Summary: Mr X complains the Council has wrongly dealt with his homelessness and housing register applications as he has not yet been allocated suitable accommodation. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it considered these matters. So, we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with his homelessness and housing applications causing him distress and negatively impacting his health. Mr X says the Council has delayed allocating him suitable accommodation. And only allowed him to bid on certain properties with adaptations that he does not think are necessary and there are no properties for him to place bids on.
2. Mr X also complains his current accommodation is unsuitable and causing serious health problems.

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. 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 X and the Council 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 before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and statutory guidance

7. 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.

The prevention duty

8. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)

The relief duty

9. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is unintentionally 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. The accommodation a council provides until it can end this duty is called temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
11. 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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2
12. Interim and temporary accommodation can be the same physical property. What changes is the legal duty under which a council provides it. This is important because there is a statutory right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation. This then carries a right of appeal to county court on a point of law. There is no statutory right to review the suitability of interim accommodation.

Housing Allocations

13. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
14. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
• (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
15. The Council allocates social housing according to its Allocations Policy 2023. This sets out :
• Eligibility to join the housing register
• Priority bands (A-C) including medical and welfare priority
• Requirements for medical assessments by the Principal Medical Officer (PMO)
• How homelessness interacts with banding
• Rules on bidding, refusals and suspensions on the register
• How suitability is assessed and how direct offers are made.
16. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened in this case

17. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not include everything I considered as part of my investigation.
18. Mr X made a housing application to the Council in June 2024. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2024 about his housing situation and submitted medical information. The Council tried to schedule an assessment interview with Mr X but was unsuccessful as he provided wrong or inactive telephone numbers. Mr X gave updated contact details enabling the Council to progress his case. The Council arranged a homelessness assessment for 30 August 2024 later rescheduled for 30 September 2024.
19. The Council tried to arrange a home visit without success and sent information to its PMO for a medical assessment of Mr X’s priority need according to the Council’s Allocations Policy. At the assessment Mr X confirmed he had been living with a friend since 2018 in overcrowded accommodation but now asked to leave. The Council received advice from the PMO confirming Mr X was Band B medical priority with mobility level 3 because of mental health and physical health conditions. Mr X had a specific housing need for a self-contained, ground floor or lifted accommodation, window and/or balcony locks and a level access shower with grab rails.
20. The Council completed the assessment and accepted a relief duty towards Mr X on 1 October 2024. This included a duty for interim accommodation and to take reasonable steps to help him secure accommodation for 56 days. It drew up a personalised housing plan setting out the steps both the Council and Mr X should take. The Council advised the homelessness relief duty would end in certain circumstances. This included if suitable accommodation had become available to him and there was a reasonable prospect it would continue to be available for at least six months. The Council gave Mr X advice about finding accommodation in the private rented sector (PRS).
21. The Council says although it could not complete the home visit to assess suitability as Mr X said he had to leave; there were no concerns identified which contradicted PMO medical advice. Or suggested the accommodation was unsuitable at the time.
22. The Council accepted Mr X’s housing application and awarded him Band B medical priority according to its Allocations Policy. It said it expected Mr X to bid for properties that fell within the recommendations made and he would not be offered properties he was not eligible for.
23. In December 2024 Mr X told the Council he had received an eviction notice for his accommodation. Mr X said he was unwell and asked the Council for temporary accommodation on the ground floor. A housing officer advised Mr X he had a right to remain in the property until the landlord completed the legal process.
24. The officer spoke to Mr X about moving to temporary accommodation and this would reduce his priority from Band B (medical) to Band C in line with the Allocations Policy. This would reduce Mr X’s chances of securing the type of social housing he wanted. Mr X confirmed he wished to keep Band B priority and proceed towards social housing rather than risk downgrading his priority.
25. The officer also spoke to Mr X about the option of PRS accommodation where the Council offered support through a deposit and first month’s rent. The officer advised of options for out of London placements and PRS that would not affect his priority. Mr X refused the options and said he did not want private rented accommodation. Mr X said he would only accept London-based social housing. The Council says this delayed being able to offer Mr X suitable accommodation as he refused to consider accommodation outside of London. This also limited the Council’s available options and slowed its ability to identify suitable placements. This was due to the Council having few medically adapted properties becoming available for bidding.
26. The Council closed Mr X’s homelessness application in March 2025. This was because there was no medical evidence to indicate the accommodation Mr X was occupying posed an imminent risk to his health or was unsafe for continued occupation. So, it considered Mr X had suitable accommodation available to him at the current address for at least six months from its decision. This was because the landlord had not initiated any eviction proceedings so there was no legal reason to conclude Mr X could not remain at the property. The Council sent Mr X a letter to advise of the decision to end the relief duty and said he had the right to request a review of decision.
27. In April 2025 Mr X complained to the Council he was offered a flat but then it was withdrawn causing him distress. Mr X considered he was discriminated against by the officer he spoke to because he was disabled. This was due to being told he needed accommodation with adaptations to help him use the bathroom. Mr X said he did not consider he needed many adaptations and wished to be allocated the flat. Mr X said he was unhappy in his current accommodation.
28. The Council responded Mr X had been assessed as needing one bedroomed accommodation on a ground floor or accessible via a lift and needing a wet room or level access shower. Mr X had placed a bid for unsuitable accommodation, and it did not meet his needs. So, his bid was rejected and offer withdrawn once it had been validated.
29. The Council noted Mr X had been bidding unsuccessfully for properties as they did not meet his needs. The Council found no evidence Mr X had been discriminated against as the properties were unsuitable for him. The Council said it would only offer him properties deemed to meet his housing needs which included considering his medical conditions. Because of this it would take longer for Mr X to bid successfully for accommodation due to the lack of supply of medically adapted, ground floor or lifted properties with accessible bathroom facilities within the Council’s housing stock. The Council noted the advice Mr X was given by the housing officer was in line with the Council’s Allocations Policy, so he was not treated in an unjust way.
30. The Council confirms it has currently suspended Mr X from bidding for properties until April 2026 in line with the Allocations Policy. This is due to making too many unreasonable refusals of accommodation. The suspension affects Mr X’s ability to bid for properties and explains periods where no properties appear available to him.

My assessment

31. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing application and a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
32. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.
33. The evidence provided shows the Council accepted Mr X’s homelessness and housing register applications. The Council followed its Allocations Policy and carried out a housing assessment of Mr X. And sought medical advice before allocating Mr X priority on its housing register. The Council also gave Mr X advice on housing options. There is, therefore, no evidence of fault by Council in the way it has dealt with Mr X’s homelessness and housing register applications.
34. The documents provided show the Council considered Mr X’s housing situation in September 2024. The evidence showed there were no concerns identified which contradicted PMO medical advice or suggested the accommodation was unsuitable at the time. The Council gave Mr X appropriate advice about being able to remain in the accommodation due to lack of legal proceedings to evict him.
35. It is unfortunate the Council has been unable to allocate Mr X accommodation due to the lack of suitable properties available because of his medical needs. I appreciate this has caused disappointment to Mr X as he has not yet had a bid accepted and an offer withdrawn. But the Council will only allocate a property according to its Allocations Policy and if a property meets an applicant’s needs. Mr X has limited his opportunities for PRS or out of London placements so is unlikely to be offered accommodation quickly. This is due to shortage of properties Mr X requires to meet his assessed medical needs. It is also unfortunate Mr X has had his ability to bid suspended due to unreasonable refusal of offers.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault by the Council in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman