Summary: Miss D complained the Council placed her unsuitable accommodation. I have upheld the complaint because the Council failed to follow procedures resulting in Miss D being left in unsuitable accommodation for at least six months. The Council has agreed to pay Miss D redress and to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Miss D) complains the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation in 2024 and failed to consider her request to review the suitability of the accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss D previously complained to the Council, and we investigated issues with her earlier accommodation. That investigation covered September 2023 through to May 2024. My investigation cannot revisit matters already considered by the Ombudsman. I am looking at events from June 2024 through to 5 February 2025 when the complaint was passed to our Assessment Team to consider.
6. I cannot consider any issues with repairs at the property. That is because the management of social housing, including repairs, fall outside our remit and for the Housing Ombudsman to consider. My Investigation focuses on the suitability of the accommodation and whether the Council followed the correct process when Miss D questioned if the flat met her needs.
7. I understand Miss D has continued to experience issues with accommodation since she complained to the Ombudsman. I have explained to her that I cannot look at any recent incidents. She would first need to formally complain about those issues to the Council before coming to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. In June 2024 Miss D was in temporary accommodation provided by the Council with her three young children. Miss D is disabled and uses a wheelchair outdoors.
11. In July the Council notified Miss D it was looking to make a direct offer of permanent housing under its main housing duty. An offer was made on 18 July for a flat on the fourth floor of a block which had lift access. The Council told Miss D she could ask for a formal review of the suitability of the accommodation within 21 days of the offer being made. On 19 July Miss D queried with the Council whether the flat was suitable because she had a blue badge and needed an allocated parking space near to the property, there was no designated parking at present. The Nominations and Appeals Officer asked the Council what to do because Miss D did not want the property without allocated parking, but the housing file did not state Miss D needed designated parking. The Council asked its Medical Assessment Team if Miss D had specific medical recommendations. The Medical Assessment Team replied the same day that, based on the information Miss D had provided on her application for housing, she did not require allocated parking. Miss D accepted the property offer.
12. Miss D moved into the property on 9 August. On 22 August Miss D emailed the Council with a “housing appeal”. She stated she had been liaising with the Council about multiple repair issues at the flat. She was disabled and the lifts regularly broke down meaning she could not access her home; on two occasions she and her children had slept in her car. She also said there was no designated disabled parking space. She said, “the property is not suitable for me and my family to occupy”. I have not seen any evidence from the Council to show how it dealt with this suitability review request. The Council says it was passed to the Review Team and the Manager “did not apply discretion to accept the late request” because Miss D could have moved into the property sooner. I cannot see any decision letter was sent to Miss D. On 24 September Miss D emailed the Council again and enclosed a copy of her housing appeal. She said she had been complaining about the flat by phone and email and had not received a response. I have no evidence of the Council replying.
13. The Council says its Adaptations Team and Social Care Team were in contact in September about Miss D’s case. I have not seen supporting evidence, but the Council says this is what led to an Occupational Therapist (OT) report being requested. On 20 October an OT notified the Council they had completed an assessment report after visiting Miss D and assessing whether the property met her needs or required adaptations. She said the Council should consider moving Miss D to a suitable property and in the meantime look at whether a bath could be installed whilst she waited to be moved. The report set out Miss D’s concerns about the property. The OT noted Miss D had difficulty accessing bathroom equipment and issues about getting to the flat when the lift was broken. The OT recommended the Council install a rail beside the toilet and replace the shower with a bath. She recommended “the service user is considered for rehousing” and detailed the features for suitable alternative accommodation including level or lift access to a property not higher than the first floor.
14. On 22 October the Housing Needs Officer asked the Council if it was dealing with a formal suitability review for Miss D. The Review Manager replied Miss D had made an “out of time request” which had not been logged as a review request. On 24 October the Housing Needs Officer asked the Allocations Manager for advice. Miss D had stated the property was unsuitable in July 2024 and her subsequent suitability review had been late. The OT had now recommended moving Miss D because the property was not suitable for her medical needs, however she was in the introductory period of her tenancy and transfers were not usually allowed. She asked if a transfer would be possible and “it does appear the offer [in July] may not have been suitable”. The Manager replied on 29 October to get medical information from Miss D and the Council could allow a transfer if someone was in a medically unsuitable property.
15. On 5 November the Council emailed Miss D to complete a form so it could request a medical assessment of her case which would take into account the OT report. Miss D returned the forms, and the case was passed to the Medical Assessment Team on 12 November. In November and December, the Council had contact with Social Services for information on Miss D’s household needs which it did not receive. Miss D chased up the Council in December and was told the Council was waiting until it received the Medical Assessment Team decision.
16. On 9 January 2025 the Medical Assessment Team issued its decision. It said the OT recommendations had been “noted” but did not explain how these had been considered. It said the Council could carry out adaptations to the bathroom which would make it suitable for Miss D’s needs. There was no housing need for Miss D based on the current information and the Council should signpost issues to its repairs teams. On 13 January the Council told Miss D her flat was not considered medically unsuitable. Miss D said the OT had found the property unsuitable and the Council advised this had been taken into account but that adaptations could be made to the flat. Miss D questioned whether the adaptations were possible. The Council asked the Adaptations Team whether a bath could be installed the next day. On 15 January the OT told the Council that installing a bath would not resolve the issues with the property. On 17 January the Adaptations Team said major adaptations were refused because Miss D was a wheelchair user and the current property was not suitable, “the resident must be rehoused”. The Council says as a result of this it liaised with Housing Management about lift repairs and contacted Social Services for a copy of a current care plan for the household. The Social Worker told the Council she was due to carry out a new assessment of Miss D’s care needs at the end of the month. The Council noted that once it received the care plan it would be sent for a further Medical assessment.
17. On 24 January the Council’s Medical Assessment Team said Miss D’s requirements for a new property would include a ground floor home or with lift access. It should also have a bath that was able to be adapted to a level access shower in the future.

Events outside my investigation timeframe

18. On 25 February 2025 the Council noted that due to repair issues with the lift at Miss D’s flat she was unable to occupy the property and had been placed in temporary accommodation. A Medical Advisor had assessed the case and recommended the Council rehouse Miss D. Due the lack of suitable temporary accommodation and the vulnerability of the client the Council would consider making a direct offer of accommodation to Miss D.

What should have happened

19. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. 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.

21. The Homelessness Code of Guidance says housing authorities have a continuing obligation to keep the suitability of accommodation under review, and to respond to any relevant change in circumstances which may affect suitability (paragraph 17.8)
22. The Council says that suitability review requests are considered by the Review Team. The Council says late requests (made after 21 days of the property offer) are also dealt with by the Review Team. It has failed to confirm that a decision letter should be issued even where a review is rejected. The Ombudsman would expect a decision letter to be sent.
23. Where a tenant says a property is medically unsuitable, outside of the statutory suitability review process, the Council can request an OT visit and assess the tenant’s needs. The OT will send a report to the Council with recommendations. The Council can then refer that report to its Medical Assessment Team to consider all the relevant evidence and decide if the property is medically unsuitable or if adaptations will make it suitable. Where adaptations are recommended, the Council should refer to the Adaptations Team to carry out the work. If a property is found to be medically unsuitable and cannot be adapted the Council should consider the tenant for a housing transfer.

Was there fault by the Council

24. The Council failed to notify Miss D about its decision that she did not require designated parking at the property in July 2024. I find no fault in how the Council reached the decision because it followed the correct process. It checked with the Medical Assessment Team that a parking space was not essential. However, the Council should have informed Miss D how it had dealt with her concerns and the reasons for its decision.
25. In respect of the suitability review request I also find fault by the Council. Miss D submitted her request in August and was over the 21 day time limit for submitting a statutory suitability review request. The Council has failed to evidence to me how it assessed that request. Although it was late, the Council still had discretion to accept it. I would expect evidence of how the Council considered if there mitigating factors that had caused the delayed submission and to check with Miss D. I have no evidence of any of those actions happening. Instead, the Council classed the review request as ‘out of time’ and did not log it (as set out by the Review Manager to an Officer in an email in October). That is not acceptable. It is for the Council to decide if it will accept a late review request, and it has the right to refuse it. But that decision making process should be clearly evidenced and where the Council has discretion, we expect to see evidence of how it assessed if that discretion should apply. Furthermore, the Council failed to notify Miss D of its decision and also failed to respond to requests about the suitability review in September and October. This is a particular concern because the subsequent actions in the case showed that Miss D had been correct in stating the accommodation was unsuitable. The OT stated this in October 2024 and the Adaptations Team confirmed this in January 2025.
26. The evidence shows me the Council did seek to look further at whether the property could meet Miss D’s needs. In September the Council commissioned an OT assessment and this was received in October. The OT made it clear in her email to the Council the property was medically unsuitable, and adaptations were only needed as an interim measure to assist Miss D while she waited for a housing transfer. The Council had the right to ask the Medical Assessment Team to consider the case and decide if it was medically suitable, as that is a decision for the Council rather than an OT. However, I have issues with the medical assessment. There is no evidence in the decision making notes to show how the OT report was considered in any detail. The Officer simply wrote “noted”. That is not sufficient particularly given the OT had told the Council any adaptations would not resolve the problems and were not a way to make the property medically suitable. In addition, the assessment also failed to obtain up to date Social Care evidence. The Council says Miss D failed to supply a copy of her care plan. I would have expected the Council to contact her for a copy, I have no evidence it did so. Also, the Council clearly felt the Social Care information was needed given that it sought to obtain a copy of the care plan for the second assessment in 2025. It is my view the assessment was flawed; it failed to obtain relevant information and did not detail how the OT report had been considered. Furthermore, it made recommendations for adaptations that were not feasible and refused by the Adaptations Team plus the OT stated they would not resolve issues with the property. Not only was the decision questionable it also took nearly two months to issue it, four weeks longer than the usual timeframe.

Did the fault cause an injustice

27. The Council failed to explain how it considered Miss D’s parking request. This meant she was left uncertain about how that matter had been considered. The Council’s failure to contact Miss D about her suitability review request caused her avoidable time and trouble chasing up the Council. She was not afforded a chance to discuss her request and explain if there mitigating factors causing the late submission. This resulted in a lost opportunity for Miss D. Miss D also had to wait longer than necessary for the Council to accept the property was unsuitable. She was in an unsuitable property for the five months of occupation covered by my investigation.

Back to top

Action

28. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and will pay Miss D:
• £150 for avoidable time and trouble pursuing her case
• £200 per month for the six months Miss D was in unsuitable accommodation (August 2024 to start of February 2025) totalling £1,200
29. In addition, the Council will consider what service improvements can be made to avoid similar failures in future cases. It should tell me:
• What action will be taken to ensure decision letters are issued when review requests are submitted
• What improvements will be made to recording how decisions are reached and evidenced by the Review Team and the Medical Assessment Team.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the case closing.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice and have completed the investigation because the Council agreed to my recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman