Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying the suitability review of Mrs X’s social housing, and in its communications with her after it made a suitability decision. These faults caused Mrs X confusion, frustration and time and trouble. The Council agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mrs X, learn lessons from this complaint to prevent similar future fault, and make Mrs X a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing a suitability review of her social housing and, when it did complete the review, it did not take account of the medical and other evidence she provided.
2. Mrs X said the Council’s decision that her housing is suitable has caused her and her child (Y) ongoing hardship and distress. By way of remedy, she wants the Council to apologise and provide suitable housing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. When making representations to support her request for a suitability review, Mrs X complained about several issues of disrepair within the property, including a lack of heating, problems with damp and mould, and safety issues affecting the oven and the front door entry system.
9. As set out at paragraph 5, we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider, that is, acting as a landlord. And so, I have not investigated these matters. If Mrs X has outstanding complaints of disrepair that have completed the council’s complaints procedure, it is open to her to escalate them to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I also discussed the complaint with Mrs X on the telephone.
11. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

Homelessness

12. 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.

Main housing duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

Suitability of accommodation

14. 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)
15. Councils must consider the location of accommodation when they consider if it is suitable for the applicant and members of their household. If a council places an applicant outside its district, it must consider, among other matters:

• the distance of the accommodation from the “home” district;
• the significance of any disruption to the education of members of the applicant’s household; and
• the proximity and accessibility to local services, amenities and transport. (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012)

Review rights

16. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decision: the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.

Review procedure

17. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

Review timescale and right of appeal

18. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• eligibility for assistance;
• not in priority need;
• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation;
• notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.

19. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
20. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

Background

21. Mrs X and Y were homeless. In mid-May 2023, Mrs X and Y moved into temporary accommodation arranged by the Council which was a room in a hostel. At the same time, the Council told Mrs X it owed her the main housing duty.
22. In September 2024, the Council offered Mrs X a social housing property, property A. In its offer letter, it explained:
• why it considered the property was suitable for her household;
• the consequences of refusing the offer; and
• her right to accept the property and ask for a review of its suitability.
23. Mrs X accepted property A and the Council ended its homelessness duty in October 2024.
24. Mrs X said she accepted property A under duress because she said she would be street homeless otherwise. She remained of the view that it was unsuitable due to its location and due to disrepair.
25. These matters were the subject of an earlier complaint that Mrs X brought to the Ombudsman. We decided it was reasonable for Mrs X to exercise her rights of review and appeal if she was unhappy about the property’s suitability.
26. I have only investigated the events that followed.

Suitability review

27. Mrs X requested a suitability review on 8 October 2024.She set out several reasons why property A was unsuitable, including:
• Location (too far from: Y’s school, their preferred future high school, their support network, GP, hospital and the town centre)
• Travel (time, cost, distance of travel; medical difficulties with travel for both Mrs X and Y)
• It was in an unsafe area
• Medical and mobility issues meant that the property was unsuitable because
1. It did not have a direct entrance to the street (because it was a flat),
2. The kitchen was too small for her to move around safely, and
3. The bathroom was unsuitable due to the lack of grab rails in the shower.
28. Later in October and early November, Mrs X submitted further representations, including: a complaint that the shower room could not accommodate a toilet frame, a complaint about noise, and extracts from historical occupational therapy (OT) assessments
29. In mid-November the Council officer who was carrying out the suitability review (the reviewer) asked Mrs X if she wished to submit any further evidence before he completed it.
30. Over the weeks that followed (November/December 2024), Mrs X submitted further representations about the issues she had already raised. She said her medical conditions were being worsened by the location of her housing and she now needed to visit the hospital for investigations. She said an OT-arranged installer had attended to install grab rails in the shower room and had decided that was not possible.
31. A member of the Council’s OT team emailed Mrs X in mid-December to say that, as the toilet frame it had provided was not suitable, they could try a raised toilet seat.
32. In late December the reviewer asked Mrs X to finalise her representations so he could complete the review. She replied that he could proceed.
33. The Council OT emailed Mrs X in January 2025 to say that the Council could reinforce the wall of the shower room in order to make it suitable to attach a grab rail. It could also replace the sink with a smaller one so a toilet rail could be installed. The OT asked Mrs X to contact her if she wished to proceed with these adaptations.
34. Mrs X made a complaint to the Council in mid-March, at stage 1 of the complaints process. She said she had been waiting since October for the Council to complete the review.
35. The Council issued the outcome of the review on 21 March. This included the reviewer’s considerations of each of Mrs X’s representations, including:
• Distance from school, support network, hospital and GP. The reviewer considered each of these distances individually, setting out how long each journey would take on foot or by bus. He said the distances were acceptable, particularly if Y were to move to a local school and Mrs X to a local GP.
• Too far from future secondary school. The reviewer said the Council was not required to (and practically speaking, could not) take future educational possibilities into account.
• Unsafe area. The reviewer said Mrs X had raised this based on a single incident on the day she had moved into property A. He said this was insufficient evidence of a lack of safety.
• Two doors/two sets of keys required, restricting access to emergency services. The reviewer said it was not clear how this impacted suitability, given that all blocks of flats have a communal front door and a personal front door.
• Medical/mobility issues. The reviewed said these issues could be addressed, including by a referral to OT.
• Kitchen space too small. The reviewer said no medical evidence had been provided as to why Mrs X required a space larger than the recommended minimum.
• Time given to consider the offer: The reviewer said 24 hours was not unreasonable, given that Mrs X was familiar with the location of the property, and that she didn’t request an extension at the time.
36. The review concluded that property A was suitable. It explained that, if Mrs X disagreed, she could appeal the decision in the county court on a point of law, and that any such appeal must be brought within 21 days of the date the Council had notified her of the decision.
37. Mrs X contacted the Council straightaway. She said that the reviewer had not taken account of the facts that:
• Y had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Only two of the four high school’s consulted by the Council’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) team had said they could meet Y’s needs upon transition in September 2025. That was why their preferred high school was further away than might have otherwise been the case. She said that the preferred high school was only a 15-minute walk from property B (her preferred property), whereas it was a (unmanageable, for reasons of mobility) 45-minute walk from property A.
• OT had not been able to help her with her problem accessing the oven or the toilet, and she had explained that the installer had been unable to install grab rails in the shower room.
38. The reviewer replied the following day, saying that Mrs X had not mentioned some of the issues she now raised when she had viewed the property. He said she had not included in her representations during the review that OT had already assessed her as needing a grab rail in the shower, and that he had “worked on the understanding that [she] only required a ground floor or lift-assisted property with a wet room”. He said he would reconsider his decision if Mrs X could provide evidence that high schools closer to property A had either not responded or had said they could not meet Y’s needs. However, he said that Mrs X’s second choice of high school was 5 miles away from the town centre, so he could not understand why she was unwilling to travel 2 miles from property A to her first choice of high school.
39. Mrs X responded that she would gather evidence from the Council’s SEND team to support her position. She said that a 5-mile journey would be impossible, but that she had to put down more than one choice of school.
40. The Council responded to Mrs X’s Stage 1 complaint on 1 April. It said that it had now concluded the suitability review and reminded her of her right to appeal in county court (and the timescale for doing so).
41. Mrs X submitted evidence about the outcome of the consultations with four high schools to the reviewer on 3 April. She chased him for a response on 12 May and also made a stage 2 complaint to the Council that day.
42. The reviewer responded on 18 May that his decision was unchanged. He remained of the view that a distance of 2 miles to Mrs X’s preferred high school did not make property A unsuitable.
43. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage 2 complaint on 16 June. It said:
• The suitability review had been conducted by a legally trained, qualified, independent officer, who found the accommodation to be suitable even having considered the distance from the school.
• The SEND team had confirmed that it informed families that a preferred school may not always be located near their home. They also advise families about the Home to School Transport service.
• With regard to the shower room, the OT team had made recommendations in December 2024 (and, in fact, January 2025) including installing a shower rail, but Mrs X had not responded. It said it was still open to her to respond to the OT team.
44. Mrs X approached the Ombudsman after receiving this response. She said she had not received the email from OT in December 2024.

Analysis

45. The Council took almost 24 weeks to complete the suitability review, 16 weeks longer than the limit set out in the Housing Act. This delay is fault, that caused Mrs X uncertainty while she awaited an outcome, and put her to the time and trouble of chasing the Council for a response. I shall recommend a remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.
46. The Council told us that its “capacity to carry out reviews was severely impacted by the long-term unexpected absence of a key officer” during this period, and that it has now recruited additional staff to ensure review timescales are met. I will not make any recommendations to improve the Council’s services in this respect as I am satisfied it has taken action to address the matter.
47. As set out at paragraph 6, 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. In this case, the Council correctly informed Mrs X of her right to appeal to county court. But it also continued to correspond with her after it issued the review decision and told her it would be willing to reconsider the decision if she provided the evidence it requested. This dual-track approach is not included in the Housing Act or the Homelessness Code and was fault. It caused Mrs X injustice in the form of confusion as to the correct process to follow. By the time the Council completed the reconsideration, two months later, Mrs X had missed the opportunity to appeal, which is a further injustice. In these circumstances, I consider it was reasonable that Mrs X did not appeal to court.
48. And so, I have investigated the way in which the suitability review was conducted, in line with chapter 19 of the Homelessness Code. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
49. In this case, the reviewer was a suitably independent person to conduct the review. In coming to his decision, he had due regard to all relevant factors, and invited representations from Mrs X. He checked that she had finished making representations before he completed the review, which was good practice. When the reviewer issued his decision, he included his reasons against each of Mrs X’s points of representation. He advised her of her right of appeal.
50. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding Mrs X’s property was suitable. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
51. I have already found the Council was at fault in continuing to debate the suitability of Mrs X’s property with her after it had come to a decision in March 2025. I find the Council was at further fault during its post-decision exchanges with Mrs X. First, following the review, the reviewer reconsidered Mrs X’s representations on the grounds of Y’s future educational possibilities. He had earlier said the Council was not required to take these matters into account. Second, he said that Mrs X had not told him, during the review process, that she had been assessed by OT as needing a grab rail in the shower. She had submitted this information to the Council in December 2024. Although fault, this did not cause injustice because the reviewer was aware adaptations were possible, and he had recommended an OT referral. Third, he referred to several issues Mrs X had raised during the review, saying that she had not mentioned them on first viewing the property. There is no requirement in the Housing Act or the Homelessness Code for homeless applicants to raise objections at the point of viewing: it is usually in the person’s best interests to accept the offer and request a suitability review, as Mrs X did. These faults caused Mrs X frustration and confusion, for which I will recommend a remedy.
52. I find no fault with the actions of the Council’s OT team. Whilst it is unfortunate if Mrs X did not receive the emails sent by OT in December 2024 and January 2025, I have seen evidence that they were sent to her usual email address. I understand that Mrs X had further contact with the OT team during 2025.

Back to top

Action

53. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make her a payment of £400 for the injustice caused by the faults I have identified through my investigation.
54. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
55. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to review its practice to ensure that it recognises applicants do not need to raise objections at the point of viewing and that it does not disadvantage those who accept offers before requesting a suitability review.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

57. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman