Summary: We found fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness case. While the Council followed the correct process when assessing the suitability of temporary accommodation, it delayed in progressing matters, communicated poorly across teams, handled her complaints inadequately, and failed to provide proper reasons for the medical assessment or conclude the related review. These faults caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, issue a fresh reasoned medical decision with review rights, and improve its administrative practice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to properly safeguard her and her children when she was homeless. She says the Council left her and her children in overcrowded and unsafe conditions and then provided temporary accommodation which she considers was unsuitable. Miss X also complains the Council failed to properly consider medical and safeguarding concerns, mishandled her homelessness and housing allocation applications, and did not properly review her housing banding. In addition, Miss X complains about how her complaints were handled by the Council. Miss X says these matters caused her significant distress, worsened her mental health, and placed her children at risk. She seeks acknowledgment of fault, accountability for what went wrong, and a reassessment of her housing priority.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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 not investigated

5. I have not investigated Miss X’s homelessness application made in 2023, including the Council’s decision to close that application. This is because those events occurred more than 12 months before Miss X complained to us and are therefore outside the Ombudsman’s normal jurisdiction. I have referred to these events only as background.
6. I have also not investigated whether the Council’s decisions about the suitability of temporary accommodation or housing banding were correct on their merits. These matters were subject to statutory or internal review processes, which the Council completed. The Ombudsman cannot substitute its judgement for that of the Council where it has followed the correct process. My investigation instead considers whether the Council acted in line with the law, relevant guidance, and good administrative practice when making and reviewing those decisions.

Following issue of my draft decision, Miss X referred to further events occurring in January 2026, which she says arose as a consequence of the alleged unsuitability of the temporary accommodation. I have considered these comments. However, this investigation concerns the Council’s decision-making and administrative handling during the period set out above. It would not be appropriate to extend the scope of this complaint to investigate new substantive events or incidents occurring after that period. I have therefore not investigated those matters as separate issues within this complaint. To the extent they are relied upon as evidence of earlier unsuitability, I have considered whether they alter my findings, but they do not change my conclusions on the matters within scope.

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

Relevant law and guidance

Housing allocations

9. The law says every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants for social housing and the procedures it will follow when allocating housing. All allocations must be made in accordance with the published scheme.
   (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) and (14))
10. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to certain categories of applicants, including people who are homeless, people living in overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing, people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds, and people who need to move to avoid hardship.
    (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
11. While councils must give reasonable preference to these groups, the law allows councils to decide how they give effect to that preference through their allocations scheme, including the use of priority bands and additional criteria, provided the scheme is applied consistently and lawfully.

The Council’s allocations policy

12. The Council’s published Housing Allocation Policy places eligible applicants into four priority bands: Band 1 (Emergency Priority), Band 2 (High Priority), Band 3 (Medium Priority) and Band 4 (Low Priority).
13. The policy says applicants owed the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 fall within Band 3 (Medium Priority) as “priority homeless”.
14. The policy explains higher priority bands are reserved for applicants who meet additional criteria. For example, Band 2 includes “high medical priority” where the Council’s medical advisers recommend it, and “priority homeless with additional need” where defined criteria are met.
15. The policy also explains how the Council considers medical priority (including referral to medical advisers) and that applicants can request a review of housing application decisions within 21 days. It aims to reach a review decision within 56 days.

Good administrative practice

16. Good administrative practice requires councils to act fairly, openly, and without undue delay. Councils should communicate clearly, provide accurate and consistent information, and explain decisions properly so service users understand what has been decided and why.
17. Where a case involves more than one service area, good administrative practice requires councils to coordinate their responses and ensure individuals are not passed unnecessarily between teams or required to repeatedly raise the same concerns. Effective complaint handling forms part of good administration and requires councils to clearly identify whether fault has occurred, address the impact on the complainant, and explain what action will be taken to put matters right where shortcomings are identified.

What happened

18. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
19. In July 2024, Miss X approached the Council for assistance as she was homeless. The Council assessed her circumstances and accepted that she was eligible for assistance, homeless, and in priority need because she had dependent children.
20. In mid-September 2024, the Council accepted a duty to help Miss X secure accommodation under section 189B(2) of the Housing Act 1996. On the same date, the Council provided Miss X and her children with temporary accommodation (emergency bed and breakfast accommodation), which I refer to as Accommodation A. The Council’s letter said this accommodation was intended to be short term and noted that families with children should not normally remain in bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than six weeks.
21. In October 2024, Miss X raised concerns with the Council about the suitability of the emergency accommodation. She said it was unsafe and unsuitable for her children. The Council made arrangements to move her to alternative temporary accommodation.
22. Later in October 2024, the Council offered Miss X a hostel-style temporary accommodation. I refer to this temporary accommodation as Accommodation B. The Council confirmed the accommodation was a three-bedspace unit and considered suitable for her household.
23. In November 2024, the Council accepted that it owed Miss X the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The Council confirmed Miss X was placed in Band 3 on the housing register, with a priority date of mid-September 2024.
24. Miss X continued to raise concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation at Accommodation B. She said the accommodation was unsafe, overcrowded, and unsuitable for her children, and raised safeguarding and medical concerns.
25. On mid-November 2024, Miss X requested a statutory review of the suitability of the temporary accommodation under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. She also challenged her housing banding and said she should be placed in a higher priority band.
26. In early-December 2024, a Council review officer issued a “minded to” decision letter. The officer explained they were minded to find the temporary accommodation, Accommodation B, suitable for Miss X and her children. The letter addressed Miss X’s concerns about safety, space, location, affordability, and her children’s wellbeing. The officer invited Miss X to make further representations before a final review decision was issued.
27. In February 2025, the Council’s housing medical adviser completed a medical assessment in relation to Miss X’s circumstances. The medical adviser made no recommendation for alternative temporary accommodation or an increased housing band.
28. In March 2025, the Council informed Miss X that the medical assessment did not support a change to her housing banding and confirmed she remained in Band 3. The Council advised Miss X of her right to request a review of the medical decision. Miss X requested a review of the decision in April 2025.
29. Throughout this period, Miss X made complaints to the Council about the handling of her homelessness case, the suitability of the temporary accommodation, the handling of her housing application, and the way the Council responded to her concerns. The Council considered her complaints through its complaints procedure and issued responses which accepted there were shortcomings, but did not clearly set out a specific remedy.
30. Miss X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

Suitability of temporary accommodation and review process

31. The law says councils must secure accommodation that is suitable for an applicant and their household when discharging their duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, councils must consider factors including the size and physical condition of the accommodation, affordability, location, the household’s needs, and any medical or safeguarding issues. Councils must also have regard to their duties under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.
32. Where an applicant raises concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation, the council should consider those concerns properly, take account of relevant evidence, and explain its reasoning clearly. The Ombudsman cannot substitute its judgement for that of the council on whether accommodation is suitable, provided the council has followed a proper decision-making process and taken account of relevant matters.
33. In this case, the Council provided Miss X and her children with Accommodation A in September 2024 and later moved them to Accommodation B. Miss X raised concerns that the accommodation was unsafe and unsuitable for her family, including concerns about space, security, the layout of the facilities, and the impact on her children’s welfare.
34. The Council considered these concerns through the statutory review process. In December 2024, a review officer issued a detailed “minded to” decision letter addressing the points Miss X had raised. The letter considered the size and layout of the accommodation, security arrangements, affordability, location, and proximity to services. It also referred to the ages of Miss X’s children and stated the officer had considered safeguarding duties under the Children Act 2004 and equality considerations under the Equality Act 2010. The officer explained why they were minded to conclude the accommodation was suitable and invited Miss X to make further representations before a final decision was made.
35. This shows the Council followed the correct process by offering a statutory review, setting out its reasoning, and giving Miss X the opportunity to respond. The review letter demonstrates the Council considered the relevant factors it was required to take into account.
36. However, while the review was procedurally correct, some aspects of the Council’s approach are open to criticism. Parts of the reasoning rely on general assertions, such as there being no evidence of security risks or serious hazards, without clearly explaining what enquiries were made to reach those conclusions. In addition, some of the advice given to Miss X, for example about managing supervision of her children within the accommodation, lacked sensitivity given the context of her safeguarding concerns. While this does not in itself make the accommodation unsuitable, it contributed to Miss X’s perception that her concerns were not being fully understood.
37. On balance, I do not find fault in the Council’s assessment of suitability or in the way it conducted the statutory review. Any shortcomings identified relate to the clarity and tone of the Council’s communication, which I have considered further under communication and complaint handling.

Housing banding and allocation priority

38. Miss X complains the Council did not properly assess her housing priority and says she should have been placed in a higher priority band.
39. The Council’s Housing Allocation Policy says applicants owed the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 fall into Band 3 (Medium Priority) under “priority homeless”. Higher priority, including Band 2, is reserved for applicants who meet additional criteria, such as “high medical priority” where recommended by the Council’s medical advisers, or “priority homeless with additional need” where the policy criteria are met.
40. In November 2024, the Council accepted it owed Miss X the main housing duty and placed her in Band 3 with a priority date of 13 September 2024. This was consistent with the starting point set out in its allocations policy for homeless households.
41. Miss X challenged her banding and asked the Council to take account of medical and safeguarding concerns. The policy provides that medical priority is determined through referral to the Council’s medical advisers. The evidence shows the Council obtained a medical assessment, and the medical adviser did not recommend increased priority. The Council informed Miss X that she remained in Band 3 and advised her of her review rights. Miss X requested a review of the Council’s decision in April 2025.
42. Following my draft decision, I made further enquiries of the Council regarding the assessment completed and the review request submitted by Miss X in April 2025.
43. The Council confirmed that while it requested GP records as part of the review process, it did not receive those records. The Council also confirmed it did not write to Miss X to explain that the review could not be completed due to the absence of medical records, nor did it issue a formal review outcome. The review request was effectively closed without notification to Miss X.
44. The original notification of the medical assessment outcome stated only that no medical recommendation had been made and that Miss X remained in Band 3. It did not set out the medical adviser’s reasoning, the evidence considered, or how the relevant criteria in the Council’s allocations policy had been applied. Good administrative practice requires councils to provide clear and intelligible reasons for decisions, particularly where those decisions affect housing priority. Providing reasons enables an applicant to understand the decision and, if necessary, to challenge it effectively.
45. In this case, although internal correspondence shows that the medical adviser had considered certain evidence and formed a rationale, that reasoning was not communicated to Miss X. Further, when Miss X requested a review, the Council did not complete the review process or formally notify her of its outcome. I therefore find fault in the Council’s handling of the medical assessment and review process.
46. This fault caused Miss X further uncertainty and frustration. She sought a review of the medical decision and reasonably expected a reasoned response. Instead, she was not provided with clear reasons for the original decision and was not informed that her review would not be concluded. This undermined her ability to understand and meaningfully challenge the Council’s position and added to the distress and time and trouble already identified.
47. The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine whether Miss X should have been placed in Band 2, nor to substitute judgment on the merits of the Council’s housing decisions. My role is to consider whether the Council followed a lawful and fair process. Where I have identified procedural fault, I have recommended an appropriate remedy.

Delay in taking action

48. The law and statutory guidance say councils should act promptly when responding to homelessness applications and concerns about temporary accommodation, particularly where children are involved. Where a council places a family with children in bed and breakfast accommodation, the Homelessness Code of Guidance says this should only be used as a last resort and should not normally last longer than six weeks. Councils should also act without undue delay when responding to concerns about suitability and when progressing reviews and related assessments.
49. In this case, the Council placed Miss X and her children in bed and breakfast accommodation in September 2024. The Council’s offer letter acknowledged that this accommodation was intended to be short term and that families with children should be moved within six weeks. Miss X raised concerns about the suitability of this accommodation during that period.
50. The Council did not move Miss X and her children to alternative temporary accommodation until late October 2024, with the move taking effect in early November 2024. This meant Miss X and her children remained in bed and breakfast accommodation for around six weeks. While this was close to the maximum period permitted by guidance, the move was accompanied by uncertainty and repeated chasing, rather than being progressed in a clear and coordinated way.
51. There was also delay in progressing other aspects of Miss X’s case. Miss X raised medical and safeguarding concerns from an early stage, but the Council’s housing medical assessment was not completed until February 2025, several months after those concerns were first raised. While the eventual outcome of the assessment did not support a change in housing banding, the delay meant Miss X was left for an extended period without clarity about whether her medical circumstances would be formally recognised.
52. In addition, the handling of Miss X’s requests and complaints involved multiple teams, and actions were not always taken promptly or in a coordinated way. This contributed to delays in providing clear responses and resolving matters that were causing her ongoing concern.
53. On balance, I find fault in the Council’s delay in taking action. While the Council eventually completed the necessary steps, including moving Miss X from bed and breakfast accommodation and arranging a medical assessment, it did not do so as promptly as it should have, given the presence of young children and the nature of the concerns raised. This delay did not change the eventual housing outcome, but it caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty while she waited for matters to be addressed.

Communication and coordination between Council teams

54. Good administrative practice requires councils to communicate clearly with service users and to ensure different teams involved in a case work together in a coordinated way. Where a person raises concerns that cut across different functions, such as homelessness, temporary accommodation, medical assessment, housing allocation, and complaints, the council should take reasonable steps to ensure the person receives clear, consistent information and is not passed unnecessarily between teams.
55. In this case, Miss X’s homelessness case involved several different Council teams, including homelessness assessment, temporary accommodation, housing reviews, housing allocations, medical advisers, and the complaints team. The evidence shows Miss X contacted the Council on multiple occasions seeking clarity about the suitability of her temporary accommodation and the handling of her wider concerns.
56. The Council provided Miss X with information at different times about which teams were responsible for particular issues. However, this information was not always clear or consistent. Miss X was, at various points, advised that:
1. her housing register application was redundant,
2. banding issues could not be considered by the review team,
3. medical matters had to be dealt with separately by the medical advisers, and
4. complaints about case handling had been passed to managers, without a clear outcome.
57. This fragmented approach made it difficult for Miss X to understand how her concerns were being addressed or which process applied to which issue. It also meant she had to repeatedly chase the Council and restate the same concerns to different teams.
58. While it was not unreasonable for the Council to involve different specialist teams, it should have taken greater care to coordinate its responses and provide Miss X with a clear, joined-up explanation of how her case was being managed and what decisions had been made. The lack of coordination and clarity contributed to confusion, frustration, and a sense of being passed between departments without resolution.
59. On balance, I find fault in the Council’s communication and coordination between teams. This fault did not alter the substantive housing decisions reached, but it caused Miss X avoidable distress, time and trouble, and uncertainty about how and when her concerns would be properly addressed.

Complaint handling

60. Good administrative practice requires councils to have an effective complaints process that considers the issues raised, clearly identifies whether fault has occurred, and, where appropriate, explains what remedy will be provided. Complaint responses should be clear, coordinated, and proportionate, particularly where a complainant is raising concerns across multiple service areas and where children are involved.
61. In this case, Miss X made several complaints to the Council about the handling of her homelessness case, the suitability of temporary accommodation, her housing banding, and the way her medical and safeguarding concerns were addressed. These complaints were considered through the Council’s complaints procedure, and the Council issued responses at different stages.
62. The evidence shows the Council accepted that there were problems with how Miss X’s case had been handled. However, its complaint responses did not clearly set out what fault it accepted, how that fault had affected Miss X, or what action the Council would take to put matters right. Instead, the responses tended to summarise events, refer Miss X to other teams or processes, or restate the Council’s position on housing decisions without clearly addressing the substance of her complaint.
63. In addition, the handling of Miss X’s complaints reflected the same lack of coordination seen elsewhere in the case. Different teams addressed different aspects of her concerns, but there was no single, joined-up response that brought those strands together or clearly explained how the Council had considered the overall impact on Miss X and her family. This meant Miss X was left uncertain about whether her complaints had been properly investigated and what, if anything, the Council accepted had gone wrong.
64. While the Council was entitled to maintain its position on the suitability of the accommodation and the housing banding outcome, it should still have clearly distinguished between matters where it considered there was no fault and matters where its administrative handling had fallen short. The failure to do so was poor complaint handling.
65. I therefore find fault in the way the Council handled Miss X’s complaints. This fault did not affect the substantive housing decisions reached, but it caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble in pursuing clear answers about her concerns.

Injustice

66. As a result of the faults identified, Miss X experienced avoidable distress, frustration, and uncertainty. The Council’s delays in progressing key actions, its fragmented communication across different teams, its poor complaint handling, and its failure to provide clear reasons for the medical assessment decision or properly conclude the related review left Miss X unclear for prolonged periods about how her concerns were being addressed and whether she could meaningfully challenge decisions affecting her housing priority.
67. Miss X had to spend significant time and effort repeatedly contacting the Council, chasing responses, and restating her concerns to different departments. This caused her additional stress at a time when she was already dealing with homelessness and caring for young children.
68. The faults identified relate to the way the Council handled matters rather than the merits of its housing decisions. However, they caused Miss X avoidable anxiety, uncertainty, and time and trouble in pursuing clear answers and a fair process. This amounts to an injustice that warrants a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

69. To prevent similar occurrence, and remedy injustice identified in this complaint, the Council will:
1. Apologise in writing to Miss X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by delays, poor communication, shortcomings in complaint handling, and the failure to provide proper reasons for the medical assessment decision or conclude the related review. The apology should be meaningful and acknowledge the impact on Miss X and her family.
2. Make a payment of £500 to Miss X to recognise the avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble she experienced in repeatedly pursuing clear information and responses from the Council.
3. Issue Miss X with a fresh, reasoned medical assessment decision setting out:
1. the evidence considered;
2. the criteria applied under the Council’s Housing Allocation Policy;
3. the reasons for the outcome reached; and
4. provide Miss X with fresh review rights in relation to that decision.
4. Remind relevant housing and complaints staff of the importance of coordinated communication where a case involves multiple teams, and of the need for complaint responses to clearly identify fault, address injustice, and explain what action is being taken to put matters right.
70. The Council will complete action points a to c within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action point d within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

71. We found fault in the Council’s handling of Miss X’s homelessness case. While the Council followed the correct process when assessing the suitability of temporary accommodation, it delayed in progressing matters, communicated poorly across teams, handled her complaints inadequately, and failed to provide proper reasons for the medical assessment or conclude the related review. These faults caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment, issue a fresh reasoned medical decision with review rights, and improve its administrative practice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman