Summary: We found fault by the Council on Mr Y’s complaint about it placing him in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council accepted it was unsuitable but failed to move him. It also failed to show it properly assessed whether the accommodation was suitable before placing him in it. The Council agreed to apologise for the failings, pay £1,050 for the distress called, continue to pay £150 a month until he is moved to suitable accommodation or refuses a suitable offer, and remind relevant officers of the need to assess, and record, the suitability of accommodation before placing applicants in them. There was no fault on his complaint about it placing him the wrong Band under its allocation scheme.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council placing him:
1. in the incorrect Band under its housing allocation scheme; and
2. repeatedly in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
2. As a result, he remains in accommodation that does not meet his needs, which has caused him a great deal of distress and worry.

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(i), 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. As Mr Y complained to us in January 2025, I investigated the Council’s actions from January 2024. This is because the law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. I have seen no good reasons why I should exercise discretion to consider any earlier part of his complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

8. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
10. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202)
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 (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). 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)

Council’s housing allocation scheme (2017)

13. The scheme allows for the assessing of applications for housing, deciding which to give priority, and to whom the homes it advertises through its choice based letting scheme will be allocated to.
14. It uses priority bandings. An applicant’s Band decides what priority they have. The scheme ranks the urgency and seriousness of an applicant’s situation. The scheme has four Bands:

• Band 1: emergency priority for those whose need to move is extremely pressing. This would include delayed discharge from hospital, for example.
• Band 2: urgent priority for those who need to move urgently. Applicants will be experiencing serious difficulties in their current housing, needing a high level of priority. This would include urgent medical cases where there is suffering from a serious medical condition which is seriously affected by their current housing and would be improved by a move.
• Band 3: priority. This is a medium level of need/urgency. This will be the largest band reflecting the level of need experienced by most households. This would include those with a medical need as well as those the Council owes a homelessness duty towards.
• Band 4: reduced priority for applicants who have no reasonable preference or have reasonable preference but do not meet the residence qualification.

15. The scheme does not award cumulative priority. Within each Band, an applicant’s priority is decided by their ‘effective date’. This is the date an applicant goes up a band, for example, or the date the Council accepted owing a homeless duty.
16. Applications for medical priority need to complete an online medical assessment form with supporting evidence. A decision is made within 8 weeks. Where there may be a need for a specific type of property, it will consider any occupational therapist reports and may seek advice from its medical advisors.

What happened

17. In May 2023, the Council accepted it owed Mr Y the full housing duty when he presented as homeless. The homeless assessment noted his health issues as set out by his GP and his severely limited ability to carry out daily living activities. It also noted he had a blue parking badge, was receiving enhanced Disability Living Component of his Personal Independence Payment award, and that a Tribunal said, because of a combination of physical and mental health issues, Mr Y was ‘significantly limited’. The Council awarded him Band 3 because it owed him a homeless duty.
18. It placed him in temporary accommodation (property 1) which he argued was unsuitable. The Council explained it used a suitability assessment to match Mr Y to the accommodation. It placed him in property 1 pending a homeless assessment.
19. The Council received advice from its medical advisor in October. This said the property was on the third floor. It also said it had no information about why it was claimed to be unsuitable. If the property had a lift, it was suitable. It decided he needed a property on the ground floor where there is no lift and any floor where there was a lift.
20. In November 2024, the Council reviewed property 1’s suitability and decided it was unsuitable.
21. In December, the Council moved him to property 2. This was a studio second floor flat. Mr Y argued this too was also unsuitable and threatened the Council with judicial review. The Council agreed to review it and sought an assessment of the property from an occupational therapist.
22. In February 2025, the Council received the occupational therapist’s report. The occupational therapist noted medical information sent by his GP two months earlier. The occupational therapist’s report recommended adaptations to property 2 could not be done. There was a recommendation for a ground floor property with no steps, along with a bedroom large enough so a bed could be located in the middle of the room. He also needed a level access shower.
23. The Council then reviewed property 2’s suitability and agreed it was not suitable for Mr Y. It would offer him alternative accommodation.
24. The Council confirmed Mr Y is now in Band 2 (Medical priority). This was because he had a need for a level access ground floor property with a level access shower. It also said it exercised discretion to offer him Band 2 accommodation. The Council said there was an occupational therapist assessment which it received in June. It was because of this assessment the Council awarded him Band 2.
25. Mr Y continues to live in property 2. He is on the housing register priority list. The Council also confirmed it has now offered Mr Y suitable accommodation with a level access shower.

My findings

Complaint a): banding

26. I found no fault on this complaint. This is because the evidence showed the Council properly considered the information provided by Mr Y in support of his claim for higher priority.

Complaint b): unsuitable accommodation

27. I found the following on this complaint:
1. The Council accepted property 2 was unsuitable for Mr Y. This was not a decision he could challenge at court because the Council had agreed it was unsuitable.
2. While I appreciate it identified accommodation for him which will be ready in September 2025 at the earliest, Mr Y remains in unsuitable accommodation.
3. I am satisfied, therefore, the Council’s continuing failure to move him from unsuitable accommodation is fault. I am also satisfied this caused, and causes, him an avoidable injustice as he has been in property 2 for seven months (December 2024 to the present date).
4. There is no evidence showing how the Council assessed the suitability of property 2 for Mr Y before moving him in to it. Although I have not seen the medical evidence Mr Y provided when he was in either property, there was evidence of the Council having an awareness of some of the medical issues Mr Y had when it carried out his homeless assessment. I say this because this assessment referred to them. This is fault.
5. I consider this caused Mr Y an avoidable injustice because he has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the Council properly assessed whether the property was suitable for him. This was also a lost opportunity to have this properly assessed before he moved in.

Back to top

Action

28. I considered our guidance on remedies.
29. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr Y a written apology for failing to: move him from unsuitable accommodation; show it properly assessed the accommodation’s suitability before offering it to him.
2. Pay £1,050 to Mr Y for the distress caused by the lack of suitable accommodation (£150 x 7 months).
3. Make ongoing payments to Mr Y of £150 a month until he is moved to suitable accommodation or, refuses an offer of accommodation the Council considers is suitable.
4. Take action to move Mr Y to suitable accommodation as soon as possible.
5. Remind relevant officers of the need to assess the suitability of temporary accommodation for applicants before placing them in it and to retain a record of the assessment.
30. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I found the following on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): no fault; and
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice.

32. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman