Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s response to his homelessness. We found the Council to be at fault because it took too long to process his suitability review and medical assessment. The Council has already provided an appropriate reply during its complaints handling and so we have not made further recommendations. We did not identify any other areas of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation when he became homeless. Specifically, Mr X complains about the following matters.
1. Suitability of his temporary accommodation and delay in carrying out a review of this.
2. Failure to take into consideration his medical conditions when processing his homelessness application.
3. Poor customer service.
4. Disability discrimination.
5. Failure to provide a translation service.
2. He says this has caused significant distress and affected his health and well-being.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. 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.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mr X raised 20 areas of specific concern that he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate. My complaint summary above sets out what I consider to be the most significant issues that were considered by the Council during its complaint handling. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Homelessness

10. 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.
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 for them. 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)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

12. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
13. 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 accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
14. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
15. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request regarding suitability of accommodation.

Reasonable adjustments

16. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to anybody which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
17. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
18. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

What happened

19. I have set out below a summary of the key events. But it is not meant to show everything that happened.
20. Mr X was granted refugee status in September 2023. He contacted the Council for assistance with his housing situation because he was asked to leave his accommodation, that was only available to asylum seekers. Whilst the Council assessed his homelessness application, he was provided with interim accommodation at a hotel (Hotel A).
21. In March 2024, the Council confirmed Mr X was owed the main homelessness duty. At the same time, he was accepted onto the Council’s housing register.
22. The following month he moved to temporary accommodation at a different hotel (Hotel B). Mr X requested a review of the suitability of this accommodation in August 2024. Before the review was completed, Mr X accepted an offer of temporary accommodation in a self-contained flat (The Flat). Shortly after moving into The Flat, Mr X submitted medical evidence in support of his request to be provided with a larger, one bedroom property. His claim was considered by the Council’s medical adviser. In March 2025, the Council notified Mr X he was not eligible for a one-bedroom property.
23. Upon Mr X’s request, the Council carried out a review of this decision. Whilst upholding the decision about bedroom entitlement, the Council accepted he required a step-free property due to his mobility problems.
24. In August 2025, Mr X accepted an offer of permanent accommodation.
25. During his time in temporary accommodation, Mr X submitted several, formal complaints to the Council. In summary, he complained about:

• delay responding to his review requests, including the suitability of the Flat;
• failure to provide an interpreter;
• disability discrimination. Mr X said the Council failed to take account of his mental and physical health conditions in its handling of his housing/homelessness applications, and in the type of temporary accommodation offered to him; and
• the size, suitability and location of the Flat.

26. The Council upheld some of his complaints. It accepted:

• there was delay in processing his medical information. The Council apologised and paid Mr X £570; and
• there was a delay of 35 weeks in processing his suitability review. The Council apologised and paid Mr X a further £350.

27. Mr X’s other areas of complaint, including those about disability discrimination, suitability of the accommodations and translation provision and other related were not upheld.
28. Disappointed by this outcome, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
29. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries the Council explained:

• delays were caused by human error, overlapping complaints by Mr X, and unprecedented demand for social housing;
• Mr X’s personal circumstances and diagnoses were taken into consideration prior to assigning temporary accommodation. He was moved when there was a need to do so; and
• several complaints were made about Mr X’s conduct whist at Hotel B, including aggressive behavior and failing to keep his room in a sanitary condition.

Analysis

30. We are not an appeal body. And we do not seek either to resolve every disputed issue between councils and complainants or to secure responses to all a complainant’s queries. Our role is to consider whether there is evidence of fault in how councils reach their decisions. Without evidence of fault, we cannot question a council’s decision however strongly a complainant may disagree with it. So, this statement does not, and does not need to, address every issue and detailed point raised in Mr X’s correspondence. My analysis below focusses on the five bullet points set out at paragraph 1 of this statement, which arose from the Council’s handling of Mr X’s homelessness application.

Suitability review and medical assessment

31. In response to both Mr X’s complaints and the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council has confirmed there a was delay processing both Mr X’s suitability review and medical information. This was fault. I am satisfied this caused Mr X distress and frustration.
32. Because the review finally determined the Flat was suitable, the injustice to Mr X is limited to her distress caused by the delay, as opposed to living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than necessary. The Council’s decision explained why it considered the Flat was suitable. It addressed all the points Mr X had made. I am satisfied the Council provided reasons why it considered the property was suitable and there was no fault in how it reached that decision. Nor did I find fault with how the Council reached its decision about bedroom entitlement. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
33. The Council has already apologised for the delays in this case, and made a payment of £920 in acknowledgement of Mr X’s personal injustice. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies and so I will not make any further recommendations about this area of complaint. I do not consider it necessary to make any service improvement recommendations because I am satisfied what happened in this case was not evidence of systemic failure, other than excessive demand for very limited resources.

Customer service

34. I found no evidence of fault by Council’s handling of the day-to-day housing related matters. Nor did I find evidence of poor customer service and ill treatment, as claimed by Mr X. The case records show there where occasions when Mr X had to wait longer that he wanted to for a response, but there was no evidence of excessive delay in dealing with his queries.
35. I understand Mr X feels aggrieved the Council failed to take action to support him when he was accused of aggressive and unacceptable behaviour whilst at Hotel B and asked to leave.
36. I have been provided with incident logs and they provide credible, independent evidence that Mr X’s conduct was a cause for concern on several occasions. I have seen no evidence to suggest Hotel B was not entitled to respond in the way it did, by asking Mr X to leave. In any event, the Council promptly provided Mr X with alternative temporary accommodation, thus minimising any adverse consequences for Mr X.

Disability discrimination

37. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
38. In this context, I am satisfied the Council acted appropriately in handling of Mr X’s homelessness and had due regard to his medical diagnosis when assigning temporary accommodation. I appreciate Mr X believes he should have been accommodated in a larger, self-contained, one-bedroom property in central London from the outset. But the Council’s failure to do so is not, in itself, evidence of fault or discrimination as claimed by Mr X.
39. The records show the Council considered Mr X’s medically-related requirements when it was appropriate and necessary to do so. Mr X was moved to a different room, due to his mobility issues, moved from Hotel A when Mr X told the Council mould was exacerbating his asthma and referred his case to the medical examiner for further consideration. I would not have expected the Council to do anything more. The Council was not at fault.

Translation services

40. The case records show the Council provided Mr X with an interpreter on several occasions. I accept Mr X would have preferred this service to be provided more often, but there is no duty on the Council to always do so at all times. From my own dealings with Mr X, I am satisfied he can communicate well in writing using an online translation facility. He also is taking English lessons and has a basic command of the language.
41. Overall, I am satisfied Mr X was offered appropriate support in this area when needed. There was no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X. The Ombudsman cannot add anything further to this. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman