Summary: The Council offered Miss B unsuitable accommodation and did not fully take into account her disability, nor act quickly enough when she did not feel safe at her interim accommodation. This meant that Miss B spent time in inaccessible accommodation, and was left distressed, uncertain, and frustrated. The Council will apologise to Miss B, make a payment to her, and review how it records information about accessible interim accommodation.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that the Council failed to:
• offer her suitable interim accommodation or take into account her disability, or ensure she was safeguarded;
• respond to her concerns about this with sufficient urgency; and
• allocate her a new housing adviser when she requested this.
2. Miss B says she was placed in accommodation that was unsafe for her. She was left to sleep in her car on occasion when the Council did not resolve this quickly enough. The Council’s poor response caused her distress and impacted on her mental health.

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. 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

5. I have investigated the Council’s actions from July 2024 to June 2025. Miss B complained to the Ombudsman in March 2025, and usually I would end my investigation at that date at the latest. However, I have included some additional time up to June 2025, because the Council repeated an earlier fault and so it is more effective use of our resources to extend the scope of my investigation by a few months to include this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss B 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

The law and guidance

8. 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.
9. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. Priority need includes people who are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
10. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

What happened

11. Miss B is disabled and uses a wheelchair. Miss B was a student but had to leave her student accommodation at short notice and she asked the Council to help with her housing situation. Miss B gave the Council details of her disability, her mobility needs, her mental health and some developmental conditions. She told the Council that she needs a wet room, and a wheelchair accessible property.
12. In August 2024, the Council offered Miss B accessible self-contained interim accommodation, and she moved in. From the beginning, Miss B had problems with antisocial behaviour of some of the other residents. She reported these to the Council and it spoke to the accommodation management and the residents. However, the problems continued and Miss B told the Council she felt unsafe there.
13. In September, the Council offered Miss B alternative accommodation but she refused this as she could not access the laundry room or use the fire doors. Miss B went to stay with a friend. The friend’s house was not accessible, and Miss B had to be helped to get upstairs and to wash. Miss B explained this to the Council but it said there were no accessible hotel rooms available. Miss B said she could not go back to the interim accommodation the Council had provided because residents were harassing her following her complaints, someone had entered her flat when she was not there, and she did not feel safe.
14. Miss B spent two nights sleeping in her car. The case notes show that the Council was considering whether it was reasonable for Miss B to return to the accommodation. The Council accepted that she could not return to her accommodation and it moved her to an accessible room in a hotel.
15. Miss B was moved to various hotel rooms, as these became available. In October, the Council moved Miss B to another hotel. However, it did not have accessible bathing or showering facilities. Miss B told the Council but it could not move her for another four nights.
16. The Council then offered Miss B a bungalow. However, when she went there she found the property was not accessible. Miss B could not access the shower and it did not have the dedicated parking she needed. Miss B was dealing with her housing adviser, but they referred her to the Council’s emergency housing service and ended their shift before the issue was resolved. Miss B was concerned that she would have to sleep in her car again. However, the Council housed Miss B in another accessible hotel room.
17. Miss B complained to the Council that it had at various times left her in inaccessible interim accommodation, and that her housing adviser had bullied her and was ableist. Miss B asked the Council to allocate her to a new adviser.
18. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint. It acknowledged that it had twice offered her inaccessible accommodation but both times the accommodation had been described as accessible. The Council apologised and offered Miss B £250 in recognition of the impact of this. The Council also said it would not allocate a different housing adviser. It said the officer had not acted unprofessionally or been bullying, and they had advocated for her, particularly to get her moved from the place she was suffering antisocial behaviour.
19. The Council accepted that it owed Miss B a main housing duty. It decided that any accommodation it offered her would need to be on the ground floor with level access, or lift access, with a walk-in shower and room for a wheelchair to move around.
20. Miss B told the Council that as well as the unsuitable accommodation, the Council often moved her to a different hotel at very short notice, and this made it difficult for her to book accessible transport.
21. The Council continued to provide Miss B with accommodation in various accessible hotel rooms. In May 2025, the hotel staff told the Council that it had not seen Miss B. The Council checked with Miss B who said that she had complained about the staff and so now the hotel was trying to cause trouble. Miss B raised concerns because the staff had entered her room without giving her time to get dressed, had told her to move rooms when this was not directed by the Council, and had been dismissive about her disability and health concerns. Miss B was directed to raise a safeguarding concern with the neighbouring authority because these incidents happened in its area.
22. In June, the Council tried to move Miss B back to the hotel where she had a problem with the staff. It also tried to move her to the hotel that did not have accessible showering facilities and despite that she had told it this in October 2024.

Was there fault by the Council causing Miss B injustice?

23. The Council has acknowledged that it failed to offer her suitable accommodation when it offered her an inaccessible hotel room without showering facilities in October 2024, and then when it offered her an inaccessible bungalow. The Council relied on information that was not fully accurate, but this is still a failing by the Council.
24. The Council’s case notes show that it acted in good time when Miss B reported antisocial behaviour of other residents in the first interim accommodation. It liaised with the property manager and tried to resolve this.
25. However, it did not act quickly enough in September 2024, when Miss B said she did not feel safe there and could no longer stay. The case notes suggest that Miss B would stay at her friend’s house overnight while the Council found somewhere else or decided she should return to the interim accommodation. However, this became several nights and there is no record of contact from the Council about a way forward. Miss B then stayed in her car for two nights which was unsuitable for her, before the Council decided that she should not return to the interim accommodation.
26. I acknowledge that the Council had provided Miss B the self-contained interim accommodation. In addition, it is for the Council to decide whether accommodation is suitable, but it did not do this quickly enough when Miss B was clearly in crisis.
27. The Council was also at fault when it offered Miss B the same hotel that had no accessible showering or bathing facilities in June 2025. Although, it then found Miss B an accessible room, this does indicate that the Council did not have a reliable system to alert it to the fact that it had already found that hotel was not suitable for Miss B.
28. Miss B had to move from hotel to hotel as and when accessible rooms were booked by guests, or became available. This is an inevitable part of interim accommodation in hotels and this is why the Council tried to avoid placing her in hotels. However, there is little on the Council’s case notes to suggest that it considered how Miss B would be able to travel between hotels given her physical disabilities. I can see that the Council booked taxis but these were not always accessible. This lack of professional curiosity is further fault and contributes to Miss B’s feeling that the Council did not fully consider the impact on her of being homeless and disabled.
29. There was no fault when the Council decided not to change the officer dealing with Miss B’s housing situation. It is for the Council to decide how to organise its services. It had clearly considered what Miss B had said and what had happened, and it explained why it did not change her worker.
30. Miss B was understandably upset when hotel staff did not treat her properly. However, the Council is not responsible for the conduct of the hotel staff provided that it meets its legal duties in terms of housing and safeguarding.
31. Overall, Miss B spent two nights in her car, and four nights in a hotel where she could not bathe or shower. Miss B was also left distressed, frustrated and uncertain when the Council did not decide quickly enough whether ishe could return to the interim accommodation at which she felt unsafe and harassed by other residents; and when it offered her the same unsuitable accommodation twice. Although Miss B did not have to move to the inaccessible bungalow, she was caused distress and inconvenience when the Council offered her this.

Back to top

Action

32. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Miss B. 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.
• Pay to Miss B £250 in respect of the impact on Miss B when it offered her unsuitable accommodation (unless it has already paid this as part of the complaint outcome).
• Pay to Miss B an additional £150 when it did not deal with other aspects of her interim accommodation properly. This includes not deciding quickly enough whether to offer Miss B alternative interim accommodation when she did not feel safe at the self-contained flat; not taking enough care to make sure she could move between hotel rooms; and when it offered her the same inaccessible hotel room twice.
33. The Council will within three months of the date of this decision review how it records information about accessibility of interim accommodation so that it does not offer unsuitable accommodation twice to an applicant.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman