Summary: Ms C complained the Council had wrongly refused her access to its housing register, communicated poorly, and failed to provide her suitable accommodation which met her needs since Autumn 2023. We found fault by the Council for communicating poorly and its delayed complaints handling. It has also failed to arrange suitable accommodation for Ms C since January 2025. There was no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse her on its housing register. The Council should apologise and make payment to Ms C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused, and continues to cause her. We also made service improvement recommendations to address the faults identified.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms C, complained about the Council’s handling of her housing situation since September 2023. She said it:
• wrongly refused her requests to join the Council’s housing register because she owns a property, and failed to properly consider her exceptional circumstances under its discretionary powers; and
• failed to respond to the PA’s requests for a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation and other communication; and
• accepted her temporary accommodation is unsuitable In January 2025 but has failed to arrange a suitable accommodation.
2. Ms C said, as a result, she has experienced distress and uncertainty due the impact her unsuitable accommodation had on her health and wellbeing. She wants the Council to provide her with suitable accommodation and be able to bid on its housing register for permanent accommodation.

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. 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)
5. 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I have investigated Ms C’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her housing register application and suitability review request since 2024.
10. I have not investigated:
• Ms C concerns about the Council’s handling of her housing situation prior to 2024 as this part of her complaint is late. This is because she complained to the Council in late 2024 and brought her complaint to our attention in March 2025. I have seen no good reason her complaint could not have been brought to our attention within 12 months of the events complained about; and
• events which have occurred since the Council’s final complaint response in February 2025, with the exception of her ongoing stay in an unsuitable accommodation. This is because any new events or concerns should first be brought to the Council’s attention through its complaints process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms C and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law, guidance and policy

13. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide for certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. 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)
16. 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.
17. 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)
18. 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.
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 and temporary accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
20. 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.

Council’s Housing Allocation Scheme

21. Every local housing authority must keep a housing register – or list of households needing re-housing. It must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it will prioritise applications and allocate available housing.  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
22. An allocations scheme must give reasonable preference to applicants in the following categories:
• homeless people;
• people in insanitary, overcrowded or unsatisfactory housing;
• people who need to move on medical or welfare grounds;
• people who need to move to avoid hardship to themselves or others;
  (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3))
23. Housing applicants can ask the council to review a wide range of decisions about their applications, including decisions about their housing priority.
24. The Council Allocation Scheme sets out who cannot join its housing register. This includes:
• People who own or jointly own a property which is reasonable for them to occupy. If a person has recently owned a home, evidence will be required of the sale and any capital gained from the same; and
• Households who have sufficient financial resources to own or rent an accommodation in the Council’s area. This is based on an income exceeding £90,000 per year, or applicants who has sufficient capital (savings, investments, or assets) of £16,000 or more. Even I such capital is not immediately available such as a property.
25. The allocation scheme says it cannot cover every eventuality. In special cases with exceptional needs, the Service Director for Housing Needs and Strategy has discretionary power to for example, award additional priority and approve offers of housing, taking into consideration all factors relevant to housing and social needs.

Council’s complaints policy

26. The Council has a two stage complaints policy. It says it will:
• acknowledge complaints within 5 working days;
• respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It may extend this with a further 10 days maximum; and
• respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. If more time is needed an extension of 20 working days may be agreed.

Background

27. Ms C has a health condition and experiences episodes which may put her at risk when these occur. Her condition has gradually become more frequent over several years and caused injury a few years ago for which she is still receiving treatment through regular visits to a hospital.
28. Ms C bought a property in another part of the Country several years ago. She said this was for her mother to live in. Ms C lives in London and works in the Council’s area.
29. In 2022 Ms C made a homelessness application to the Council. It initially refused. However, Ms C provided various medical evidence and circumstances of her owned property. The Council accepted a homelessness duty to her in 2023.
30. The Council offered Ms C a temporary accommodation flat in another London borough. Ms C did not find the flat suitable due to the travel distance to her work and health & wellbeing support.
31. The Council considered Ms C reasons, but found the offered property was suitable to her needs and within reasonable travel distance through public transport. Ms C moved into the property in March 2023.
32. In July 2023 the Council accepted it owed Ms C a main housing duty. She asked to be added to the Council’s housing register, but this did not happen. Nor was any private rented accommodation offered.
33. Ms C raised concerns to the Council about the suitability of her accommodation from September 2023.

What happened

34. In 2024 Ms C again asked the Council to be added to its housing register. She shared a recent psychologist assessment which showed the challenges and impact her current accommodation had on her health. A Mental Health Keyworker and an MP also wrote a letter of support.
35. In Autumn 2024 Ms C again asked the Council for support to be moved to a more suitable property. She shared a letter from an NHS nurse which set out how her episodes affected her health and her treatment plans. She experienced a hospitalisation and started receiving support from an advocate at a housing advice agency. A community mental health worker again wrote a letter of support for her which set out why her accommodation was unsuitable for her needs.
36. In September 2024 the Council’s medical assessor considered Ms C’s case. It was found she needed a self-contained accommodation, ground floor or lifted property with a shower. A bed and breakfast would be suitable as an emergency. Also, out of area housing and private sector housing was suitable as there were medical support services available in all areas. It found it was therefore not medically essential for her to reside in the Council’s area.
37. In October 2024 Ms C’s advocate asked the Council to support Ms C as her accommodation was unsuitable. A complaint was made in November 2024 when no response was provided by the Council.

Ms C’s complaint

38. Ms C’s advocate complained the Council had failed to support Ms C appropriately with her housing situation. They said:
• she had been in unsuitable accommodation since September 2023 due to the travel distance to her work, support network in the Council’s area, and hospital appointments.
• she and the advocate had not received responses to their requests; and
• she had asked if she had a housing register account but received no response.
39. The advocate asked the Council to accept Ms C’s temporary accommodation as unsuitable, place her on its housing register, and provide another temporary or permanent social housing for her within the Council’s area.
40. In late 2024 Ms C and her advocate shared further support letters from NHS professionals with the Council. These commented on her conditions and the impact the travel distances to her work and support had on her. The advocate also chased the Council for a response to the complaint.
41. In January 2025 the Council’s medical assessor again considered Ms C’s case based on the additional information it had received. The assessor changed their view and recommended for Ms C to live in, or closer to, its area with a shorter travel time to her support network.
42. In response to Ms C’s complaint, the Council partly upheld her complaint. It:
• (Communication) accepted it had failed to respond to some communication or caused delay in doing so. This was because of officer leave, and the actions had not been picked up by other staff. It also agreed it had caused delay in its complaints handling. It apologised and offered a remedy of £175 for the impact this had on Ms C;
• (Allocation Scheme) found it had acted in line with its Housing Allocations Scheme when it refused to add her to its housing register. It explained this was because she owns a property which in line with its scheme meant she was ineligible to apply for social housing;
• (Discretion) had considered her disagreement of not adding her to its housing register due to extenuating circumstances. However, it had not found this was appropriate due to her home ownership;
• had accepted a main housing duty for her. She had been encouraged to find private rented accommodation, and it had offered some support with this. It had asked its medical assessor to consider the evidence she had provided, but this would be to consider her needs for private rented accommodation and not social housing. It said it would arrange a call with her to discuss options.
43. Ms C asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She shared reasons why she disagreed with its decision to refuse her on its housing register. She asked the Council to consider her case under its Allocation Scheme’s discretion for special cases with exceptional needs. She also said she had not received a call as promised to discuss her housing options and it therefore continued to fail to move her to an accommodation which was suitable for her.
44. In its final response the Council did not change its view on its decision to refuse Ms C to join its housing register. It explained it had considered her extenuating circumstances. It apologised she was not contacted as promised regarding finding alternative accommodation and left a message for the officer to contact her when returning from leave. It again offered the remedy from its stage one response.
45. Ms C asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint about the suitability of her accommodation since September 2023, the Council’s refusal to add her to its housing register, and her continued stay in an unsuitable accommodation. She said she believes its decisions amounts to discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
46. I understand since Ms C brought her complaint to our attention:
• the Council has visited to assess her accommodation, and a further medical assessment decision made. This again found her temporary accommodation unsuitable based on its distance to her work and support network. It also found the property itself impacted on her wellbeing.
• an incident occurred where Ms C was hurt in her accommodation due to an episode. She was hospitalised for a few days as a result;
• the Council spoke with Ms C to obtain information about her income and affordability for private renting;
• a private renting offer was made to Ms C which she declined, but the Council has not discharged its housing duty towards her;
• a housing association property was offered to Ms C in Summer 2025 but this was subsequently withdrawn;
• the Council shared its discretionary housing decision in September 2025, which set out how it had considered Ms C’s request to be added to its housing register under its exceptional circumstances. It did not change its view and found she should not be added to its housing register, but her accommodation remains unsuitable, and it will continue to try and find suitable private accommodation.

Analysis and findings

Suitability of Ms C’s temporary accommodation up to September 2024

47. Ms C has shared evidence she asked the Council to consider the suitability of her accommodation at least since April 2024. It was not until September 2024 a medical assessment took place. In addition, the Council has acknowledged its responses were poor or delayed.
48. I found the Council at fault for its delay to consider Ms C’s suitability request until September 2024. However, its medical assessment considered the evidence available to the Council and found her accommodation was not unsuitable at the time. Other than the delay, I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view. I cannot therefore criticise its decision as it reached a decision it was entitled to make.
49. While I cannot therefore say Ms C was in an unsuitable temporary accommodation in September 2024, I am satisfied the Council’s delay caused her some distress and uncertainty.
50. In addition, I have not seen evidence the Council shared its decision with Ms C or her advocate. This should also set out her rights of review of the Council’s decision. This was fault. However, as Ms C subsequently provided more medical evidence and a further suitability decision was made, I found the injustice this caused was limited to the uncertainty she experienced as a result.

Suitability of Ms C’s temporary accommodation between September 2024 to January 2025

51. In late 2024 Ms C and her advocate shared further information and professionals’ support letters with the Council. The Council reconsidered her suitability request and evidence in early 2025. It then accepted her temporary accommodation was unsuitable.
52. I found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its changed decision, nor did this mean its initial decision was wrong. This is because it based its decision on the evidence available to it at the time.
53. Ms C remains in her temporary accommodation which the Council has found to be unsuitable for her needs since January 2025. I acknowledge it is challenging for the Council to find a suitable accommodation for Ms C due to limited availability of properties and a high demand on its services. However, the duty to provide her with suitable accommodation was immediate, and its ongoing failure to find alternative suitable accommodation is a service failure.
54. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
55. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
56. Our guidance on remedies takes the view that where someone has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we will usually recommend a payment between £150 to £350 a month. We consider each complaint on its merits and consider the impact the fault had on the person making the complaint and their family. In the circumstances of this case, I consider £150 a month to be appropriate. This should be calculated from January 2025 until the date of this decision. The remedy should also be ongoing for up to six months after my decision, or sooner if the Council offers Ms C a suitable accommodation or discharges its housing duty.

Request to join Council’s housing register

57. Ms C disagrees with the Council’s decision to refuse her access to its housing register and said it had not properly considered her extenuating circumstances.
58. I have not found fault by the Council or the process it followed to reach its decision. In reaching my decision, I was conscious:
• Ms C is a homeowner which normally means she would not be entitled to join the Council’s housing register. However, it has accepted her owned home is not suitable or accessible to her as part of its homelessness decision. This did therefore not in itself mean she was ineligible to join; and
• Ms C has an asset which is the home she owns. While she may disagree, this enables her to buy or rent a home in the Council’s area, the Council’s scheme is clear capital does not need to be immediately available. It was therefore entitled to reach its view she did not qualify to join its housing register.
59. Ms C also said the Council failed to consider her individual circumstances under its discretionary powers. She told the Ombudsman she believes the Council’s decision is a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
60. I have not found fault in the process the Council followed. This is because its complaints response informed her it had considered its discretion, but it had not found grounds to depart from its policy. I also understand the Council recently sent Ms C a further explanation of its decision not to exercise its discretion under its Allocations Scheme after having taken her personal circumstances into account.
61. As I have not found fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view and the decision was one the Council was entitled to make, I cannot therefore criticise its decision making.
62. In addition, I can only consider whether the Council had proper regard to the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty when making its decision. I am satisfied the Council were aware of and considered Ms C’s personal circumstances, which included her health and welfare concerns. However, Ms C believes the Council’s decision amount to a breach of the Act. Only a court can made a decision about breaches of Equality laws. Mc C has the right to pursue this in court should she wish to do so.

Communication and complaints handling

63. The Council accepted in its complaint responses to Ms C it had failed to respond to some of her or her advocate’s communication and proposed a remedy.
64. I agree the Council’s communication with Ms C and her advocate was poor at times. This included failing to respond, causing delays in responding, and not sharing some decisions with her.
65. In addition, the Council took 10 weeks to respond to Ms C and her advocate’s complaint. This was fault as it was far in excess of the timescales in its complaints policy. There was no delay in the Council’s stage two complaint response.
66. I am satisfied the Council’s poor communication and delays in its complaints handling caused her some further unnecessary distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

67. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms C, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Ms C to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her;

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.

2. pay Ms C a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council’s poor communication, including her time and trouble with the Council’s delayed complaint process;
3. pay Ms C a further £150 per month from February 2025 until the date of this decision. This is to acknowledge the impact she has experienced as a result of living, and continuing to live, in unsuitable accommodation. The remedy is ongoing for up to six months after this decision, or until the Council places Ms C in a suitable accommodation or discharges its housing duty towards her.

In total the Council should pay Ms C £1,650 and a monthly ongoing remedy as set out in remedy c).

68. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4.  
5. share the steps it has taken to ensure it responds to requests and communication for suitability review requests, requests to join its housing register, and issues decisions with relevant review rights without delay. This includes circumstances where officers are absent or on leave; and
6. share the Council’s plans to address delays in its complaint handling process due to a high demand for its services. If no plan is yet in place, the Council should set out an action plan to ensure it can adhere to the timescales set out in its corporate complaints policy.
69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

70. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council for poor communication, delayed complaints handling, and its failure to place or arrange Ms C in suitable accommodation from January 2025. There was no fault in its handling of her request to join its housing register. The Council will apologise and make payment to remedy the injustice its faults caused, and continues to cause.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman