Summary: Ms X complained about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council and how it dealt with her housing register application. We have found fault by the Council but consider the agreed action of an apology and symbolic payment provides a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the suitability of temporary accommodation provided by the Council following her homeless application. Ms X also complains about her housing register priority band and qualifying date.
2. Ms X says because of the Council’s fault she has lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary and is placed at risk of domestic abuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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.
5. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Homeless accommodation

8. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
9. A council must secure accommodation for applicants and their household if it has reason to believe they may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. This is called interim accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. If, having made inquiries, the council is not satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible, and in priority need, it will have no further accommodation duty.
11. 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)
12. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
13. 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)
14. 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.
15. 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)
16. Councils must consider social issues when making decisions about suitability of accommodation. This includes risk of violence, racial or other harassment and the impact of domestic abuse. The safety of the applicant and the applicants family must be considered (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 17.6)
17. Councils must keep the suitability of accommodation under continuous review and respond to any change in circumstances that may impact suitability (Homelessness Code of Guidance, 17.8)

Housing allocations

18. 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))
19. Statutory guidance on the allocation of accommodation says:

• review procedures should be clear and fair with timescales for each stage of the process
• there should be a timescale for requesting a review - 21 days is suggested as reasonable;
• the review should be carried out by an officer senior to the original decision maker, or by a panel not including the original decision maker;
• reviews should normally be completed within a set deadline - 8 weeks is suggested as reasonable.

What happened

20. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
21. Ms X had an existing housing register application. Ms X sought medical priority for her application.
22. The Council wrote to Ms X in early January 2024 to say she had been awarded Band C – less urgent medical need as a result of her request for a medical assessment of her household. The letter set out the criteria for each priority Band and how to request a review. Ms X sought a review of the decision on 4 January.
23. The Council wrote to Ms X on 9 February to say her son had been awarded Band B – Urgent medical need with no property adaptations required. The letter set out the evidence that had been considered in reaching the decision that Ms X could now bid for Band B properties. The letter set out the criteria for each priority Band and how to request a review.
24. Ms X contacted the Council in May to make a homeless application. The Council accepted a relief duty to Ms X and offered interim accommodation of a three bedroom ground floor flat. Ms X refused this accommodation as it was not in her preferred area. The Council subsequently made a further offer of accommodation which Ms X refused due to its location.
25. The Council completed a suitability assessment of Ms X’s needs in mid-June. This set out a three-bedroom need and noted advice from a social worker that Ms X’s son required his own bedroom and accommodation should be on the ground floor due to the level of risk from his complex behavioural needs. It was noted Ms X was fleeing domestic abuse and listed areas that she would be considered at risk in. It was further noted accommodation was required in the local area due to Ms X’s son having an Education Health and Care plan at a local school.
26. Ms X accepted an offer of a second floor self-contained two-bedroom property towards the end of June. This accommodation was provided by the Council under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996.
27. The Council says it authorised accepting the main housing duty in early July. There is no evidence the Council wrote to Ms X to notify her of this decision and her appeal rights at the time. This should have included the important change in the legal duty the accommodation was being provided under and that Ms X now had the right to seek a suitability review about the accommodation she had been occupying from the end of June 2024.
28. Ms X complained to the Council in July about why she had been allocated a two-bed property rather than a three bed property. Ms X also complained about the priority date on her housing register application being changed to 2024 from 2019.
29. The Council replied to Ms X’s complaint in August. The Council provided the reasons why Ms X had been placed in Band B. The Council noted Band B – urgent medical need had been awarded in February 2024 and this decision set out the right to seek a review within 21 days. No such review request was made. The Council advised Ms X of how to provide information if the medical needs had changed. The Council accepted a systemic IT problem meant Ms X’s priority date within Band B was 2024 rather than 2018 but this would be amended to 2018 once the issue was resolved.
30. The Council provided a response to Ms X’s original review request of 4 January 2024 on 23 September 2024 and apologised for the delay. This review upheld the medical assessment of 9 February 2024 that Ms X’s son had been awarded Band B – Urgent medical need with no property adaptations required.
31. Ms X sought to escalate her complaint in August. Ms X says she did try to seek a suitability review but was told the Council could not help and requested a review of her medical needs but did not receive a reply. Ms X provided screenshots of various messages about her housing needs. The messages included a note dated 1 July to say the ‘TA team’ was passing Ms X’s request for a three bedroom property to the transfer team and she may be considered when one became available. There was also a message from Ms X saying she had accepted the two bedroom property as she had been told to do so and seek a review. But when she did so she had been told the Council allocated interim accommodation based on family compositions and it was considered suitable.
32. The Council provided a reply at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure at the end of September and apologised for the delay. This noted Ms X’s complaint about the temporary accommodation not providing her son with his own bedroom on the ground floor and being too far from her support network and not having Band A priority. The Council noted the medical review in February 2024 found no requirement for ground floor. The Council also explained Ms X was not a Council tenant as set out in its policy so did not qualify for Band A. The Council noted Ms X’s son had a diagnosis of ADHD and autism but there were not a mobility issue requiring a ground floor as confirmed by the medical assessment.
33. Ms X reported a leak from the flat above in October. The Council contacted the managing agent to respond to Ms X directly as soon as possible and added her to its transfer list in October.
34. Ms X accepted an offer of alternative accommodation from the Council in October. This was also a two bedroom property. There is no evidence the Council advised Ms X she had the right to seek a suitability review about the new accommodation.
35. The Council has provided the Ombudsman with a letter dated at the end of June 2025 accepting the main housing duty to Ms X. This letter sets out that the current interim accommodation had become temporary accommodation and is considered suitable and sets out Ms X’s right to seek a review.

My consideration

Housing register

36. 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 a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
37. The Ombudsman also recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. She may not find fault with a council’s assessment of a housing applicant’s priority if it has carried this out in line with its published allocations scheme.
38. Ms X complained to the Council as she considered she should have been given Band A priority.
39. However, the Council’s allocation policy states that Band A priority is only given in cases of a threat of serious violence for Council tenants. Ms X was not a Council tenant. Band A can also be given if housing is required to prevent significant harm to a child if it is endorsed by the Head of Children’s Services. There is no evidence of such an endorsement. The policy also says the Council will not give this priority if the applicant has applied to the Council as homeless, which Ms X had done.
40. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council assessed Ms X’s priority in line with its allocation policy.
41. However, the Council accepted a systemic IT problem meant Ms X’s priority date within Band B was 2024 rather than 2018 but this would be amended to 2018 once the issue was resolved. The Council has advised the Ombudsman that it amended Ms X’s Band B qualifying date to 13 June 2018 in early August 2024. This is welcome. However, there is no evidence the Council has completed a review to identify any missed opportunities for Ms X to have made a successful bid for a property during the relevant period. I have made a recommendation below to this effect.
42. There was also a significant delay in responding to Ms X’s original medical priority review request made in January 2024. This is fault. I am satisfied this will have caused Ms X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
43. We have made recent service improvement recommendations about delays in review requests and poor communication. I have therefore not made any further service recommendations on these points as we will monitor the impact of these changes through the complaints we receive.

Temporary accommodation provided to Ms X

44. We will not usually investigate complaints about temporary accommodation where the complainant has a statutory right of review and subsequent appeal to court on a point of law.
45. However, I have considered the period from the end of June 2024 to June 2025 due to the absence of clear communication with Ms X about the Council’s housing decisions and under what legal duty any accommodation was being provided (until its letter at the end of June 2025 accepting the main duty and setting out her right to review).
46. I have noted the Council’s suitability assessment of Ms X’s needs set out a three-bedroom need and included advice from a social worker that her son required his own bedroom and accommodation should be on the ground floor due to the level of risk from his complex behavioural needs.
47. We recognise the reality that a shortage of available accommodation means councils are not always able to fulfil their “immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified” duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation. In these cases, we expect to see evidence of councils making efforts to fulfil their duties, at both the individual and strategic level. We also expect to see councils considering whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on the household.
48. The Council has provided no evidence of its efforts from the end of June 2024 to try and find accommodation which met the requirements set out in its own suitability assessment until it placed Ms X on its transfer list in October 2024. Moreover, the subsequent move to another two bedroom property appears to have been due to a flooding incident rather than on suitability grounds.
49. On balance, I consider the Council failed to provide suitable temporary accommodation to Ms X and her family from the end of June 2024 to June 2025. This is fault. I am satisfied this will have caused injustice to Ms X in being deprived of suitable accommodation during what would inevitably have been a stressful period in her life.

Back to top

Action

50. The Council will take the following action within six weeks of my final decision to provide a suitable remedy for Ms X:
1. write to Ms X to apologise for the delay in responding to her original medical priority review request and not providing suitable accommodation; and
2. make a symbolic payment of £1,200 to Ms X to acknowledge her distress for the period living in unsuitable accommodation between the end of June 2024 to June 2025 and her avoidable uncertainty and frustration from the delay in dealing with her medical priority review request.
51. The Council should also complete a review to identify any missed opportunities for Ms X to have made a successful bid for a property due to the issue with her qualifying date and provide this information to Ms X and the Ombudsman. It would remain open to Ms X to make a new complaint to the Ombudsman about the outcome of any such bidding history review by the Council.
52. 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 in my findings.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman