Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She said the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation, delayed moving her, wrongly ended its housing duty, and failed to award her the medical housing points she was entitled to. We do not find fault in the Council’s decision not to award additional housing priority points. We do find fault in the Council’s handling of Ms X’s case, including significant delay in completing the suitability review, failing to move her promptly once accommodation was found unsuitable, poor complaint handling, and inadequate record-keeping. As a result, Ms X remained in unsuitable accommodation for several months longer than necessary and experienced avoidable distress, uncertainty, and frustration due to the Council’s poor communication and complaint handling. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her homelessness application. She says the Council:
1. placed her in unsuitable accommodation located in a high-crime area;
2. delayed moving her out of the accommodation after an alleged incident occurred;
3. incorrectly ended its duty to support her as a homeless applicant; and
4. failed to award her the housing priority points she believes she is entitled to.
2. Ms X says this has negatively impacted both her mental and physical health and contributed to her becoming a victim of crime.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. I have decided not to investigate complaint matter c) because Ms X used her statutory review right. This resulted in the Council overturning its earlier decision and reinstating the main housing duty. I have investigated complaint matters a), b), and d).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

10. 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). But 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)

Review timescale and right of appeal

11. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request:

• intentionally homeless;
• suitability of accommodation.

12. These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
13. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

Review procedure

14. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

Accommodation pending review

15. Applicants may ask a council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of a review. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to accommodate certain applicants and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, sections 188(3), 199A(6), 200(5))

Housing allocations

16. 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))
17. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority. Statutory guidance recommends Council’s complete reviews within eight weeks.  

Council’s allocations scheme

18. The Council operates a points-based allocation scheme. It awards applicant’s different amounts of points, based on their circumstances. This includes points due to homelessness, needing to move for medical reasons and other circumstances.
19. The Council’s allocation scheme says it aims to consider applications for medical priority within 21 working days. It says this might take longer if there are delays in providing the Council with the necessary evidence. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraph 4.6.6)
20. The Council has a two-stage review process for housing allocation applications, including medical priority:
• Stage one – a review by the officer who made the decision within 14 days.
• Stage two – a review by a more senior officer within 56 days. (Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme 2018, paragraphs 9.2.4 – 9.2.5)

Council’s complaint procedure

21. The Council has a two-stage complaints procedure:
• Stage one – a response from the service involved within 10 working days. This can be extended by the Council by a further 10 working in exceptional cases.
• Stage two – a response from the Council’s complaints team within 20 working days.

What happened

Background information

22. In January 2023, Ms X’s solicitors approached the Council for homelessness assistance on Ms X’s behalf. The Council accepted the relief duty and placed her in hotel accommodation.
23. In October 2023, the Council accepted the main housing duty and added Ms X to its housing register, awarding her 100 housing points for homelessness.

Ms X’s complaint

24. In December 2023, the Council offered Ms X temporary accommodation at property A, which she moved into later that month.
25. In January 2024, Ms X’s solicitors requested a review of the suitability of property A because of its impact on her physical and mental health.
26. In February, Ms X’s solicitors provided the Council with a privately commissioned Occupational Therapy assessment supporting her view that property A was unsuitable.
27. In April, Ms X requested additional housing points due to her medical needs and submitted supporting medical evidence. The Council referred the information to its medical adviser for assessment.
28. Later that month, the Council completed a housing and health assessment and decided Ms X did not meet the threshold for additional housing points. Ms X immediately requested a review of that decision.
29. In July, the Council completed a stage one review and upheld its original decision. Ms X then requested a stage two review.
30. Later that month, property A’s accommodation provider reported incidents of anti-social behaviour by Ms X. The Council wrote to her warning that if she lost her accommodation because of her behaviour, it might consider her intentionally homeless and end its housing duty. Ms X’s solicitor responded that property A was unsuitable, as Ms X could not access the shower, and requested alternative accommodation.
31. Later that month, Ms X was arrested by the police following further incidents of anti-social behaviour.
32. In August, the Council decided to end its main housing duty, stating that Ms X had made herself intentionally homeless. It also referred to significant rent arrears. Ms X immediately requested a review of this decision and asked for accommodation pending the outcome.
33. Ms X informed the Council she remained at property A. The Council advised her she should not be staying there and offered alternative temporary accommodation at property B. Ms X refused this offer, saying it was unsuitable, and continued to stay at property A.
34. Ms X then complained to the Council about the lack of support she had received and the conduct of her case officer, asking that a new officer be assigned. The Council acknowledged her complaint.
35. In September, Ms X’s solicitor told the Council that an incident had occurred at property A in early August, making it unsuitable for her to remain there.
36. Later that month, the Council completed its review of the decision to end the main housing duty. It overturned its earlier decision and reinstated the duty to Ms X.
37. In October, Ms X’s solicitor asked the Council to urgently conclude the outstanding suitability review for property A.
38. The Council then issued a draft decision letter stating it was minded to find the accommodation suitable for a short period. The letter focused on the original January review request but noted the September correspondence and the alleged incident. It also stated that, as no further request for alternative accommodation had been made since September, the Council considered the accommodation remained suitable in the short term. The Council invited further comments before finalising its decision.
39. Later that month, the Council decided that property A was unsuitable.
40. In December, the Council acknowledged that it had not responded to Ms X’s August complaint. It suggested closing the complaint, stating that it believed the issues raised had been addressed through the review process. Ms X’s solicitor replied that the complaint related to the conduct of Ms X’s housing officer, which had not been addressed, and raised additional concerns about the officer’s behaviour. The solicitor also renewed the request for additional housing points.
41. The solicitor then submitted a second stage two review request regarding the housing points decision, including information about the alleged August incident.
42. Later that month, the Council offered Ms X alternative temporary accommodation at property C, which she viewed and accepted in January 2025.
43. In February 2025, the Council issued its stage two review decision. It listed all supporting evidence considered and confirmed that advice had been sought from three medical advisers. The Council decided Ms X did not qualify for additional housing points.
44. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed it has not responded to Ms X’s August 2024 complaint.
45. The Council was unable to provide:
• the comments submitted by Ms X’s solicitor following the October 2024 draft decision;
• any documents, case notes or letters explaining why the Council decided in October 2024 that Property A was unsuitable; or
• evidence explaining the delay in offering alternative accommodation after that decision.

My findings

Unsuitable accommodation

46. Ms X moved into property A in December 2023, and her solicitor raised concerns about its suitability in January 2024, supported by an Occupational Therapy assessment in February. The Council did not conclude its suitability review until October 2024, nine months later. It should have completed the review within eight weeks. This significant delay was fault.
47. The Council has not provided records explaining how it reached its conclusion that property A was unsuitable. On the balance of probabilities, had the Council completed the suitability review within the required timeframe, it would likely have reached that conclusion much earlier. As a result, Ms X remained in unsuitable accommodation for approximately seven months longer than she should have. The Council’s inability to provide contemporaneous records is fault in itself. Councils must keep adequate records to demonstrate how decisions are made, particularly where these affect an applicant’s housing and welfare.
48. I cannot determine whether the accommodation directly caused a deterioration in Ms X’s health or contributed to her alleged experience of crime. However, remaining in unsuitable accommodation for several months would have caused her distress and uncertainty.

Delay in moving after the alleged incident

49. Ms X’s solicitor reported in September 2024 that an incident in August had made property A unsuitable. The Council accepted in October that the property was unsuitable but did not offer Ms X alternative accommodation (property C) until December. The Council has provided no evidenced explanation for this delay.
50. Once the Council decided in October 2024 that property A was unsuitable, it should have acted promptly to move Ms X. Instead, she remained there for approximately a further two months, prolonging her distress.

Housing points

51. Ms X applied for additional housing points in April 2024. The Council sought medical advice and refused the application in April, July (stage one review), and February 2025 (stage two review). The Council’s final review decision clearly set out the evidence considered and confirmed that input had been sought from three medical advisers.
52. The Council followed the correct procedures, sought appropriate medical advice, and carried out both reviews properly. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions.
53. However, the Council took longer than stated in its published allocations scheme to complete both reviews. The stage one review took two months instead of 14 days, and the stage two review took almost seven months instead of 56 days. These delays were fault and caused Ms X unnecessary distress and uncertainty.

Complaint handling

54. Ms X complained in August 2024 about the lack of support and the conduct of her case officer. Although the Council acknowledged her complaint, it failed to respond. This was fault. When the Council later suggested closing the complaint in December, it wrongly assumed the issues had been addressed through the review process. They had not. This denied Ms X the opportunity to have her concerns formally investigated and to receive a timely response, causing avoidable frustration and distress.

Back to top

Action

55. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Ms X £1,800 to recognise the nine months she spent in unsuitable accommodation. This is calculated at £200 per month for the period March 2024 (when a suitability review should have been completed) to December 2024 (when suitable alternative accommodation was offered);
• pay Ms X £150 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and missed opportunity caused by the poor complaint handling; and
• respond in full to Ms X’s August and December complaints, and if still appropriate, consider Ms X’s request to have a new case officer assigned.
56. I have not recommended further service improvements at this stage. The Ombudsman has already recently directed the Council to make improvements in similar areas, including:
• reducing delays in suitability assessments and related actions;
• improving record-keeping and case management;
• addressing delays in reviewing medical priority and housing point decisions; and
• strengthening complaint-handling processes.

The Council has committed to actions such as staff reminders, process improvements to move applicants promptly from unsuitable accommodation, an action plan to reduce the backlog of medical assessments, and enhanced staff training on record-keeping and complaint responses.

57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman