Summary: The Council was at fault for the delay in moving Mr X to suitable temporary accommodation. There were also faults in the Council’s communication and handling of his complaint. The Council issued its decision on Mr X’s medical priority without delay and was not at fault. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration and injustice caused by its faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide suitable accommodation for his family after it accepted that their current temporary accommodation was unsuitable. He also complained about the handling of his homeless application – he said the housing officers changed many times and requested the same documents repeatedly causing a delay.
2. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to complete the medical assessment on his housing register application in a timely manner. He said he has not received the Council’s decision on his housing register application despite chasing it many times.
3. Mr X said that remaining in an unsuitable accommodation was harmful and unsuitable for his and his family’s health needs and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

10. 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.
11. 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. 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 temporary accommodation should be suitable for the applicant and those who live with them. If an applicant considers the temporary accommodation is unsuitable, they can ask the council to carry out a statutory review of its suitability, following which they can appeal on a point of law to the county court.
13. 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)

The Council’s housing allocations policy

14. The Council uses a banding system to prioritise housing register applications:

• Band A: Emergency
• Band B: High priority to move
• Band C: Medium priority to move
• Band D: No priority to move

15. Medical assessments: Medical assessments are an assessment of the impact of the applicant’s current housing on their medical condition. Medical priority is awarded following an assessment and recommendation from the Council’s District Medical Officer (DMO).
16. Medical appeals will not be forwarded to the DMO if the information contained is a duplicate to the information previously supplied and has already been considered. The applicant will be informed of the decision made regarding their appeal in writing. There is no further right of appeal/review.

What happened

17. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
18. Mr X is disabled and lives with his partner and children.

Homelessness

19. Mr X applied for homelessness assistance in 2023 and in early January 2024 the Council accepted the main housing duty.
20. In late April 2024 the Council moved Mr X and his family to temporary accommodation (Flat A).
21. Mr X requested a suitability review of Flat A in late July 2024. He said Flat A was not suitable for his health needs and was too small.
22. In early October 2024 the Council found Flat A unsuitable for Mr X’s needs. It said that it would make an offer when suitable accommodation became available but due to current shortages of properties an immediate transfer may not be possible.
23. Mr X told the Council another flat (Flat B) had become vacant in the same building. He requested the Council move him to Flat B.
24. Mr X moved to Flat B a week later.
25. In December 2024 Mr X contacted the Council to say that Flat B was worsening his health and was unsuitable. The Council responded to Mr X and provided him with contact details to submit his suitability review request to.
26. In early March 2025 Mr X’s solicitor asked the Council to provide suitable accommodation as his current accommodation (Flat B) had worsened his health conditions.
27. In May 2025 the Council issued a decision letter that stated that Flat B was unsuitable to meet Mr X’s medical needs.
28. In late August 2025 the Council made Mr X a direct offer - Mr X viewed this property and accepted it. Mr X moved to this temporary accommodation in October 2025.
29. The Council case notes showed that there were multiple changes every few months to Mr X’s caseworkers from November 2024. It also showed that in 2025 Mr X made multiple unsuccessful attempts to contact his caseworkers asking for a call back in relation to his temporary accommodation and housing register application.
30. Records showed that an email from a new caseworker in early August 2025 asked Mr X to provide information about his family; the caseworker apologised if Mr X had submitted this previously. They said the requested information was not recorded in the Council’s system.

Medical priority on Housing register application

31. The Council awarded Mr X band C on his housing register application and no medical priority.
32. In early August 2025 Mr X submitted new medical evidence and asked the Council to reassess his medical priority.
33. The Council made a decision on Mr X’s request for medical priority in mid-August. A copy of this decision letter stated that the district medical officer (DMO) had considered Mr X’s recent medical evidence and did not recommend medical priority.
34. The Council case notes showed that Mr X called the Council to say he did not agree with its decision to refuse medical priority and he wished to appeal that decision. Records also showed that the Council recorded that it had contacted Mr X soon after to say that the medical document would be reassessed “in regard to the emergency accommodation.”
35. The Council case notes of late August 2025 recorded that the Council had provided equipment to make Mr X’s current accommodation suitable and “as such no medical priority” applied. There are no subsequent Council records/entries that showed the Council provided this update to Mr X.
36. The Council told us that it had drafted an email to Mr X in relation to issues with access to information and documents on his complaint but it was not sent to him. It said Mr X was “never given the opportunity to resend or provide access to the relevant documents”.

Analysis

Suitability of temporary accommodations

37. If a council agrees temporary accommodation is unsuitable, it owes an immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified duty to provide suitable accommodation.
38. The Council agreed that Flat A was unsuitable for Mr X in early October 2024 and it provided Flat B to Mr X and his family a week later. The Council acted promptly and was not at fault.
39. The Council decided that Flat B was unsuitable in May 2025. It had an immediate duty to provide suitable accommodation to Mr X. It provided another temporary accommodation in Oct 2025, five months later.
40. While it is acknowledged that the Council may have been delayed in moving Mr X and his family to 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.
41. The Council’s delay in moving Mr X from Flat B was fault. This meant that Mr X remained in an unsuitable accommodation for five months and that was a significant injustice.

The Council’s communication and its handling of Mr X’s homeless application and complaint

42. There was some fault in how the Council handled Mr X’s homelessness and complaint. The Council case notes showed that there were changes in Mr X’s housing officers and an instance of a housing officer requesting evidence that Mr X had already provided.
43. Records also showed that the Council did not respond to Mr X’s contact in a timely manner. The Council agreed to “reassess” Mr X’s medical priority in relation to his accommodation at that time when Mr X said he wanted to appeal its refusal, but there are no records to show it told Mr X that its decision remained unchanged after its reassessment. This was fault and not in line with its own published policy. The Council’s overall communication with Mr X was poor and inconsistent and it caused Mr X avoidable frustration.
44. The Council also did not investigate Mr X’s complaint - it said it accidentally failed to send Mr X the email it had drafted in relation to his complaint. The Council’s error meant it missed the opportunity to investigate and resolve Mr X’s complaint which was fault that added to Mr X’s frustration.

Medical priority

45. The Council assessed the new medical evidence Mr X provided and gave him a decision on his medical priority within two weeks of his request. The Council completed its assessment of Mr X’s medical priority without delay and was not at fault.

Service improvements

46. We recently recommended the Council make service improvements to ensure alternative accommodation is sought promptly when temporary accommodation is found unsuitable, on a separate complaint. Therefore, I have not considered it necessary to repeat these or recommend further service improvements on Mr X’s complaint. We will continue to monitor the Council’s performance through our case work.

Back to top

Agreed actions

47. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the distress and avoidable frustration caused by the Council’s delay in moving him from unsuitable accommodation and for its poor communication and complaint handling. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mr X £750 (£150 per month for five months) in recognition of the injustice caused by a delay of five months in moving Mr X from unsuitable temporary accommodation (Flat B).
3. Pay Mr £100 to acknowledge the frustration caused by its poor communication and complaint handling.
48. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman