Summary: There was fault by the Council. Ms X could no longer stay in her property and the Council failed to consider interim accommodation, and its homelessness duties properly. It did not complete a medical assessment soon enough, and it did not deal with Ms X’s complaint properly. This caused Ms X distress and uncertainty, but it is unlikely that she missed out on suitable accommodation. The Council has agreed to apologise for the impact on Ms X and make a symbolic payment to recognise the distress and uncertainty it caused her.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council handled her housing situation. In particular, she says the Council:
• Did not offer her support when she moved from her private rented property to her current tenancy;
• Moved her to unsuitable accommodation;
• Accepted that it was not reasonable for her to stay at the property, but has only offered her unsuitable accommodation and has not dealt with her housing situation properly since then;
• Failed to adapt her home to meet her medical needs; and
• Failed to deal with her complaints to it properly.
2. Ms X says that as a result of the Council’s failings, she has been forced to live in a house that is causing her severe, daily distress. She says her mental health has deteriorated significantly, and she has suffered distress and frustration.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. Ms X moved to her current property in April 2023. She did not complain to the Ombudsman until May 2025. For this reason, I have not investigated whether the Council did enough to support Ms X when she moved to the property.
7. Homelessness temporary accommodation must be legally suitable. (Housing Act 1996, section 206) Anyone who believes their temporary accommodation is unsuitable can ask the Council to review the accommodation’s suitability. (Housing Act 1996, section 202) If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
9. Ms X has the right to challenge the Council’s decision that the house it offered her was suitable. The Council upheld its decision and Ms X started court action. Ms X withdrew court action and I appreciate that this is a difficult route due to the time and resources it might take. However, it is a right given by the law for homelessness applicants, and we would usually expect a complainant to use this right. For these reasons, I have not investigated whether the properties the Council offered to Ms X are suitable.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

The 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. Someone is homeless if they have no accommodation or if they have accommodation, but it is not reasonable for them to continue to live there. (Housing Act 1996, Section 175)
14. 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. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
15. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. This is called the prevention duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
16. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing. This is called the relief duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
17. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

The housing register and housing allocations

18. Every local housing authority must publish an allocations scheme that sets out how it prioritises applicants, and its procedures for allocating housing. All allocations must be made in strict accordance with the published scheme. (Housing Act 1996, section 166A(1) & (14))
19. The Council’s scheme separates applicants into different levels of need in this order of priority: Critical, urgent, and substantial need. Under the Council’s policy, if it accepts the relief or main housing duty, the applicant will be awarded critical need priority. If the Council accepts a prevention duty, it will award the applicant the lower priority of urgent need. The housing list is one way a council can rehouse someone to whom they owe a homelessness duty. It can also end a duty by helping the applicant to rent in the private sector.
20. The Council’s scheme will also award priority for assessed medical needs. Again, it will award critical, urgent or substantial need according to its criteria.
21. The Council operates a choice-based lettings scheme which enables housing applicants to bid for available properties which it advertises.

What happened

22. Ms X lives with her two young children. In August 2022, her landlord gave her notice to leave the house she was renting. In April 2023, the Council moved her to her current house.
23. Ms X has a physical disability which affects her mobility and means she finds it very difficult to use a bath. She also has a psychiatric illness and needs support from family. In the summer of 2023, the Council agreed its occupational therapist’s recommendation that it fund a wet room for Ms X. She said that she wanted to keep a bath in the wet room for the children due to their sensory issues. The Council agreed to this because there was room to reposition the bath. After a few months, the occupational therapist tried to speed the work up. The Council estimated it would be done in April 2024.
24. However, in February 2024, Ms X discovered that a former tenant at the property had been convicted of a crime. When she became aware of this, Ms X had a severe and ongoing reaction due to her personal history. She told the Council she could no longer live in the house and gave it a letter from her psychiatric nurse saying that she was having a severe mental health decline.
25. In March 2024, the Council assessed Ms X’s situation and decided that it was not reasonable for her to stay living there. It said that she was therefore homeless and it accepted a prevention duty. The Council told her that it would help her find somewhere else to live. This also gave Ms X urgent (but not critical) priority on the housing list. The prevention duty would usually last for 56 days, and the Council would then need to decide whether it had a relief duty.
26. The Council’s case notes show that its occupational therapist was in touch with Ms X at this time. They explained that the Council would not adapt the property while Ms X was looking to move. The Council recognised that a move could take some time and Ms X was very worried that by using the bath she was splashing water which had damaged the bathroom floor and kitchen ceiling. In April 2024, the Council told Ms X that it would install wet room type flooring while she waited to move.
27. In August 2024, the Council offered Ms X a two-bedroom house. Ms X asked the Council to review whether this house was suitable for her needs. She said it was away from her family that she relied on for support, and she would need to change health care providers while she was on a waiting list for treatment. Ms X also said that a two-bedroom house was not suitable for her children, because her eldest was awaiting an autism assessment and could not share a room. Ms X’s review request also included a complaint about other aspects of her housing.
28. In September 2024, the Council agreed that the property was not suitable for Ms X’s family due to the distance from her support network. It also agreed that her family needs a three-bedroom house. The Council sent Ms X medical forms so it could better assess the health needs of the whole family.
29. At the end of October 2024, the Council had completed some repairs to Ms X’s current property and installed the wet room flooring. At this time, the Council also received the medical forms from Ms X. The Council awarded Ms X urgent priority on the housing list. It did not make a medical award for the children.
30. In March 2025, the Council offered Ms X a three-bedroom house. Ms X asked the Council to review whether this was suitable for her. Ms X also complained to the Council that it should not have moved her to her current house because of the former tenant and should not have offered her the two-bedroom house. She also said that the Council had not responded to the complaint she had made the previous August.
31. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint:
• It acknowledged that when Ms X found out the former tenant had been convicted of the crime it had a significant and severe impact on her. It said it checks if a property is suitable in terms of its size and location, whether it meets any health needs and is affordable. The Council also may look for any reported antisocial behaviour. However, the case officer would not have known about that particular tenant and it would not form part of the checks. The Council said that as soon as it understood how it had impacted on Ms X, it accepted that it had a duty to help her find somewhere else.
• The Council acknowledged that its homelessness assessment in March had not been sufficiently thorough, particularly in relation to Ms X’s medical needs and how she accesses support. This meant that it had initially offered her an unsuitable house.
• It also accepted that it had not dealt with the complaint she had made in August 2024.
• The Council said it had resolved some staff capacity issues and there was ongoing training. It offered to pay Ms X £200 in respect of the impact of the insufficient homelessness assessment, and £150 in recognition of the time and trouble she was put to when the Council did not respond to her first complaint.
32. The Council completed the statutory review of its decision that the three-bedroom house it had offered was suitable. It decided that its decision would stand and Ms X could appeal to the court to challenge this further.
33. The Council notified Ms X that it had ended its prevention duty by making a suitable offer of housing. It removed Ms X’s homelessness priority from her housing register application. However, she still had an urgent need priority on medical grounds.
34. Ms X asked the Council to complete the full bathroom adaptation. She also asked it to consider her complaint at stage two of its process. The Council largely upheld its first response, but offered Ms X an additional £150 in recognition of the distress she had experienced.

Was there fault by the Council causing Ms X injustice?

Was the Council wrong to move her to her current property as this is unsuitable

35. I have investigated this because although Ms X had the right to challenge whether the property was suitable, she did not find out about the former tenant until her appeal right had lapsed.
36. Ms X was very distressed when she found out about the former tenant, due to her own history of trauma. Her distress was severe and long-lasting. Ms X says that the Council knew of her mental health and personal history, and its records would tell it of the former tenant’s criminal activity. However, the Council could not be expected to check the details of the former tenant, or know the impact this would have on Ms X when it originally offered her the property. There was no fault by the Council when it moved her to her current property.
37. A suitable property can become unsuitable for a variety of reasons. The Council assessed the suitability when Ms X made it aware of the impact on her.

Has the Council dealt with Ms X’s housing situation properly since it accepted that it was not reasonable for her to stay at the property?

38. There was fault by the Council. It has acknowledged that initially, it did not assess her needs properly and this meant that the first property it offered was not suitable. This caused Ms X distress and frustration. The Council offered Ms X a total of £400 in recognition of this.
39. I have identified further fault by the Council. It had reason to believe Ms X had priority need, was eligible for assistance and could not carry on living in her property. It failed to consider its duty to offer Ms X interim accommodation from March 2024. Its duty would end when it made the suitable offer of the three-bedroom house in March 2025.
40. It is not clear why the Council decided it owed Ms X the prevention duty and not the relief duty given that it could not change the facts that were making her homeless. Ms X had the right to ask the Council to review this decision. However, it is not reasonable for her to use this right, because It is likely that Ms X would not have known the difference between the prevention and relief duty. There is no note on the file as to why the Council considered it owed the prevention duty, rather than the relief duty and this is fault. In any event, the Council failed to consider whether it owed Ms X the relief duty and the main housing duty, when the prevention duty expired.
41. This may not have led to the Council offering Ms X a property that she found suitable. However, had the Council accepted a relief of main housing duty, Ms X would have had a higher priority on the housing register. The Council’s shortcomings meant that Ms X is uncertain that she might have been able to bid on a more suitable property with this increased priority.
42. I have not investigated whether the Council’s offer of the three-bedroom house was suitable as Ms X has the right to go to court to challenge this.
43. The Council assessed Ms X for the housing register priority. When it accepted the prevention duty, it awarded Ms X urgent priority. It assessed Ms X and her children for medical priority. It started this process in August 2024. Ms X submitted all the medical information at the end of October. The Council awarded urgent medical priority for Ms X at the end of November 2024. There was no undue delay from when the Council received the forms to when it awarded priority, and it did so in line with the criteria of its policy. However, the Council should have recognised that it needed a medical assessment when it considered Ms X’s homelessness in March 2024.
44. The award of urgent medical priority did not alter Ms X’s overall priority as she had urgent priority from the Council accepting a prevention duty. However, as the Council has ended its prevention duty, the medical award still gives Ms X an urgent priority. If the Council had started the medical assessment in March 2024, Ms X could have received priority sooner and so would have served more waiting time on the housing register. The waiting time is used to decide the successful applicant when two applicants with equal priority bid for the same property. The Council’s delay in awarding medical priority has disadvantaged Ms X because it means she has less waiting time with urgent medical priority attached to her application than she should have had.
45. 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.
46. I appreciate that Ms X has a number of housing needs for both her and her children. However, Ms X did not accept the offer of suitable accommodation in March 2025, and did not bid on any available properties throughout this time. The Council’s mishandling of some aspects of her housing situation, has caused Ms X uncertainty and distress, but on balance, it is unlikely that it means Ms X has missed out on moving to a property which she would accept.

Did the Council fail to handle adaptations to Ms X’s current house properly?

47. The Council approved the wet room at Ms X’s current house in 2023. In November, the OT asked the Council to bring the work forward because using the bath was causing water damage to the house. The Council agreed and ordered the installation to be done in April 2024.
48. The OT’s case notes show that when Ms X said she wanted to move, they advised Ms X that the adaptation would not go ahead. The OT told Ms X to take her time to think about this as moving could take some time. In July 2024, the Council agreed to put the wet room floor in while Ms X waited for a move. This had to be coordinated with repairs to the bathroom floor. I can see from the case notes that Ms X had to explain the repairs situation to the officers overseeing the adaptations. Ideally, she would not have had to do so. However, there was no undue delay in completing the wet room floor, and the Council properly explained to Ms X that the major work would be put on hold while she wanted to move. There was no fault by the Council in how it handled the adaptations.

Did the Council handle Ms X’s complaints to it properly?

49. The Council has acknowledged that it did not log Ms X’s complaint in August 2024. It formally responded to the complaint in April 2025. The Council has apologised to Ms X and offered to make a symbolic payment of £150 in recognition of the frustration this caused her. This is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Action

50. Within one month, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the additional fault I have found. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £800 (this includes the £350 already offered to Ms X). This is in recognition of the uncertainty and distress caused to her when the Council failed to consider interim accommodation, and failed to assess her medical needs soon enough.
• Backdate Ms X’s priority on the housing register of her urgent need to move, to the beginning of May 2024. This is to remedy the lost priority waiting time when the Council did not assess her medical needs soon enough. It should notify Ms X of the decision and her priority dates.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman