Summary: We have found no fault with the Council in the way it handled Mr X’s accommodation suitability review request. It carried out an informal review followed by a formal review in line with its Allocation Scheme.

The complaint

1. Mr X lived in temporary accommodation and complained about the Council failing to follow its own procedures when:
1. it failed to carry out, within the timescale set out in its housing allocation policy, the informal review he asked it to do after it offered him accommodation it considered suitable; and
2. it carried out a formal review instead.
2. As a result, he remained in accommodation the Council accepts is unsuitable in the long term, the review took longer than it would have done, he is suffering physically and feels ignored.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance.
6. Mr 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 guidance

The main housing duty

7. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

8. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the following decisions:
• 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.
9. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request.
10. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204).

Council’s Allocation Scheme

11. Section 3.12 states that where an applicant is unhappy with a decision, an initial informal review will be undertaken by the housing officer who dealt with the case or an equivalent officer. The Scheme does not specify a required timescale within which the informal review itself must be undertaken or completed.
12. Section 3.12.2 then states that the applicant will be notified whether the decision still stands and the reasons for this, usually within two working days, via telephone call, text, email, or letter. The reference to “usually two working days” relates to notification of the outcome, not to the undertaking or completion of the informal review process itself. Furthermore, the use of the word “usually” indicates that this is an indicative timescale rather than a mandatory deadline.

What happened

Background

13. Mr X applied to the Council as homeless in July 2023 and was placed in various accommodation. Mr X has disabilities and uses walking aids.

Property 1

14. The Council placed Mr X in temporary accommodation (Property 1) in November 2024. Ahead of offering property 1 to Mr X, an occupational therapist (OT) and a medical professional carried out a joint visit. They concluded the bathroom may be too narrow but that the property could reasonably accommodate Mr X’s immediate needs while a longer-term solution was explored.
15. The Council agreed the accommodation was unsuitable in the long term because of Mr X’s disabilities but was suitable as interim accommodation while it tried to find him alternative accommodation.
16. Mr X complained the Council said it would be suitable for the short term if works were done to it. It failed to do these works. The Council said it paused the major adaptations proposed by the occupational therapist (OT) to Property 1 in March.

Property 2 – informal review

17. In March 2025, the Council offered alternative accommodation (Property 2) to Mr X. Prior to the offer, an occupational therapist (OT) had visited the property and deemed it suitable subject to some adaptations.
18. Mr X requested an informal review of the suitability of the accommodation. The Council arranged for Mr X to visit the property with an OT along with the adaptations company to confirm the adaptations were feasible.
19. The Council issued a response to Mr X’s review request in April. It said that following the completion of the adaptations, Property 2 met the assessed housing recommendations made by the Council during Mr X’s housing assessment. It offered Mr X four options which included refusing the offer and requesting a formal review.

Property 2 – formal review

20. Mr X refused Property 2 and requested a formal review of the suitability of property.
21. At the start of June 2025, the Council sent Mr X the outcome of the formal review. It agreed that it was not suitable and confirmed that the Council was still under continued obligation to secure accommodation for him.
22. The Council said it revived the adaptation works to Property 1 because of the review decision.
23. Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in July 2025.

Update

24. The Council made Mr X an offer of permanent accommodation which Mr X accepted.

My findings

25. Mr X was unhappy with the first temporary accommodation offered to him by the Council. The Council agreed it was unsuitable without adaptations. The Council started work on the adaptations but paused these when it offered Mr X an alternative property. I have found no fault here.
26. When Mr X was unhappy with the second property, he requested an informal review which the Council completed. While there is an expectation that applicants are normally informed of the outcome promptly, the Allocation Scheme does not impose a requirement that the informal review must be completed within two working days. Therefore, a delay beyond two working days in undertaking or completing the review does not, of itself, constitute a failure to follow the Allocation Scheme. I have found no fault here.

The Council carried out a formal review when Mr X requested it. If Mr X was unhappy with the outcome of this, he had to right to appeal to county court. I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman