Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless application. The Council was at fault for failing to carry out a medical assessment. The Council was not at fault for providing temporary accommodation to Miss X in an area she was at risk of abuse. There is no evidence it knew Miss X was at risk when it placed her there and it moved her promptly to new accommodation when it became aware. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay Miss X a symbolic amount and carry out the medical assessment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her homeless application. Miss X complained the Council:
• Failed to carry out a medical assessment when requested in September 2024;
• Provided temporary accommodation (accommodation A) to Miss X in an area she was at risk of abuse;
• Delayed moving her to new temporary accommodation (accommodation B) after accommodation A was broken into; and
• Delayed carrying out a suitability review of accommodation B for six months when she requested this.
2. Miss X says as a result her needs have gone unmet longer than necessary and this has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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

How I considered this complaint

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

Temporary accommodation

7. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty but goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
11. 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)
12. 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.

Reviews

13. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

What happened

14. Miss X was evicted from her house so she submitted a homeless application. The Council placed Miss X in interim accommodation. In September 2024, the Council accepted the main housing duty and Miss X’s interim accommodation became temporary (accommodation A).
15. The same month Miss X requested a review of the suitability of accommodation A and she also requested a medical assessment. It said on the medical assessment form that Miss X may have to wait six weeks to get the outcome of this.
16. In October 2024, the Council carried out the suitability assessment on a call with Miss X. The suitability assessment form asked whether the applicant was a survivor of domestic abuse and the answer on the form said no.
17. On the form, it said Miss X said accommodation A was no longer suitable because of her mental health, it was too far from her support network and she was paranoid someone could take her child as she was in shared accommodation.
18. The Council emailed Miss X the same month saying her suitability review request had not been approved as it was waiting for the outcome of the medical assessment. The Council said the decision would be reconsidered following the completion of the medical assessment and the Council has a medical recommendation.
19. In January 2025, the Council notified Miss X she had not signed the medical assessment form properly. Miss X sent this back to the Council properly signed four days later.
20. In March 2025, Miss X reported that accommodation A had been broken into. She also made a stage one complaint which said accommodation A was unsuitable for her and her child as it was broken into and in an area where she was at risk of abuse. Miss X also said she had been waiting over 24 weeks for the outcome of her medical assessment.
21. In April 2025, the Council carried out another suitability review and decided accommodation A was unsuitable as this was a high-risk area for abuse for Miss X.
22. The Council issued a stage one and stage two complaint response in the same month which said the following:
• The housing medical advisors had been working through a large backlog of medical assessments and it apologised for the delay;
• Miss X had not disclosed any risk areas in her homeless application or during the suitability assessment in October 2024; and
• Since identifying the current area as a risk area the Council added Miss X to the transfer list for alternative accommodation.
23. The Council moved Miss X to new temporary accommodation late April 2025, accommodation B. At the same time, Miss X put in a suitability review request for accommodation B. This was due to disrepair issues at the property.
24. The records show the Council told Miss X twice she had sent her review request to the wrong email and gave her the correct email address to send this to. There is no evidence Miss X sent her review request to the correct email address.
25. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

26. The Council has agreed to carry out a suitability review of accommodation B.
27. In response to the delays with the medical assessment, it said it was still waiting for medical records from Miss X’s GP to conduct the assessment. The Council said it sent a chaser to Miss X’s GP in November 2025.

My findings

Medical assessment

28. Miss X requested a medical assessment in September 2024. This should have been carried out within six to eight weeks. This should have been completed by late November 2024 at the latest but the Council has still not completed this to date. Whilst there has been a delay in the Council getting Miss X’s medical records, it only chased the GP for this in November 2025, fourteen months after Miss X requested the medical assessment.
29. This has caused the matter to drift without meaningful progression and was fault by the Council. This fault has caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty about her priority. It has also caused uncertainty about whether Miss X could have moved from accommodation A sooner than April 2025, had the Council carried out the medical assessment within the timescales.

Suitability of accommodation A

30. Miss X complained accommodation A was unsuitable as she was at risk of abuse in that area and someone broke into her accommodation. There are no records to show the Council was aware she was at risk of abuse in that area until March 2025. Miss X also reported the break-in the same month. The Council carried out a suitability assessment in early April and moved her to accommodation B four weeks later. This was within the eight-week timescale the Council has following a review request and therefore was not at fault.

Suitability of accommodation B

31. Miss X requested a suitability review of accommodation B when she accepted the accommodation in April 2025. Miss X sent the request to the wrong email and there are records to show the Council emailed Miss X twice telling her which email address to send this to. Miss X did not send this to the review team so her request was not considered. The Council was not at fault as it made it clear to Miss X where she needed to direct the request for it to be considered.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its delay in carrying out a medical assessment. 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 in my findings.
2. Pay Miss X £300 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by its delay in carrying out a medical assessment.
3. Carry out Miss X’s medical assessment.
4. Review its process and consider how it will ensure medical records are received in a timely manner for the medical assessment to take place.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman