Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her with suitable housing and its mismanagement of the financial support for her housing. She also said the Council’s communication with her was unsatisfactory and the Council failed to apply reasonable adjustments when communicating with her. We found fault with the Council’s failure to find suitable accommodation for Ms X for many months. This fault caused her injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s:
• failure to provide her with suitable housing;
• mismanagement of her Housing Benefit claim and housing support fund;
• failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty;
• failure to communicate effectively;
• failure to complete actions agreed in the Council’s complaint response.
2. Ms X says the Council’s failings caused worsening of her physical and mental health. They also meant she missed a property offer and caused her financial hardship.

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. 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.
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 investigated events relevant to Ms X’s three complaints: from May 2025, June 2025 and November 2025. Although some of the events happened after Ms X brought her complaint to us, the Council had already had an opportunity to review all these complaints and to respond to them.
10. I have not investigated any events before April 2025, when the Council accepted unsuitability of Ms X’s accommodation. In her complaint to the Council from May 2025 Ms X raised the Council’s failure to take proper action in response to her worsening medical needs and to offer her suitable property through a direct offer. Ms X referred to the Council’s decision on the unsuitability of her temporary accommodation. She did not raise any issues with the Council’s suitability assessment, which resulted in the decision taken at the end of April 2025. As pointed out in paragraph six we normally look only at the matters that have already been raised with the Council.
11. I have not investigated anything that happened after Ms X accepted an introductory tenancy of a new property in January 2026. This is because, as indicated in paragraph six, any new issues would need to be raised with the Council first.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms X and the organisation 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

Legal and administrative framework

Homelessness

14. 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)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of the suitability of accommodation offered to them after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
18. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. The reviewing officer needs to consider any information relevant to the period before the decision was made (even if only obtained afterwards) as well as any new relevant information the council has obtained since the decision. (The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018, Homelessness Code of Guidance Chapter 19)

Housing allocation

19. 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))
20. The Ombudsman recognises that the demand for social housing far outstrips the supply of properties in many areas. The Ombudsman may not find fault with a council for failing to re-house someone, if it has prioritised applicants and allocated properties according to its published lettings scheme policy.

Equality Act 2010

21. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body 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.
22. 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.
23. 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

Homelessness

24. In March 2024 Ms X moved into temporary accommodation offered by the Council (Property 1).
25. At the end of April 2025 the Council accepted Property 1 was not suitable for Ms X because of her medical needs.
26. Ms X complained at the end of May 2025. She said the Council had failed to take appropriate action in response to her worsening medical needs and had refused to make her a direct housing offer.
27. At the beginning of June 2025 the Council offered Ms X alternative temporary accommodation (Property 2).
28. The next day Ms X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two, as the Council failed to respond within ten working days. Ms X said:
• the Council had offered her Property 2 as temporary accommodation under licence while she wanted secure tenancy;
• she could not afford rent for Property 2;
• the Council’s failure to offer secure tenancy breached her human rights and her rights stemming from the Equality Act 2010.
29. Ms X asked the Council to review suitability of Property 2. The Council confirmed it would carry out a review within 56 days.
30. In mid-June 2025 the Council told Ms X Property 2 was the final temporary accommodation offer. If not accepted the Council might discharge its homelessness duty.
31. Responding to Ms X’s complaint the Council said:
• after establishing Property 1 was not medically suitable for Ms X the Council placed Ms X on the list for move;
• by offering Property 2 the Council was discharging its duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation to her;
• Ms X did not query medical suitability of Property 2, only a type of tenancy offered; and
• Ms X was not eligible for a direct offer.
32. At the end of July 2025 the Council’s legal team sent a letter to Ms X. The medical “fit note”, it said, did not prove she could not attend housing appointments. Ms X’s correspondence from mid-July showed she was engaged with the housing process. The Council had already given Ms X extra time to accept Property 2 and could not agree further 14 days to view Property 2 or respond as it would not be reasonable. Ms X had until the end of the next day to accept the offer. The Council suggested Ms X should seek legal advice.
33. Ms X sent some medical evidence to the Council. She said she had accepted Property 2 under pressure to avoid negative consequences.
34. At the beginning of August a review and appeals officer considered Property 2 was not suitable for Ms X.
35. Ms X brought her complaint to us.

Housing allocation

36. In July 2025 Ms X bid for a property for applicants with medical needs (Property 3). The housing case notes show that Ms X could not be shortlisted for Property 3 due to her outstanding rent balance. A housing officer tried to contact Ms X by phone but could not get through. Other applicants with earlier effective band dates also placed their bids for this property. One of them was successful and accepted Property 3.
37. The Council confirmed Ms X was not shortlisted or nominated for Property 3.
38. In mid-January 2026 the Council offered Ms X an introductory tenancy of a property (Property 4), which she accepted.

Rent increase and Housing benefit

39. At the end of February 2025 the Council sent a letter to Ms X telling her of the increase in her accommodation and service charges to £331 per week. It said the change meant she could qualify for Housing benefit. The Council advised help was available for people struggling with the rising cost of living. It also provided Ms X’s account balance which was over £1,300 in debit. Ms X told us she did not get this letter.
40. At the end of March 2025 Ms X applied for Housing benefit after her partner had moved in with her at the beginning of the year.
41. From 7 April 2025 the Council increased Ms X’s accommodation and service charges.
42. At the end of the first week of April 2025 the Council started paying Housing benefit to Ms X.
43. Ms X complained at the end of May 2025. She said her rent was £256 per week and increased nearly 29% without any written communication or breakdown. This increase exceeded 2.7% published by the Council for 2025. Ms X claimed the Council had failed to give her four weeks’ notice.
44. In mid-June 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It said:
• 2.7% rent increase applied to the Council’s tenants in permanent accommodation and not to licences in temporary accommodation;
• at the end of March 2025 the Temporary Accommodation team issued letters to all temporary accommodation residents giving them details of the rent increase from 7 April 2025, reasons for the increase and reminding them to check Housing benefit award letters;
• Ms X qualified for Housing benefit only from the date when her rent increased in April 2025;
• Ms X was eligible for extra financial support to help her manage the increased charges. Financial support would not cover the increased amount she would have to pay due to an overpayment which happened as a result of Ms X’s increased household income since her partner moved in.
• Ms X should continue making regular payments for her temporary accommodation charges until the Council issued its decision on the level of support for her within the next three weeks. The Council would backdate the assistance to 7 April 2025.
45. On the same day Ms X told the Council she could not contribute to her accommodation charges more than £1,100 a month.
46. Ms X complained again about her rent increase and the housing support fund at the end of August.
47. At the beginning of September the Council paid £500 and £965 to Ms X’s rent account. In mid-September the Council credited Ms X’s rent account with an extra Housing benefit payment of £99 as the remaining balance from the Housing benefit reassessment in July 2025.
48. In mid-September the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint from the end of August. It said the housing support fund payment of £965 was paid into Ms X’s rent account. Ms X’s Housing benefit entitlement was for just over £1 and she had outstanding arrears of £980.
49. In mid-November Ms X complained about missing £1,256 of housing support payment.
50. The Council responded a few days later. It explained the housing support fund would not cover the full amount of the rent increase but only the amount by which Ms X would be disadvantaged by the increase after awarding Housing benefit. The Council:
• explained how it calculated weekly housing support payments:
1. from 4 April to 1 June - £0 (Housing benefit received £82.68, which exceeded the increase of £75.39)
2. from 2 June to 6 July - £74.48 (Housing benefit received £1.11)
3. from 7 July to 3 August - £7.33 (Housing benefit received £68.06)
4. from 4 August onwards - £74.28 (Housing benefit received £1.11)
• explained it had already paid £1,069.24 to Ms X’s account and would pay the remaining £371.40.
51. At the end of November 2025 Ms X told the Council its recent correspondence showed the Council had changed its support policy for people in temporary accommodation affected by the rent increase without prior notice or consultation. In its stage one response and letter of mid-September the Council said it would pay weekly £75 to Ms X until she moved. Ms X calculated between 7 April and 30 November she should have received £2,325 of housing support. The Council had already made payments totalling £1,440.64. Ms X considered the Council owed her £884.36.
52. The Council provided its final response to Ms X’s complaint in mid-January 2026. The Council reiterated findings and conclusions from its stage one complaint response.
53. Ms X told us that the Council had resolved housing support issues.

Reasonable adjustments

54. An Occupational Therapy report issued in June 2024 explains Ms X has dyslexia and dyspraxia. Ms X uses supportive software to help her with writing and she needs extra time to process written information. Ms X benefits from verbal as well as written instructions. It is helpful to provide information and feedback by summarising information given and providing key points.
55. At the beginning of August 2025 Ms X contacted the Council and referring to her learning disability and communication barriers asked for a full breakdown of her rental account and to be considered for a Discretionary Housing Payment to cover historic arrears caused by benefit miscalculation. Ms X also asked the Council to send her any future housing decisions and offers by email.
56. In response to my enquiries the Council said Ms X did not ask for reasonable adjustments before sending her complaint. The complaint officer offered her a telephone call which she failed to respond to.

Analysis

Homelessness

57. If a council agrees temporary accommodation is unsuitable, it owes an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation.
58. The Council agreed that Property 1 was unsuitable for Ms X at the end of April 2025. It offered Property 2 to Ms X a few weeks later, so without significant delay.
59. After offering Property 2 to Ms X the Council told her she could ask for a suitability review and said that if she refused Property 2 the Council might discharge its main housing duty for her. This is in line with the law quoted in paragraphs 14 and 17 of this decision. The Council carried out suitability review within the statutory timescales. I found no fault with this part of the process.
60. The suitability review officer decided Property 2 was not suitable for Ms X. She was offered Property 4 and accepted it in mid-January 2026.
61. The Council’s delay in moving Ms X from Property 1 was fault. This meant that Ms X remained in the unsuitable accommodation for eight and a half months and caused her significant injustice. Ms X’s mobility issues were increased by steps in Property 1. Ms X could not access bathroom facilities in Property 1 which meant she had difficulties to wash. The unsuitability of Property 1 meant Ms X’s independence was affected, which caused worsening of her mental health.
62. While it is acknowledged that the Council may have delayed moving Ms X to the suitable temporary accommodation due to factors outside its control, such as a shortage of suitable accommodations, we can still find it at fault for failing to provide a service that was needed to fulfil its legal duty.

Housing allocation

63. Ms X said she was shortlisted and/or nominated for another property in July 2025 but the Council did not contact her about it because of her rent arrears caused by the rent increase and benefits miscalculation. She found this out from the documents received through her Subject Access Request.
64. The Council stated Ms X was not shortlisted or nominated for the alternative property in July 2025 and explained what happened after she had bid for Property 3. I did not find fault. As stated in paragraph 39 Ms X had an outstanding rent balance even before the Council increased rent in April 2025, so not shortlisting her for Property 3 would not have been connected to the rent increase and the Housing benefit calculations.

Rent increase and Housing benefit

65. Before increasing rent and service charges in April 2025 the Council sent letters to the people affected. The letter included information on help available for those who could not afford increased payments.
66. Ms X said she never received a notification of the rent increase. This is regrettable however the Council cannot be held responsible for any postal issues.
67. In its letter from the end of February 2025 the Council explained why it was setting up and how it would apply housing support fund. During the exchange of correspondence with Ms X the Council explained that housing support fund was meant to minimise the impact of the rent increase on residents. Therefore the Council’s calculation of the support fund to cover the difference between rent increase and Housing benefit was correct.
68. Rent increase coincided with the change to Ms X’s household which complicated calculations of Ms X’s Housing benefit and housing support fund. I did not find fault in the way the Council calculated housing payments and communicated with Ms X.

Reasonable adjustments

69. In the correspondence from the beginning of August 2025 Ms X mentioned learning disabilities and communication barriers when asking for a full breakdown of her rental account and to be granted a Discretionary Housing payment. She also asked the Council to send her any housing decisions or offers by email. She did not suggest she needed specific communication adjustments because of her disabilities or needs.
70. Without a specific request from Ms X and in view of her engagement with various housing teams the Council did not have any reasons to assume she might have specific communication needs. The Council was justified to treat Ms X’s request to send her its decisions and offers by email as her communication preference rather than a specific communication adjustment.

Back to top

Action

71. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council within four weeks of the final decision pay Ms X £2,550 to recognise injustice caused to her by living in the unsuitable accommodation for eight and a half months. The Council should provide us with evidence of making this payment.

Back to top

Decision

72. 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