Summary: Mr X complained that the Council left him and his family in unsuitable accommodation for more than a year. We found that the Council was at fault in failing to move the family to suitable accommodation. This caused them injustice, particularly in terms of the needs of their disabled child. The Council has agreed to the recommendations we made to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that, although a review of the suitability of his housing (carried out in June 2024) found it was unsuitable, the Council has not yet moved him and his family to suitable accommodation.
2. Mr X said he and his family are suffering injustice in that their housing is particularly unsuitable for the needs of their disabled child, Z. It is also located too far away from his school (a 90 minute journey each way, meaning that Mr X’s wife, Mrs Y, must travel for six hours a day). This has caused a worsening of Z’s medical condition, and has caused distress to all four members of the family. By way of remedy, Mr X wants to be suitably accommodated.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
8. Mr X and his family have been awarded Band B priority under the Council’s allocations policy (because they are homeless). It has been decided that they do not require a third bedroom to meet their long-term housing needs. Mr X has requested a review of this decision.
9. Because the law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply, and this aspect of Mr X’s complaint is currently being reviewed by the Council, I have not included it in this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I spoke to Mr X and Mrs Y on the phone.
11. Mr 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

12. 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. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
13. Councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)
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)

16. Anyone who believes their Council-provided 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.
17. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)

What happened

18. Mr X and his family are homeless, and the Council owes them the main housing duty. They have lived in temporary accommodation for several years.
19. In April 2024, the Council made the family an offer of a permanent home, with the intention of ending the main housing duty it owed them. Mr X and Mrs Y said the property was unsuitable, but they were advised to accept the offer to prevent their homelessness. They did so, and requested a review of the property’s suitability.
20. The Council completed that review in June 2024 and agreed that the property was unsuitable for the family’s needs. This decision was based on the advice of the Council’s medical advisor that:
• It was important that Z stay at his current school because of its management of his neurodevelopmental condition. Any accommodation offered should be within 45 minutes travel time of that school.
• The accommodation should be self-contained, and should have a shower rather than a bath because of Z’s physical health condition.
• A ground floor property was suggested, or a maximum of the first floor if there was a lift, and
• A separate room for Z was “desirable but not medically essential”.
21. The Council said that Mr X and his family would be placed on the Council’s transfer list to be moved to suitable alternative accommodation as soon as possible.
22. In early October Mr X complained that he and his family were still unsuitably housed.
23. The Council responded in early November, explaining the main housing duty and the Council’s housing allocations scheme.
24. In mid-November, Mr X complained that the Council was failing to consider the option of providing suitable temporary accommodation whilst continuing to search for long-term accommodation, and that he hadn’t received any update regarding a move via the Council’s Temporary Accommodation Transfer List.
25. The Council, in its stage 2 response of 17 December, explained “the demand of social housing far exceeds the supply”, and said that the Council couldn’t give a timescale for a move because most temporary accommodation is reliant on private landlords rather than the Council’s own housing stock. The Council said it was doing everything humanly possible to make sure that the family was offered suitable accommodation.
26. Mr X and Mrs Y approached the Ombudsman in January 2025.

Mr X and Mrs Y’s account

27. I spoke to Mr X and Mrs Y in late May 2025. They said that the strain of being woken up early to travel several hours a day to and from school had significantly exacerbated Z’s medical condition. Their older child was afraid to sleep in the same room as Z in case he had a medical episode during the night. The whole family was exhausted, and Mrs Y has needed therapy to help her cope with the ongoing stress and uncertainty of their living situation.

The Council’s account

28. We asked the Council what attempts it was making to secure alternative temporary accommodation for the X family.
29. The Council told us that “attempts have been made to rehouse the family via Part VI offer [that is, long-term housing] in accommodation that [is] suitable to meet their housing needs – two-bedroom accommodation on ground floor or up to first floor is accessible via lift. The property must also be adapted with shower washing facilities, not standard bathroom and must be within the area where requires up to 45 minutes travel time of school.”
30. The Council said it had made such an offer in November 2024 but had withdrawn it as unsuitable on medical grounds.
31. The Council said that Mr X’s request for a review of the family’s agreed housing needs (set out at paragraph 8, and that I am not investigating) had “contributed to delays in making a suitable offer”, as had the limited availability of properties that meet their current housing needs.

Analysis

32. As set out above, Mr X and his family have been unsuitably accommodated since April 2024. Our view is that if a council has decided the applicant’s current accommodation is unsuitable, it is in breach of its statutory duty under section 206 from that point until it provides suitable accommodation. As that duty is immediate, we consider delay in transferring the applicant to suitable accommodation is service failure even when that is due to external factors beyond the Council’s control – such as a shortage of temporary accommodation, which applies in this case.
33. In this case, however, the Council is also at fault because it is conflating its duties under Part VI and Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Whilst the Council should continue to search for suitable long-term housing for the family (under Part VI) and allow them to bid on suitable properties through the Council’s choice-based lettings system, this should not prevent the Council from seeking to provide suitable temporary accommodation (under Part VII) in the interim.
34. Relatedly, Mr X’s request for a review of the family’s housing needs should not prevent, or delay, the Council from making an offer of temporary accommodation that meets the family’s needs as currently assessed by the Council. The Council’s suggestion that the review is delaying an offer is fault.
35. The Council’s temporary allocations placement policy is dated 2018. I did not find fault with the policy or its application in this case. However, since 2018 the courts have issued several judgements relevant to the issue of transfer lists and unsuitable temporary accommodation, including Elkundi v Birmingham and Imam v Croydon. The Council may wish to consider reviewing its policy to ensure it reflects these judgements.
36. The Council’s fault has caused Mr X and his family injustice in that they have been unsuitably housed for over a year, and that is ongoing. This has caused greater injustice than it would to the average family because of the impact the unsuitable accommodation has had on their disabled child’s medical conditions, and the knock-on effects of that on the other three members of the family. Below, I make recommendations to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Action

37. Within one month of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Provide a written apology to Mr X and Mrs Y for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document; and
• Make Mr X and his family a payment of £300 for every month during which they have been unsuitably accommodated since June 2024, in recognition of the avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress identified throughout this statement.
38. The Council should also continue to pay Mr X and his family £300 a month until the Council makes a suitable offer of alternative accommodation, otherwise ends its duty, or six months have passed.
39. It follows from my findings of fault that the Council should make Mr X and his family a suitable offer, whether under Part VI or Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, as soon as possible. If, after six months, Mr X and his family remain in the same accommodation, we may investigate a new complaint.
40. The payments set out above are symbolic amounts recommended in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
41. The Council should also, within one month of our final decision, remind its officers of the distinction between its duties under Part VI and Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman