Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness application and subsequent suitability review request.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council handled her homelessness situation and the adaptations she needed in her social housing. She said this caused her and her family the distress of not being suitably housed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 started my investigation in June 2024 as this was 12 months before Miss X brought her complaint to us. Matters that took place before this date are late as explained in paragraph 2. I have seen no good reason why Miss X did not bring her complaint to us sooner.
6. I have investigated the matters related Miss X’s homelessness application.
7. I cannot not investigate matters related to disrepair and adaptations of social housing. This is outside our jurisdiction and is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.
8. I have ended my investigation into how the Council handled Miss X’s homelessness application in March 2025. These issues ended when the Council discharged the main housing duty once Miss X moved into her current property.
9. The more recent issues relating to disrepair and adaptations of the new property are for 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 decisions. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

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.

The main housing duty

13. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)

Review rights

14. Within 21 days of the Council making the decision to end the main housing duty, homelessness applicants may request a review of:
• the suitability of accommodation offered to end the main housing duty (the applicant can accept the accommodation and still ask for a review).
15. Local authorities generally have 8 weeks to complete a statutory review for suitability of accommodation (Section 202, Housing Act 1996).

What happened

16. Miss X approached the Council as homeless. Miss X and her two dependent children have long-term mental health conditions and are neurodivergent.
17. In June 2024, the Council offered a property to Miss X which she accepted. The Council wrote to Miss X and confirmed that it had ended its homelessness duty.
18. In July, Miss X contacted the Council to raise concerns about the suitability of the property. She said that a clinical psychologist had recommended adaptations for the property to meet her disability needs. Miss X was aware that there was a time limit for her to request a suitability review and asked the Council about the timescale for an occupational therapist (OT) to assess the property. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s suitability request and said that it was organising an appropriate (specialised in autism rather than physical disabilities) OT assessment.
19. Miss X asked the Council to put the suitability review on a temporary hold. She said if the Council approved the adaptation requests in principle and agreed a timescale, she would not need the review. 
20. The Council said it agreed to Miss X’s request as a reasonable and proportionate step aimed at achieving the best possible outcome for the household.
21. Miss X contacted the Council to express her annoyance and frustration with the Council’s poor communication and delay in considering the adaptations.
22. The Council explained the delay was due to difficulties sourcing a suitably trained OT within the Council to assess the adaptation recommendations from her clinical psychologist. It went on to say that prior to completion of the recommended adaptations, the Council required a Council-appointed OT assessor to recommend and specify adaptations to meet Miss X’s needs.
23. The OT assessment was carried out in September and Miss X sent additional evidence for the Council to consider. The OT submitted the report to the Council in October 2024.
24. The Council recommenced the suitability review in November. The deadline for this was the end of December.
25. In December, the Council visited the property and issued a decision letter. The Council decided the property was not suitable and the Council would reinstate the main housing duty. This also meant the status of the property reverted to temporary accommodation and the Council was no longer required to complete the agreed adaptations.
26. In January 2025, the Council discussed alternative accommodation with Miss X. The Council said that any alternative accommodation was likely to be a flat. Miss X said that would be more unsuitable than the property she was currently living in. Therefore, it was agreed that Miss X would be better waiting for a direct offer of accommodation rather than moving again in the interim.
27. In March, Miss X confirmed that she had been offered and had accepted an alternative property. The Council wrote to Miss X and confirmed it had discharged the main housing duty.
28. My investigation ends here.

My findings

29. Miss X accepted an offer of a property in June 2024, and the Council ended the main housing duty. This decision was in accordance with Section 193 of the Housing Act, and I have found no fault.
30. Miss X requested a suitability review of the property which the Council agreed to do. The Council then agreed to pause this while an OT assessed Miss X’s housing needs. I have not found the Council at fault for the delay in completing the process as it had been paused at Miss X’s request.
31. The OT assessment was delayed because the Council struggled to source an OT suitably trained in non-visible disabilities. It took between July and October 2024 to complete the OT assessment. Given that there is no statutory timescale to complete an OT assessment, I have found no fault here. However, the Council has agreed to train relevant staff in all aspects of disability; visible and non-visible to prevent future delays.
32. When the Council’s suitability review concluded that the property was unsuitable for Miss X in December 2024, it should have offered Miss X alternative accommodation. However, I note that following a discussion between Miss X and the Council, it was agreed that it would be preferable for Miss X to stay in her existing unsuitable accommodation rather than move to alternative unsuitable accommodation. The Council made a direct offer of suitable accommodation within 3 months of its finding of unsuitability. I have found no fault with the Council here.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman