Summary: Ms D complains the Council placed her in unsuitable temporary accommodation. I have found the Council at fault; it failed to take full account of Ms D’s housing need and case history when it moved her to a studio flat. Ms D remained in unsuitable accommodation for nine months. The Council has agreed to pay Ms D redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council placed her, and her adult child, in unsuitable temporary accommodation in 2025. She also says the Council failed to assist with the move to the accommodation or help with storage of her possessions. Ms D says the accommodation impacted on her health conditions and caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered events from July 2025 (when Ms D was asked to move home) through to April 2026 when the statutory suitability review decision was issued by the Council. If Ms D is dissatisfied with other matters, she would need to pursue a formal complaint about them with the Council before bringing a new case to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

2024

7. In August 2024 the Council accepted a main homelessness duty towards Ms D and her adult child (Ms E). Ms D was living in a one bedroom temporary accommodation property with shared facilities. In August an Officer at the hospital providing treatment to Ms D wrote to the Council stating the accommodation was unsuitable for Ms D’s medical needs. On 18 September another Officer at the hospital wrote to the Council asking for a statutory suitability review. The temporary accommodation was exacerbating Ms D’s mental health conditions and had led to multiple attendances at A&E. On 20 September Ms D also sent the Council information in support of her request for a suitability review.
8. On 5 October Ms D complained to the Council that she was in unsuitable accommodation which was not meeting her assessed medical needs. Ms E, who was her carer, had to sleep on the floor of the property or sofa surf at other residences. She also said she had not received adequate assistance with her homelessness from the Council. She was depressed and felt secluded due to the Council’s actions. On 20 October the Council replied to the complaint. It said the Temporary Accommodation Team would take into account Ms D’s housing needs including the area Ms E worked, where Ms D attended hospital and that she could manage one flight of stairs.
9. On 21 October the Council moved the family to a two bedroom self-contained temporary accommodation property on the ground floor. The Council says the Review Team had concluded that Ms D’s former studio accommodation was unsuitable. On 22 October the Council closed the suitability review as ‘withdrawn’ because Ms D had been moved to alternative accommodation.

Events I have investigated

2025

10. On 17 July 2025 the Council emailed Ms D asking to review her temporary accommodation. This was part of a Council initiative to review the cost effectiveness of accommodation. On 18 July (Friday) Ms D met with a Council Officer who said the family had to move to alternative temporary accommodation (a one room property which the Council said would accommodate two single beds) and vacate their current home by 11am on 21 July (Monday). Ms D emailed the Council stating the new accommodation offer was unsuitable and she was seeking a suitability review. She detailed the property would not meet her medical needs and that she had previously supplied medical information to the Council in respect of her housing need. She had furniture that would have to be dismantled as it would not fit into a studio flat. She could not afford the costs for removals and storage of her possessions. She was confused why she was being moved back to the same type of accommodation which the Council had previously deemed unsuitable. She said the situation was “an absolute nightmare” and she was being moved to accommodation that would again trigger her medical conditions. The Council sent Ms D a review form to complete and return to progress a suitability review. Ms D also emailed another Council Officer that day stating she had no money for removals and storage and asked for assistance.
11. On 19 July Ms D emailed the Council for help with storage of her possessions. On 21 July a Business Support Officer emailed Ms D, he had forwarded her request for storage to the Garage Team who might be able to assist. Also on 21 July Ms D and Ms E moved to the new accommodation. Ms D submitted a formal complaint to the Council (I do not have the date it was sent). She had to move home at short notice. She had previously been in a studio flat and had been moved after she had questioned its suitability for her medical needs. Ms D said she could not share a bedroom with Ms E. She had told the Council she did not want to move back to a studio flat and could not afford the removal costs. She had needed help with the storage of her goods and had not received assistance. The Council had told her she must accept the alternative temporary accommodation or could be considered as intentionally homeless.
12. On 24 July Ms D, via her representative, asked the Council for a statutory suitability review of the studio accommodation. On 25 July a Business Support Officer emailed Ms D that Council garage spaces could be used for “storage solutions” and would cost up to £25 per week. On the same day he said he would forward Ms D’s contact to the Garage Manager. On 29 July Ms D asked the Business Support Officer for the Garage Manager’s contact details, her landlord was letting her leave her possessions at her former home for a few days. The Business Support Officer replied he would ask the Garage Team to contact her. On 30 July an Officer from Ms D’s hospital wrote to the Council asking for an urgent suitability review. They stated Ms D was at risk of experiencing a similar negative impact to her health as she had in 2024 when she was placed in a studio property.
13. On 14 August the Council responded to the complaint. It apologised for the delay responding. It said the Council was under pressure to reduce costs. Many homelessness clients were being moved from high cost temporary accommodation to more affordable properties. This was why Ms D had been moved to a studio flat. The Council said it had assessed whether the new accommodation was acceptable before offering it to Ms D, her records did not show she could not occupy a studio flat. The Council were in receipt of the suitability review request. In respect of removals and storage the Council said it was always possible that occupants in temporary accommodation would have to move with little notice and it had limited options regarding storage facilities.
14. On 5 August Ms D’s representative wrote to the Council with further representations for the suitability review. It said the studio flat could accommodate two single beds but was not suitable for Ms D who had a medical condition triggered by lack of space. When the Council had previously placed Ms D in a studio flat her health had been impacted adversely. The Council in 2024 had accepted she needed a two bedroom home, but Ms D was now back in the same type of accommodation the Council had previously said was not suitable. Ms D had provided medical evidence including a GP letter from July 2025 showing her condition was exacerbated by overcrowding and confined spaces. The Council had failed to take account of its previous decisions about Ms D’s housing need when moving her to the current studio flat.
15. On 15 August Ms D asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She did not believe her medical needs had been taken into account. She previously provided medical evidence in 2024 that she could not stay in a studio flat, and the Council should have been aware of that. Ms D said she was “worse off than what I was before” and the lack of privacy was affecting her wellbeing. She also reiterated she had been given no assistance with the short notice move. On 18 September an Officer completed a temporary accommodation suitability assessment form. They stated Ms D needed a two bedroom property on the ground floor or second floor with a lift.
16. On 7 October the Council’s Medical Advisor produced a report. They had considered information from Ms D, a previous Medical Advisor report from April 2024 and medical letters from July 2025. They said the studio flat had two bed spaces and was therefore suitable on medical grounds. An extra bedroom for a live-in carer was not medically essential. On 24 October the Council issued its final stage complaint response to Ms D. It apologised for the delay. It said the Council was currently reviewing the suitability of Ms D’s temporary accommodation. It said it had required Ms D to move out by 21 July and had provided “more than reasonable notice to vacate the accommodation”. The Council said it recognised Ms D had been through a stressful experience and offered her £100 for distress.

2026

17. In January 2026 Ms D emailed the Council asking for an update on the suitability review which was submitted in July 2025. I understand that month the Council reallocated the review case to a different Officer. The case was then referred to the Medical Advisor. On 5 February 2026 Ms D’s GP wrote to the Council. Ms D’s mental and physical health had deteriorated since she had been moved into the studio flat. Her disability required she sleep in her own bedroom rather than a shared bedspace. Ms D had started to self-harm and was getting additional mental health support.
18. On 23 February the Medical Advisor issued their report. They had considered declarations from Ms D and her Solicitors, historical documents, medical information received up to July 2025 (there was no reference to considering the February 2026 GP letter). The Medical Advisor said there was no new information to change their view, the accommodation remained suitable on medical grounds.
19. On 1 March Ms D’s representative wrote to the Council, they said there was no evidence for the Council to conclude a studio flat was suitable accommodation for Ms D. They also stated Ms D was struggling to afford the costs she was incurring because of the accommodation, the Council had told Ms D it would contact her about help with storage in July 2025 and the Garage Manager had never got in touch. Ms D was having to pay for a storage unit.
20. On 14 April the Council issued its suitability review decision. It said the property met space and room standards and was sufficiently large enough to accommodate two people. However “although the statutory space and room standards are satisfied on paper” the Review Officer was “satisfied that no authority acting reasonably would accommodate an adult mother and her adult daughter in a studio arrangement for such a sustained period”. They said, “the placement was always intended to be temporary” and referred to paragraph 17.7 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance (see below) stating this made it clear that “accommodation that is suitable for a short period may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period to discharge the main duty”. The Officer had considered the Medical Advisor report alongside Ms D’s “lived experience” of how her health was impacted. They had also considered other medical evidence including a letter from the GP. The Officer concluded the accommodation was not suitable for Ms D and Ms E’s sustained occupation. The Officer also said they had regard to a “documented two-bedroom need”, the impact on Ms D’s mental health and daily living needs. The Council should secure a suitable two bedroom self-contained property as soon as practicable.

Events after my investigation period

21. In May Ms D was moved to alternative temporary accommodation, a two bedroom ground floor flat.

What should have happened

The relief duty

22. 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 (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)

The main housing duty

23. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation (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)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

24. 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)
25. Paragraph 17.7 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance says: “accommodation that is suitable for a short period, for example accommodation used to discharge an interim duty pending inquiries under section 188, may not necessarily be suitable for a longer period, for example to discharge a duty under section 193(2)”.

Review rights

26. Homeless applicants may request a statutory suitability review within 21 days of accepting temporary accommodation. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. That timeframe can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.

Council processes

27. Where a homelessness applicant tells the Council they have medical needs impacting on what accommodation is suitable the Council should consider medical evidence provided by the applicant. The Council can ask a Medical Adviser to consider the information and make recommendations. An Officer will complete a suitability assessment form and that is sent to the Placements Team to take account of medical housing needs when offering accommodation.
28. The Council says that where it decides to move an applicant to alternative temporary accommodation it will usually give them two days to move.
29. The Council states there where an applicant requires a storage facility for their possessions it will advise them to find their own storage facility or apply to the Council to use one of its garages which are in limited supply. Where an applicant asks the Council for use of its garage storage spaces an Officer should submit a referral to the Garage Team. That Team will assess if there is a suitable garage space available to let and notify the applicant of its decision.

Was there fault by the Council

30. Ms D says the Council placed her in unsuitable accommodation in July 2025 and failed to take account of its previous 2024 decision regarding her medical housing need. I have considered the evidence and consider the Council is at fault. The Council told me it had assessed Ms D’s housing needs before offering the studio accommodation in July 2025. I have no evidence of an assessment, the document provided by the Council is dated 18 September 2025 and there is no evidence I have seen that shows an assessment of Ms D’s needs before she was placed at the studio property. Furthermore, the Council should have taken account of its previous actions in Ms D’s housing case and taken a holistic view. Given it had found a studio property was unsuitable for her in 2024 I have not seen any reasonable explanation as to why a studio flat with two single beds in an open room would then be considered as acceptable to meet Ms D’s medical needs just nine months later. The Council had not received any evidence from medical professionals working with Ms D during that period to show a significant change in Ms D’s circumstances. The Council’s failure to thoroughly assess Ms D’s housing need and take account of its previous findings on what type of property would be unsuitable for her meant she had to move, at very short notice, to an unsuitable property that impacted on her mental and physical health. She remained there for nine months. This failure also meant Ms D incurred avoidable costs having to move home and store her possessions which I set out below.
31. The Council significantly delayed responding to Ms D’s suitability review request. Ms D made the request in July 2024, she and her representative chased up the Council at regular intervals, but a decision was not issued until April 2026: that is a delay of around seven months. The Council says the delay was in part due to a large backlog of cases. That delay meant Ms D had to wait seven months longer than usual to receive a decision and then be offered a suitable two bedroom property.
32. Ms D told the Council in July 2025 that she needed assistance with storage of her possessions as she was having to downsize from a two bedroom home to one room. Ms D was put in touch with the Business Support Officer who said he had referred her request to rent a Council garage space to the relevant Team. The Council has confirmed to me that no such referral was made. There is fault by the Council: it failed to refer Ms D to the Garage Team or issue her with a decision.

Did the fault cause an injustice

33. Ms D had to move to an unsuitable studio flat in July 2025 and remained there for just over nine months. She has provided clear evidence, from medical professionals to the Council about the impact that accommodation had on her.
34. Due to the fault by the Council Ms D had to move home in July 2025 and she incurred costs for the removal of her possessions and the disassembly of large items of furniture (including a double wardrobe) that she could not accommodate in a studio flat. When she moved again in 2026 Ms D had to pay to have that furniture reassembled: that was not a task she was able to complete herself due to her health conditions. None of those costs would have happened but for the fault of the Council. I have seen evidence from Ms D of the costs she incurred.
35. The Council has confirmed to me that even if it had received a referral for the storage request in July no suitable garages were available to let at that time. This means that whilst there was fault by the Council Ms D did not lose an opportunity to rent a garage space. Instead the fault meant Ms D did not receive an assessment and a substantive response to her request for assistance.

Back to top

Action

36. The Council will:
• Pay Ms D £200 per month for the time spent in the unsuitable accommodation from July 2025 to May 2026, totalling £1,800.
• Pay Ms D £465 for the cost of a removal company in July 2025.
• Pay Ms D £350 for the disassembly and reassembly of furniture in 2025 and 2026.
• Pay Ms D a total of £4,560 for the rental of a storage unit from the start of August 2025 to May 2026. That sum covers the basic rent and VAT for the unit but does not include optional extras such as additional insurance.
• Send a letter of apology to Ms D.
37. The Council will also consider service improvements including what steps it will take to reduce delays in suitability review cases.
38. 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

39. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman