Summary: Ms D says the Council has provided unsuitable temporary accommodation. I have upheld the complaint. The Council has agreed to pay ongoing monthly redress payments until Ms D is suitably housed.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation which does not meet her medical needs. She says the Council has failed to explain what steps it will take to provide suitable accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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 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 considered events from February 2024, when Ms D obtained an Occupational Therapist report, through to the end of May 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

8. In December 2023 the Council accepted a homelessness prevention duty towards Ms D who facing eviction from her home along with her partner and child. Ms D was awarded band B housing priority for bidding on social housing advertised by the Council.

Events I have investigated

9. In February 2024 Ms D was assessed by an Occupational Therapist (OT) who recommended she receive a mobility rating of A1, requiring accessible and adaptable (non-wheelchair) accommodation. She had limited mobility and could manage one flight of stairs. On 4 March the Council told Ms D the OT had agreed she could bid for general need properties (non-adapted properties) but the OT would have to view to check the accommodation was suitable. On 10 April the Council advised Ms D her banding level was correct. On 18 April the Council found B&B accommodation for Ms D’s family and asked her if a first floor room was acceptable. Ms D agreed to take the accommodation if nothing else was available.
10. On 14 May the Council moved the family to hostel accommodation. On 19 June Ms D sent the Council additional medical information which the Council assessed. On 30 July the Council wrote to Ms D, it had considered the medical evidence but had not awarded medical priority. At the end of the month Ms D asked the Council to refer her to another council for housing. The Council advised it was at the other council’s discretion whether it would accept the application. On 8 August the other council declined to accept the referral.
11. On 9 September Ms D complained to the Council. She had not received a main housing duty decision which was due by 16 June. She was concerned she may be offered unsuitable and non-adapted accommodation and asked how her medical need had been considered. On 3 October Ms D spoke to the Complaints Officer. She had a progressive medical condition and had received a diagnosis since the February OT assessment. She now used a wheelchair and walking cane and wanted her mobility rating for housing changed. The next day the Council referred the case to the OT for another assessment. On 10 October the Council issued its complaint response. It accepted the decision on Ms D’s homelessness application was overdue and would be issued soon. It needed to see the OT assessment of Ms D’s medical need to consider what type of accommodation she required.
12. On 21 October the Council accepted a main duty to house Ms D. This meant Ms D’s accommodation status changed from interim to temporary accommodation. The Council explained Ms D had a right to request a suitability review of the temporary accommodation. The Council also sent a second email to Ms D that day advising she had qualified for the housing register as needing an A1 mobility rated property. She was not able to bid under the Allocations Policy but would receive ‘one suitable offer’ of accommodation.
13. On 7 November the OT report found Ms D now used a wheelchair due to her condition deteriorating. The mobility rating had changed to A2 (eligible for wheelchair accessible properties). Future housing ideally needed an adapted kitchen, to be wheelchair accessible and have a level access shower. The OT noted Ms D currently had to use the shared bathroom at the hostel. Her partner had to assist her in and out of the bath and stay with her whilst using the bathroom. Because it was shared facility the Council could not provide aids to assist with using the bath. The OT said they would view alternative offers of temporary accommodation they were suitable. They had updated the Housing Team and were ‘waiting for a suitable property’.
14. In February 2025 the Council recorded it was considering alternative accommodation for Ms D. Ms D asked the OT if they would view the accommodation with her and they agreed. In March Ms D’s MP forwarded an email from Ms D requesting permanent housing that was adapted. She was unable to us the in-room toilet because her wheelchair did not fit. This meant she had to use the shared bathroom and have her partner with her. She was losing her privacy and independence. The Council replied to the MP on 18 March that it recognised ‘more suitable’ temporary accommodation was needed for Ms D. It had received a suitability request from her that month which was being considered. It accepted ‘the current placement is not suitable’ and it was investigating all options to assist Ms D.
15. On 25 March Ms D asked the Council if she could occupy a larger family room at the hostel because they had a private wet room that she could access. The Council responded the next day that it might be an option, but family rooms were often needed for households moving out of B&B accommodation. The Council said it would contact the hostel and get back to Ms D. I cannot see any checks were made with the hostel or this point was further responded to. On 27 March Ms D requested the Council escalate her complaint. She appreciated the Council had been looking for suitable accommodation, but she had been in unsuitable temporary accommodation for almost a year. She asked if the Council could award her emergency band status. She also referred to two properties that had been advertised which she believed she should have been considered for. She said her housing was causing ‘severe distress’.
16. On 14 April Ms D enquired about a further OT assessment. The OT responded on 16 April that the Council was already looking for wheelchair accessible properties for Ms D. They explained an OT was checking all wheelchair accessible properties that became vacant to see if they were suitable for Ms D. A member of the OT Team was attending weekly meetings with Housing Officers to consider what empty (void) properties were available. A new OT assessment would not alter the recommendations, but the OT was willing to visit and discuss matters with Ms D. On 23 April the Council contacted Ms D. One of the properties she had referred to in March had not been found suitable for a wheelchair user after an OT had viewed the property. It assured her that properties were being checked to see if they met her needs before they were advertised for bidding.
17. On 25 April the Council responded to Ms D’s complaint. It explained that it could not award her the emergency band, this was only offered to housing register applicants already in settled accommodation. Under the Allocations Policy Ms D was eligible for one direct offer of housing. The Council was only advertising homes for bidding that had been cleared as not suitable for Ms D. In respect of the two homes she referred to in her complaint these had been checked and were not suitable for wheelchair accessibility. The Council also advised it could not refer Ms D to other councils for housing. She would need to apply to them direct. It would consider a redress payment once the suitability review had concluded.
18. On 17 May the Council issued its suitability review decision. It accepted the temporary accommodation was unsuitable for Ms D’s medical needs. At the end of May the Council arranged for Ms D to view alternative temporary accommodation with an OT. The OT advised the property was not suitable. The Council subsequently paid Ms D £7,500 for being in unsuitable accommodation from June 2024 to May 2025. It also offered to pay £150 for each month thereafter that Ms D remained in unsuitable temporary accommodation.

What should have happened

19. If someone contacts a council seeking accommodation or help to obtain accommodation and gives ‘reason to believe’ they ‘may be’ homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, the council has a duty to make inquiries into what, if any, further duty it owes them. (Housing Act 1996, section 184)
20. 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) 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)
21. 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) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
22. When a homelessness applicant tells the Council they have a medical need relating to housing the Council can consider medical evidence and refer the case to the Housing OT Team to assess. An OT will usually visit the applicant and complete a report with a mobility rating where an adapted property is required. The mobility rating is set out in the Council’s Allocations Policy and A1 is awarded to applicants requiring accessible and adaptable accommodation but do not use a wheelchair. If an applicant requires a wheelchair accessible and adaptable home they are awarded A2.
23. The Council should check that interim and temporary accommodation meets the applicant’s needs. It can take account of the medical evidence and OT reports. Where the Council accepts the temporary accommodation is not suitable it will look for alternative accommodation.
24. During the prevention duty period the Council awards applicants band B priority to bid for advertised properties on its website. The Council generally awards a property to the bidder in the highest priority band (A being the highest level through to D) with the earliest effective date (usually the date the applicant went into their current priority band). Once the Council accepts a main housing duty to an applicant they can no longer bid for advertised properties. Instead they receive ‘one suitable offer’ of housing direct from the Council. Where an applicant has an assessed medical need, the Council must check the accommodation offered meets the assessed requirements.
25. The Council has a weekly ‘voids meeting’ where Officers and OTs meet to consider properties that are ready to let. Checks are made to see if the properties meet the assessed medical needs of applicants waiting for a direct offer including homelessness applicants where a main housing duty has been accepted. In some cases the OT will visit the property to check if it is suitable. If the property is not suitable it will be listed on the website for bidders.
26. The Council’s Allocations Policy sets out that emergency banding can only be awarded to housing register applicants already in settled accommodation. The policy also explains that age-restricted properties (for older people) are not offered to applicants who do not meet the age criteria.
27. The Council says it is currently working on a long-term plan for investment in housing stock which will include more adapted housing for use as temporary and long-term accommodation.

Was there fault by the Council

28. There is fault in this case causing an injustice.
29. There was a four month delay issuing a main housing duty decision. The Council has already accepted this fault in its complaint responses.
30. The Council accepts Ms D is in unsuitable temporary accommodation and has been since June 2024 when she submitted new medical information about how her mobility had deteriorated. I have looked at whether the Council has taken reasonable steps to find Ms D suitable accommodation. I am satisfied the Council has been regularly checking all void properties to assess if they meet Ms D’s needs. Unfortunately no suitable properties, either for temporary accommodation or as a ‘one suitable offer’ of long-term housing has become available. The Council has also looked at whether a private rental home would be available, but no adapted properties meeting Ms D’s needs has been found. This is clearly very distressing for Ms D who is left in accommodation that means she cannot use the bathroom with any privacy. I am satisfied the Council is taking all reasonable steps it can to find a new home for her. That said, this is still a finding of service failure because the Council has not fulfilled its statutory duty to provide Ms D with accommodation that meets her medical needs. I deal with redress on this point below.
31. Ms D asked the Council about possibly moving to a larger room at her current accommodation so she would have a private accessible bathroom. The Council has not shown me evidence it took this matter forward with the hostel or that it confirmed any decision to Ms D which is fault.
32. I have not found any other evidence of fault in this case. Ms D has, understandably, sought to explore all possible options to improve her chances of moving to suitable accommodation. The Council has correctly advised Ms D why she is not eligible for the emergency band, age-restricted accommodation or a referral to another council.

Did the fault cause an injustice

33. Ms D has been in unsuitable interim and temporary accommodation since June 2024. She cannot access her private toilet and must use a shared bathroom.

Back to top

Action

34. The Council has already paid Ms D £7,500 for the 12 months spent in unsuitable accommodation up to May 2025. I consider that a reasonable remedy.
35. The Council has also taken account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and correctly offered Ms D an ongoing monthly payment for the time she remains in unsuitable accommodation (or it discharges its duty towards her). Ms D asked for £400 per month and the Council offered £150. I consider £200 per month to be a reasonable amount given the impact of the current accommodation on Ms D and her family. The Council has agreed to this and will backdate the payment to follow on from May 2025.
36. The Council has also agreed to check with the hostel about whether Ms D can move to a larger room with an accessible bathroom and notify her of its decision.
37. Ms D has also told me that she is unclear about who her primary point of contact is at the Council. The Council has agreed to provide a named officer/ confirm who is taking the lead in this case and will provide fortnightly updates to Ms D.
38. The Council has shown to me that it is taking steps to expand its temporary and long-term housing stock to prevent lengthy waits for adapted properties in the future.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman