Summary: The Council was at fault as it delayed carrying out an assessment on whether Temporary Accommodation was suitable. The Council also failed to consider the complainant’s medical evidence when it did carry out the review. Carrying out a new review of the suitability of the Temporary Accommodation and making a symbolic payment for the uncertainty Miss X has had over the last year remedies the injustice to Miss X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains the Council has not taken account of medical evidence when determining her priority for housing.
2. Miss X says the Council has not offered suitable permanent housing after she has been served with an eviction notice. Miss X says the housing is unsuitable and has impacted her physical and mental health.

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

What I have and have not investigated

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. I have not investigated the suitability of Miss X’s current accommodation. This is because when Miss X received the decision that her accommodation was suitable, she was informed she had the right to a review of the decision and then could have challenged the decision in court. Miss X said to me she did not appeal as she was unwell at the time, but she put in a complaint to the Ombudsman at that time and so I do believe it was reasonable for her to ask for a review of the decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

9. Miss X lives in 2 bedroom temporary accommodation arranged by the Council in a property owned by a private landlord. She moved there in 2017. The temporary accommodation was in a different Council’s area, an area where Miss X now wishes to remain.
10. In July 2024 Miss X’s private landlord served her with a notice to quit the property. As no possession order was served Miss X remained in the property.
11. In September 2024 Miss X asked for the other members of her household to be removed so she could be considered alone for sheltered accommodation.
12. Miss X made an official complaint to the Council in November 2024 that her accommodation was unsuitable. The Council replied on 27 November. It said ‘the Council had referred her case to lettings officers to see if sheltered accommodation was available with a level access shower’.
13. Miss X made a stage 2 complaint on 23 December 2024.
14. On 23 January 2025 the Council said it was able to offer Miss X permanent accommodation in a one bedroom property. Miss X told the Council she wanted to add her adult son to her household so needed a two bedroom property.
15. The Council replied to the stage 2 complaint on 19 March 2025, apologising for the delay in the response. The response said ‘that an assessment of whether or not the property was suitable was not carried out through the complaints procedure. The Council would redirect Miss X’s concerns to the resettlement team to make an updated assessment of the suitability of the temporary accommodation’.
16. On 10 June 2025 the Council wrote to Miss X to say it considered the Temporary Accommodation was suitable. The Council informed Miss X of her right to a review of its decision, but Miss X did not ask for a review.
17. The Council has said one of the emails sent by Miss X to the Council describing her medical conditions was not sent to the medical advisors when assessing the suitability of the temporary accommodation. The Council has said that it has now asked for the medical assessors to reassess the medical forms. In response to my enquiries, the Council carried out an Occupational Health Assessment in December 2025.
18. The Council has said that if Miss X wants to stay in her current area she could consider the Council’s rent deposit scheme to help her to find private sector accommodation.

My analysis

19. There has been fault by the Council. Miss X clearly told the Council in November 2024 that she felt the accommodation was unsuitable. But it was not until June 2025 that the Council made a decision on whether or not the temporary accommodation was suitable.
20. There was also a failure to consider medical evidence provided by Miss X in the suitability review.
21. In order to remedy the injustice, the Council has carried out an OT assessment and has said that it will carry out a new suitability review of Miss X’s current accommodation.
22. It is not possible to know exactly what would have happened if the suitability review had been carried out earlier or if the medical evidence had been included. Miss X’s requirements have changed as she asked for one bedroom sheltered accommodation in September 2024 and then a two bedroom property in January 2025.
23. Our guidance on remedies says that ‘our remedies aim to try to put the person back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. Our remedies should always therefore try to be restorative, focused on trying to put things right’. In this case, carrying out the assessment of the suitability of the Temporary Accommodation, taking into account all the information, including the emails from Miss X enables her to have confidence in the Council’s decision on whether or not the Temporary Accommodation is suitable. While I recognise her housing situation may change, we cannot be sure what will happen in the future so ensuring that a decision is made on the suitability of the Temporary Accommodation is made is important at present.
24. There is also additional, unremedied injustice arising from the fault, as Miss X will never know if the situation would have been different if the Council had carried out the suitability review sooner. In order to recognise this injustice, I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment of £1000 to remedy the injustice from the uncertainty arising from the Council’s fault.

Back to top

Action

25. Within one month of the date of this decision the Council should:
• Pay Miss X £1000.
26. Within two months of the date of this decision the Council should:
• carry out a new suitability review of Miss X’s Temporary Accommodation, which should consider all the information provided by Miss X and the Occupational Therapy assessment.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have completed my investigation and I find fault causing injustice. This complaint is upheld. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman