for the property, the Council made the formal offer and attached significant consequences to refusal. The Council bears primary responsibility for ensuring that any offer made in discharge of duty is suitable. Mr B’s decision to bid does not remove the Council’s responsibility.
27. In January 2025, the Council recognised that the flat was too small and reinstated the main housing duty. The Council therefore had a duty to provide suitable accommodation. As the flat was too small, it should have acted promptly to move the family. It did not do so. This was fault.
28. Mr B informed the Council on 14 March 2025 that the property was unsuitable for his mobility needs. The Council did not advise him to seek a mobility assessment until 2 May 2025. This delay was fault.
29. Following the Occupational Therapist’s assessment, the Council was aware that Mr B required ramped or level access, level internal access, and a level-access shower. The accommodation did not meet those requirements.
30. Despite this, the Council did not secure alternative suitable temporary accommodation before Mr B successfully bid for permanent housing in November 2025. This was fault.
31. As a result of the failings identified, Mr B and his family lived in unsuitable accommodation for a year. It was both overcrowded and unsuitable for Mr B’s mobility needs.
32. The Council offered Mr B an apology and payment in recognition of its failings. I do not consider the payment offered is sufficient to remedy the family’s injustice.

Back to top

Action

33. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £2050 to Mr B within four weeks of my final decision. This is to acknowledge that the family were living in overcrowded accommodation for 12 months, 7 of which were after the Council knew that the accommodation was unsuitable for Mr B’s mobility needs. The recommended payment includes the £250 already offered.
34. The Council has also agreed to remind its officers to verify bedroom need and property type before making formal offers in discharge of its homelessness duty. It will take this action within eight weeks of my final decision.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman