Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to ensure the interim accommodation offered met Mr X’s wife, Mrs X’s medical needs. It also failed to complete a suitability review within 56 days which delayed securing suitable temporary accommodation. It also delayed its stage two complaint response to Mr X. These failings caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and prolonged unsuitable living conditions. The Council was not at fault for refusing to review the suitability of the accommodation. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment, and implement service improvements to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council placed him and his family in temporary accommodation that did not meet his wife’s, Mrs X’s medical needs. He said the Council refused to review the suitability of the accommodation and did not properly consider the medical evidence he submitted.
2. As a result, he stated the family experienced avoidable distress and hardship, because Mrs X could not use the medical equipment she required. They are seeking suitable accommodation that properly supports Mrs X’s medical requirements.

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. 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.
5. 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

6. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint on behalf of Mrs X between August 2024 and September 2025.
7. 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)
8. I have not investigated events prior to August 2024 as in line with paragraph seven above as these matters are late and there is no good reason to consider them now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

The main housing duty

11. 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)
12. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to 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)
13. 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.

Interim accommodation and temporary accommodation

14. There are two types of accommodation councils provide to certain homeless applicants: interim accommodation and temporary accommodation.
15. 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)
16. If a council ends its interim accommodation duty, but then goes on to accept the main housing duty, it still has a duty to provide temporary accommodation.
17. 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.

Review rights, timescale and right of appeal

18. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant 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.
19. Councils must complete reviews of the suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request. This period can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
20. The council must advise applicants of their right to appeal to the county court on a point of law, and of the period in which to appeal. Applicants can also appeal if the council takes more than the prescribed time to complete the review. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202, 203 and 204)

What happened

Background

21. In 2023 Mr X contacted the Council to make a homelessness application as their landlord of their private rented accommodation informed him they no longer wished to renew their tenancy. The Council accepted it owed Mr X the prevention duty. Despite the landlord serving Mr X two eviction notices, they took no further action and Mr X remained at the property.

Matters subject to investigation

22. In August 2024 the Council ended its prevention duty as it decided Mr X was not homeless or threatened to become homeless.
23. In October 2024 Mr X sent the Council a copy of the possession order his landlord had served him. The Council responded to Mr X advising him that he should start looking for alternative accommodation directly as the Council would not provide him with temporary accommodation as it no longer owed him a duty.
24. In December 2024 the Court informed Mr X the bailiffs would come in January 2025 to evict him. As a result, the Council accepted the prevention duty.
25. In January 2025 the Council offered the family interim temporary accommodation (property A). Property A was a three-bedroom, third floor property accessed by a lift. The same day the Council placed Mr X on the housing register eligible for a four-bedroom property.
26. A few days later the Council accepted it owed Mr X the relief duty.
27. Shortly afterwards Mr X contacted the Council stating property A was unsuitable. He said the bathroom was too small to accommodate Mrs X’s medical equipment she required due to her medical needs. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s message but informed him that no alternative accommodation was available at the time.
28. In March 2025 Mr X complained to the Council the temporary accommodation did not meet Mrs X’s medical needs and he further reported some disrepair in the property.
29. A few days later the Council informed Mr X it had accepted it owed the family the main housing duty.
30. The same month the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and told him it would arrange an inspection at the property to consider the disrepair. It forwarded his complaint to its medical assessment team to assess the property as he had mentioned the property was not suitable for Mrs X’s medical needs. The Council ensured Mr X it would get back in touch with him once it had reviewed the report from its medical assessment team.
31. The Council received the report from its medical assessment team in early April. The report concluded property A was unsuitable due to its insufficient bathroom size and distance to parking. The report further stated the family’s next temporary accommodation should have the following features:
• wheelchair accessible;
• bathroom sufficiently large to allow two adults as support required;
• low level shower with room for shower seat / wet room; and
• commutable to support network.
32. In late April, Mr X contacted the Council to request an update as he had submitted Mrs X’s medical evidence as requested by the Council but had not received any further information or response.
33. In June 2025, Mr X contacted the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process, as he had not received any update following the Council’s communication in March 2025.
34. In June 2025, the Council contacted Mr X and confirmed it had carried out a temporary accommodation assessment with him by telephone earlier that day. It told Mr X that it had updated the family's housing needs to reflect the recommendations in the medical assessment report. The Council also confirmed that it had placed the family on its waiting list for households needing to move from unsuitable accommodation. It explained that a weekly panel considered cases and decided which households would be offered alternative accommodation each week.
35. In late August the Council carried out a home visit of property A and concluded property A no longer met Mrs X’s medical needs.
36. The same day the Council offered Mr X alternative temporary accommodation, (property B).
37. In September 2025, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at its stage two. It said it had determined during a home visit and as part of a re-assessment that property A no longer met Mrs X’s medical needs and that its team will prioritise a move to an alternative suitable property. It apologised and offered a payment for:
• delays in both carrying out an inspection following Mr X’s report of disrepair and to review the suitability of the property; £100
• delay in complaint handling; £50
• accommodating the family in unsuitable temporary accommodation; £300 and
• the avoidable distress caused. £100
38. The Council offered Mr X a payment of £550 to remedy the injustice it caused. We do not know if the family accepted the remedy the Council offered.

My findings

Refusal to carry out suitability review

39. The Council offered Mrs X interim accommodation in January 2025 after accepting the prevention duty and shortly afterwards relief duty. The statutory right to request a suitability review did not arise until the Council accepted the main housing duty in March 2025 after the property became the family’s temporary accommodation. There is no evidence the Council refused to carry out a suitability review. Not carrying out a suitability review when Mr X first raised concerns about property A was not fault as he was not entitled to statutory review rights at that time.

Unsuitable temporary accommodation

40. The Council accepted the main housing duty on 17 March 2025 which gave Mr X the right to request a suitability review. In early April 2025, the Council’s medical assessment team found property A was unsuitable due to the insufficient bathroom size and distance to parking. The Council should have responded to Mr X’s suitability review request within eight weeks, by end of May it did not do so until the end of June 2025 – four weeks late. This was fault and caused the family uncertainty.
41. Despite knowing from April 2025 that the property was unsuitable, the Council did not move the family until the end of August 2025, following a reassessment of the suitability during a home visit. This meant the family remained in accommodation that did not meet Mrs X's medical needs for a further five months between April and August 2025. This delay was fault and caused the family avoidable distress and continued unsuitable living conditions. The Council offered the family £300 to remedy the injustice caused by it offering unsuitable accommodation. This remedy is not suitable or in line with our guidance to remedy the injustice caused.
42. There is further no evidence the Council issued a formal decision letter to Mr X informing him of the outcome of the suitability review and advising him of his right to appeal to the county court if he disagreed with its decision. In line with paragraph 20 not advising Mr X of his review rights was fault however it would not have caused Mr X an injustice as he agreed with the Council’s decision that property A was unsuitable.

Failure to consider medical evidence in offering suitable interim accommodation

43. In line with paragraph 12 we expect councils to 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 temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty.
44. There is no evidence the Council considered Mrs X’s medical needs when it decided property A was suitable at the point it offered the property as interim accommodation in mid-January 2025.
45. Not ensuring the suitability of property A when the Council offered it as interim accommodation was fault and caused Mrs X’s avoidable distress.

Complaint handling

46. The Council accepted that it failed to respond to Mr X’s complaint at its stage two within its published timescales. Following Mr X’s escalation in June 2025, the Council took over three months to provide a response, causing frustration and uncertainty for the family. Although the Council apologised and offered £50 in recognition of the delay, this did not suitably remedy the injustice caused and was not in line with our guidance.

Back to top

Actions

47. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following actions:
1. Apologise and make a payment of £1,700 to Mr and Mrs X in recognition of the frustration, uncertainty and avoidable distress caused by the Council for:
1. failing to ensure it offered suitable interim accommodation meeting the family’s medical needs;
2. failing to carry out the suitability review within 56 days;
3. the delay in offering Mrs X suitable temporary accommodation; and
4. delaying its stage two response to Mr X’s complaint.

This payment includes the £550 previously offered by the Council. If this payment has already been made to Mr and Mrs X, it should be deducted from the £1,700 remedy.

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.

2. Through training, the Council will remind officers of their responsibilities to complete suitability assessments before offering interim or temporary accommodation, monitor and comply with statutory deadlines of completing suitability reviews, issue suitability review decisions advising applicants of their review rights, and adhere to its published complaint handling timescales.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I have found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman