Summary: Miss X complained about her temporary accommodation and the way the Council ended its main housing duty for her. She also complained about the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with her. We found fault with the Council for its failure to follow the right process when considering Miss X's request for communication adjustments. This fault cause injustice to Miss X. The Council has agreed to apologise and review Miss X's communication needs.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:
• placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation;
• failed to complete an end of tenancy clean and remove the previous occupier’s belonging when letting the property to her;
• failed to deal appropriately with her complaints of disrepair, lack of a bed for her daughter and anti-social behaviour at the property;
• failed to make reasonable adjustments when communicating with her;
• wrongly decided to end its main housing duty.
2. Miss X says that as a result she and her daughter were caused significant distress and for her the Council’s failings triggered mental health crisis.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
6. 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.
7. 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.
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 not investigated Miss X’s concerns about disrepair, pest infestation and management of Miss X’s temporary accommodation as well as the way the Council dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour. This is because, as pointed out in paragraph five, we cannot look at any complaints about the Council as a social housing landlord. If Miss X wishes to challenge the way the Council dealt with her concerns about disrepair or anti-social behaviour, she would need to complain to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss X 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

Law and guidance

Homelessness

12. 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.
13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is 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 duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
14. The accommodation a council provides until it can end the main housing duty is called temporary accommodation.
15. The law says councils must make sure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. This duty applies to accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
16. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, authorities must have regard to
1. the space and arrangement of the accommodation;
2. the state of repair and condition of the accommodation;
3. location, including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care; and
4. the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability.
17. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)

Suitability review

18. Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable has a statutory right to ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days of being notified of the decision. (Housing Act 1996, section 202).
19. Councils must complete reviews of decisions about the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of an applicant asking for a review. A time extension is possible if the applicant agrees in writing. Applicants have the right to appeal to the county court if councils take more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Sections 202, 203 and 204 of the 1996 Act)
20. If reviews find accommodation is unsuitable, councils must provide suitable accommodation. If reviews find accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Section 204 of the 1996 Act)

Ending main housing duty

21. Local authorities are not required to issue a further notification of a decision to end the main housing duty after the applicant refuses an offer of accommodation. The applicant has the right to a section 202 review once the offer of accommodation is made. (Bano v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ9)

Equality Act 2010

22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.

What happened

25. In March 2024 the Council accepted its prevention duty for Miss X.
26. Following Miss X’s correspondence, at the end of September 2024 the Council acknowledged its duties under the Housing Act 1996 Section 189A to take reasonable steps over the next 56 days to help Miss X to secure accommodation. The Council attached Miss X’s Personal Housing Plan and told her of her right to ask for a review of this decision.
27. At the beginning of October 2024 the Council provided Miss X with the result of the review of its decision. Miss X considered that, because of her medical needs, she needed three-bedroom accommodation. The Council disagreed and explained a two-bedroom property should be suitable.
28. In mid-October 2024 Miss X asked the Council for somebody to call her and discuss everything as due to her learning difficulties she needed adjustments to be able to property engage with the Council.
29. At the end of November 2024 the Council accepted its main housing duty for Miss X. The Council explained Miss X’s interim accommodation became temporary accommodation as the Council considered it suitable.
30. The Council wrote to Miss X about her registration on the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme.
31. In mid-January 2025 Miss X asked the Council to always initiate contact with her by phone. She specified her best times for telephone communication. Miss X asked the Council to send her emails about any failed attempts to contact her by phone. She also asked to be sent summaries of any telephone calls by either text message, email or letter.
32. The Council offered Miss X temporary accommodation in mid-January 2025 (Property 1). The Council told Miss X she had 21 days to request a suitability review of this offer.
33. After moving to Property 1 Miss X complained about the state of the property and the Council’s failure to consider her accessibility requests. She said Property 1 had not been professionally cleaned before she moved there. Miss X refused to remove the objects form the corridor which had been left in Property 1 by previous tenants. Miss X asked for a bigger property as, she said, due to her medical needs she needed family support, also during night.
34. A few days later the Council’s officer called Miss X to discuss her complaint.
35. In mid-February 2025 the Council’s Temporary Accommodation officer responded to Miss X’s claim that Property 1 was not suitable for her. The officer stated:
• Property 1 had an end of tenancy clean and additionally all the apartments were cleaned weekly;
• it was unreasonable for Miss X to place unwanted furniture in the hallway as it created health and safety hazard;
• apart from Property 1 the Council also offered Miss X another property, which had two bedrooms but was in the north of the Council’s area. Miss X chose Property 1 knowing it had a double bed and a sofa bed. The Council obtained its medical assessor’s advice that Miss X did not need overnight support.
36. The Temporary Accommodation officer considered Property 1 suitable for Miss X and told her of her right to request a review of this decision within 21 days.
37. Asking for a suitability review of her temporary accommodation at the end of February 2025, Miss X raised the issue of overcrowding as Property 1 was a studio apartment. Miss X also said that Property 1 was not a self-contained flat, so should not be offered to her for more than six weeks. By the end of February 2025 the Council should have offered her a different accommodation.
38. In February and March the Council offered Miss X other accommodation (Property 2 and Property 3), specifying the time by which she should respond to the offers. In response to Miss X disputing Property 2’s suitability, in April the Council decided it was suitable for her.
39. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in the second week of March 2025. The Council stated it could not investigate suitability of Property 1 as she had the right to ask for a review and could have appealed the review outcome. The Council told Miss X it would call her to discuss:
• arranging an inspection to identify if repairs may be needed;
• obtaining inventory from the landlord;
• removal of the objects from the corridor;
• an action plan.
40. At the end of March 2025 the Council offered Miss X Property 3 as permanent accommodation.
41. The Council refused to consider Miss X complaint at stage two of its complaint process. The Council explained it had already provided a detailed and final response and stage two would not alter the outcome for Miss X but would potentially cause her extra frustration.
42. At the end of March 2025 Miss X received a letter from Property1’s landlord with a request to vacate the property.
43. A few days later the Council sent Miss X its final offer of Property 3. Miss X did not consider Property 3 was suitable for her mainly because of its location.
44. In mid-April 2025 the Housing Reviews Centre wrote to Miss X specifying it should respond to Miss X’s Property 1 suitability review request by the end of April 2025. The Reviews Manager gave Miss X two weeks to provide any further representations.
45. At the end of April 2025 Miss X raised her complaint with us.
46. Miss X rejected the offer of Property 2. Miss X asked the Council to review its decision to discharge its homelessness duty for her. She said Property 2 was not suitable for her. The Council told Miss X she had two weeks to provide further representations.
47. In the second week of May, due to disrepair in Property 1, Miss X moved with her daughter to the hostel-type accommodation for a few days.
48. In mid-May 2025 the Council again offered Property 2 to Miss X as temporary accommodation. Miss X accepted this offer and moved to Property 2.
49. A few days later the Council sent Miss X an independent reviewer’s decision on the suitability of Property 1. The reviewer upheld the Council’s decision of February 2025 that Property 1 offered to Miss X as temporary accommodation was suitable for her and for her daughter to occupy.
50. After carrying out a suitability review of Property 2 at the end of July 2025, the Council withdrew its previous decision ending its main housing duty for Miss X.

Analysis

Suitability of accommodation

51. As explained in paragraph four of this decision we do not look at the merits of councils’ decisions but whether they have followed the right process in reaching them. If the review finds temporary accommodation suitable, there is a right of appeal to the county court.
52. The Council offered and Miss X accepted Property 1 as temporary accommodation in mid-January 2025. She did not consider it suitable for the reasons listed in paragraphs 33 and 37. In response to Miss X’s concerns the Council undertook following actions:
• the Council’s housing officer wrote to Miss X’s, addressing her concerns in the correspondence from mid-February 2025. The officer explained why the Council considered Property 1 was suitable for her and her daughter and told Miss X she could ask for a review of the Council’s decision about Property 1’s suitability;
• the Council treated Miss X’s correspondence as a formal complaint and responded to it following its complaint process. The Council sent Miss X its response in the second week of March 2025;
• after receiving Miss X’s suitability review request, in mid-April the Council gave Miss X two weeks to provide further representations;
• an independent reviewer issued a decision on the suitability of Property 1 for Miss X and her daughter in mid-May 2025.
53. When responding to Miss X’s concerns about the suitability of Property 1 for her and her daughter the Council followed the right process. The independent reviewer’s response to Miss X’s request for a suitability review was delayed by three weeks but this delay was not significant enough to be considered maladministration in view of the Council’s engagement with Miss X throughout the process and looking for alternative properties, which were offered in February and March 2025.

Ending of the main housing duty

54. The courts established the councils’ main housing duty ends when the criteria described in the Housing Act 1996 Section 193 are met, without need for a council to issue a decision. This does not affect the homeless person’s right to ask for a suitability review.
55. In February 2025 the Council offered Property 2 to Miss X and told her of the consequences of rejecting this offer. She did not consider it was suitable for her and her daughter and at the beginning of May 2025 rejected the offer. The Council told Miss X its main housing duty ended for her as it considered Property 2 was suitable. At the same time the Council carried out a suitability review for Property 2. Miss X changed her position in mid-May and accepted Property 2. At the end of July 2025 the Council withdrew its decision to end its main housing duty for Miss X.
56. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions. In April 2025 the Council considered Miss X’s concerns about suitability of Property 2 and decided it was suitable for her and her daughter. The Council’s decision was addressing Miss X’s concerns and explaining the Council’s reasons. Thus Miss X’s refusal of the Council’s offer meant the Council’s main housing duty for her ended, which the Council only confirmed by writing to Miss X. This correspondence did not stop the Council from reviewing suitability of Property 2, which is what we would expect.

Equality Act 2010

57. Paragraphs 22 to 24 of this decision explain how the Council should consider its duty towards people with disabilities who need adjustments to the Council’s communication with them. The Council does not have to accept all requests for adjustments. If the Council decides to refuse them, it should record its reasons for considering these adjustments unreasonable.
58. In our Focus Report ‘Equal access: Getting it right for people with disabilities’ we say: ‘Local services should consult with service users about what reasonable adjustments they need. If a person requests an adjustment which is reasonable, the service cannot refuse to provide it. It cannot impose the service’s own preferred adjustment instead. Local services need to be alert to the individual needs of service users with disabilities and should not impose blanket policies of what reasonable adjustments it will agree or make available.’ We also encourage council to keep any agreed reasonable adjustments under review.
59. The Council’s policy on reasonable adjustments for customer complaints says: “In the majority of cases we will be able to agree and deliver the required reasonable adjustment with a minimum of delay. In some cases, we may need to consider in more detail how best to overcome the difficulty a disabled person is experiencing or seek advice from expert disability organisations that can assist with signposting and other forms of support.”
60. The Council recorded Miss X’s request for communication adjustments and tried to apply them. Responding to our enquiries the Council said Miss X’s changes to her communication preferences had led to some confusion. Besides the Council had found it challenging to adhere to the strict communication windows requested by Miss X.
61. I found that responding to Miss X’s request for communication adjustments the Council failed to:
• decide whether the adjustments Miss X asked for were reasonable. If they were reasonable, the Council had to provide them. If, after considering Miss X’s needs the Council had not considered what Miss X asked for was reasonable, it should have clearly communicated it to her and explained its reasons;
• record Miss X’s communication adjustments in the way that was immediately visible and accessible to any member of the Council’s housing and complaint team. As we say in our Focus Report ‘Equal access: Getting it right for people with disabilities’: “… once a reasonable adjustment has been agreed it should be provided each time a person needs to access the relevant service.”
62. The Council’s failings listed above are fault. They caused injustice to Miss X as she was increasingly distressed by the uncertainty whether the Council had accepted her request for communication adjustments. The Council’s failing to record properly adjustments agreed for Miss X meant it was not consistent in the way it communicated with her. In view of the complexity of Miss X’s housing situation consistent communication was of particular importance.

Service improvements

63. In its response to my enquiries the Council said it had already sent a reminder to its staff to ensure notes about reasonable adjustments were visible and accessible on the Council’s system.
64. After reviewing what happened in Miss X’s case the Council has also decided to introduce a Complex Case Tool Kit, which will support staff to have effective communication with people who use the Council’s services.

Back to top

Action

65. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within 20 working days of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused to her by the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• arrange with Miss X a review of the communication adjustments she needs when using the Council’s housing services. As part of this review the Council will consider whether it should appoint an advocate for Miss X. Following this review the Council should update information on Miss X’s records and make this information visible and accessible to all members of the housing staff. The Council will send us a copy of the notes from this review.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman