Summary: Mr D complains the Council failed to review the suitability of his temporary accommodation and reassess his housing banding. I have found fault by the Council; it delayed reassessing the banding and failed to show it considered the suitability matter. Mr D was caused avoidable delay and a lost opportunity to have the suitability of the accommodation reviewed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr D and pay him redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council failed to review the suitability of his temporary accommodation. Mr D refers to his Case Officer failing to reply to his requests for assistance and the Council did not assist with finding accommodation in his preferred areas outside of the borough. Mr D also questions whether his housing band was correct.

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. 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)
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 future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. My investigation has considered what happened in the 12 month period preceding Mr D’s formal complaint to the Council in August 2025. That means my investigation covers August 2024 through to 13 October 2025 when the Council issued its final stage complaint response. I am looking at the key points covered by the complaints process in 2025.
7. I have not looked at events earlier than August 2024 because we expect a complaint to be made to us within 12 months of a problem arising. If Mr D is dissatisfied with the actions of the Council after October 2025, for example about whether he was asked to vacate his temporary accommodation, his request for a different Case Officer in November 2025, reports about a rat infestation at his home and backdating his housing band award, he would need to complete the Council’s complaints process and can then bring a new complaint to the Ombudsman. Also if Mr D is dissatisfied with the outcome of recent housing reviews, he can submit a new complaint about those issues to the Ombudsman because events after October 2025 are not covered by this investigation.
8. As a publicly funded body we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer every single question a complainant may have about what the organisation did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

Background

11. In 2023 Mr D approached the Council for homelessness assistance. In January 2024 Mr D told the Council he would like to move to Oxfordshire or Reading. The Council said it did not have emergency accommodation in those areas. In February 2024 the Council accepted a main housing duty towards Mr D.
12. In March Mr D told the Council he wanted to move from his temporary accommodation because it was impacting on his mental health. On 19 March the Council moved Mr D to alternative temporary accommodation (a self-contained first floor studio flat). At the end of March a Medical Adviser considered a GP letter provided by Mr D. They found no medical evidence to support a need for self-contained accommodation. On 1 May Mr D was awarded band C for the housing register. Also in May the Council contacted Oxford Council explaining Mr D had been accepted as homeless and wanted to be transferred to Oxford.

Events I have investigated

13. On 28 March 2025 Mr D contacted the Council about his housing band, he felt it should be higher to reflect his medical need. He also wanted alternative temporary accommodation because his current home was unsuitable for his medical needs. He wanted to move to a quieter rural location and ideally a ground floor home. The Council asked an Officer to “do a suitability check”. A Homelessness Resettlement Officer replied to a colleague the same day that Mr D was in a self-contained flat which was suitable and he had no mobility issues. On 2 April Mr D asked the Council to move him from the temporary accommodation due to his medical condition. The Council requested Mr D supply medical evidence.
14. In April the Council offered Mr D alternative temporary accommodation. On 29 April the Council emailed Mr D, it was withdrawing an offer of a temporary accommodation property because he had stated he could not live on the first floor due to suicidal thoughts. They said they would ask for “the team to investigate and possibly only offer you ground floor properties in the future. Until we have medical [advice], we will not offer you properties in higher floor levels”. On 20 May the Council offered Mr D a viewing of a bungalow. Mr D said the area was unsuitable for him. On 27 May Mr D sent the Council a letter dated 12 May from a Consultant stating Mr D felt extremely anxious in his current accommodation. They also stated Mr D’s housing was an important factor to maintain his medical conditions.
15. In June the Council offered Mr D a private sector rental property which he said was not suitable. On 27 August the Council says an Officer spoke to Mr D and filled out a ‘post acceptance suitability assessment’ form. The form stated Mr D “cannot be placed above the ground floor” and that Mr D wanted “his medical needs [taken] into consideration”. I have no evidence of what further action was taken after this form was completed.
16. On 27 August and 9 September Mr D complained to the Council about the handling of his case. On 12 September the Council replied to the complaint. It said that it was aware in March 2024 that Mr D had wanted to move out of the borough. It said it had emailed his preferred Council (Oxford) at the time but had no reply. The Council accepted it should have followed up with Oxford Council. The Council also noted it had received medical evidence from Mr D in May which had not been assessed at the time. It would now carry out an assessment and review his banding. It also said it could help Mr D look for accommodation outside the borough and gave him details of an Officer to contact. On the same day Mr D emailed the Council, he did not accept the complaint response and asked the Council to escalate his case. He said he should be prioritised for a ground floor flat because of medical need. He also said he should be able to bid for social housing in areas outside London using the Council’s bidding system and the Council should enable this. Also on 12 September the Medical Adviser gave their recommendations to the Council. Mr D required self-contained accommodation because of his mental health, he could live on any level property and Band A priority applied.
17. On 10 October Mr D contacted the Council to discuss a possible relocation to Oxford. On 13 October the Council contacted a facility treating Mr D to establish whether he could receive treatment and support if he moved outside the borough. Also on 13 October the Council issued its final stage complaint response. It said Mr D’s temporary accommodation had been assessed as suitable when it was allocated to him. He was in the correct housing band (band C because he was homeless). He had not been assessed as needing ground floor accommodation for his housing register account. It said it had noted his preference to move to Oxford Council, and this would be ‘taken into consideration’.

Events outside my investigation period

18. On 14 October Mr D submitted a change of circumstances form setting out medical reasons to be moved. He provided medical evidence from professionals that month which stated that living in close proximity with people in shared accommodation would cause a deterioration in his mental health.
19. In November the Council moved Mr D to alternative temporary accommodation (a one bedroom ground floor flat). Also in November the Council requested medical evidence from Mr D’s GP to assist in considering a move to Oxford Council, this was to obtain supporting evidence that could be shared with that Authority in support of a transfer request. The Council was unable to obtain authorisation to share information.
20. On 6 December the Council considered medical evidence from Mr D including part of a diagnostic report from November and a Care Plan review from late October. That month the Council awarded Mr D band A housing priority, it says this was due to the new medical evidence it had received.

What should have happened

Homelessness

21. 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)
22. 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. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)
23. Before the Council offers an applicant temporary accommodation it should assess if the property is suitable for the applicant’s housing needs. An Officer will take account of the applicant’s circumstances including medical conditions (that have been evidenced by supporting information from medical professionals), welfare and support needs. The Officer will check the accommodation identified is suitable in size, meets the assessed medical housing needs of the applicant and is appropriate for their identified vulnerabilities.
24. Where an applicant is in temporary accommodation and tells the Council the accommodation is unsuitable, within 21 days of accepting the property, the Council should register a statutory suitability review. An applicant can make a request in writing, email or by telephone. It does not have to be in a particular format. Where an applicant submits medical evidence, the Council can ask its Medical Adviser to assess the information and give recommendations on whether the accommodation is medically suitable. A Council Officer should then assess the medical recommendations to reach a decision and notify the applicant.
25. The Council says a post acceptance suitability form is normally completed annually to ensure the temporary accommodation remains suitable. Where the Council is aware of a material change of circumstances it may decide to complete the form. The Council has failed to explain what actions should happen after the form is completed. The Ombudsman would expect, as good practice, for the Council to keep suitability of temporary accommodation under review and to fully consider whether accommodation is suitable if the issue is raised by an applicant. We would also expect the Council to document that assessment and notify the applicant of the decision.

Housing bands

26. A person can apply to join the Council’s housing register. The Council will assess the applicant’s housing need and place them into a housing band to reflect their priority to be housed. Band A+ is the highest and Band C- is the lowest. Band A is awarded to applicants with an ‘urgent and high priority’ including applicants assessed as having a severe medical need to move. The Council looks at the suitability of the applicant’s current housing circumstances rather than the clinical severity of their medical condition.
27. Band C is awarded to applicants with a ‘non-urgent priority’. Band C– includes homeless people where the Council has accepted a main duty and provided self-contained temporary accommodation. A person on the housing register can bid for advertised social housing. The Council is part of the West London Locata system which means it advertises properties available in its own borough and some additional boroughs in the west of London.
28. An applicant in the borough does not have full access to see and bid for advertised social housing for councils outside the borough that are not part of the West London Locata system. An applicant in the borough, for example, does not have full access to Oxford Council’s Locata system. To do so they would need to be accepted by Oxford Council as a housing register applicant under its own allocations policy (see below).

Medical

29. Where a housing register applicant says they have a medical housing need they must supply supporting evidence from professionals. The Council usually requires a consultant’s report. Its allocation policy sets out that a letter from a GP on its own which only states the applicant’s medical condition and their wish to move will not constitute proof of a medical need to move. The Council can ask its Medical Adviser to consider the medical evidence and recommend whether this changes the applicant’s banding. A Council Officer will then assess the evidence and recommendations to reach a decision. That decision should be shared with the applicant.

Housing outside of a London borough

30. Where a homelessness applicant identifies a private sector rental property outside of the borough, for example in Oxford or Reading, the Council will assess if the accommodation is suitable including its affordability. If it finds the accommodation is suitable the Council can assist with a rent deposit. If the Council considers the accommodation is not suitable it has no requirement to provide financial assistance.
31. The Council’s allocations policy sets out actions the Council can take to assist applicants accepted onto the housing register to move to another area. The Council has a partnership with other Authorities (including Brent and Ealing) to allow applicants to move to those areas. The Council does not have any similar provision with Oxford or Reading and is not required to do so.
32. If a housing register applicant wants to move to Oxford or Reading, they would need to meet the criteria of that Authority (the Receiving Authority) which will often include a requirement for a local connection to the area. If they meet the Receiving Authority’s criteria, they will complete an application form, and the Council should check if the Receiving Authority will accept the application.

Was there fault by the Council

33. Mr D says the Council failed to consider the suitability of his temporary accommodation. The evidence shows Mr D raised issues with the suitability of the accommodation on 28 March 2025. The Council recorded it would do a “suitability check”. There is no evidence to show what that check entailed, what was assessed or how a decision was reached to enable the Council to state on the same that the property was suitable. The Council received medical evidence about the suitability issue on 27 May, I have seen no evidence of action by the Council to assess that information in respect of the suitability issue. Three months later the Council filled out a post acceptance suitability form, again I have not seen evidence of what prompted that form to be filled out and cannot see the Council then took forward an assessment of the suitability. The form itself ifs not an assessment, rather it is a document that should be used as information for the assessment process. Up to the end of the investigation period in October the Council failed to properly reassess whether the temporary accommodation was suitable, considering representations from Mr D, and provide an informed decision to him.
34. Mr D asked the Council to review his banding on 28 March 2025. The Council asked Mr D to supply medical evidence which it received on 27 May. At that point the Council should have referred the case to the Medical Adviser for their recommendations. That did not happen and there was a delay of four months. When the case was sent to the Medical Adviser in September the Council received the recommendations. At that stage the Council should have reviewed the case and taken account of all the information including the recommendations to reach a decision. I have no evidence of the Council carrying out its own assessment or of it sending a decision to Mr D. The 13 October complaint response stated Mr D was in the correct housing band, but I have not seen evidence of how the Council decided that was the case, particularly as the Medical Adviser had made different recommendations. The Council is not obliged to agree with those recommendations, but where it reaches a different view, it should be able to evidence how that decision was made.
35. Mr D also states the Council failed to assist him finding a home outside of the borough. I am not looking at what happened in March 2024 as this is outside of the investigation timeframe. In the period I can consider I see Mr D raised this issue in his complaints to the Council. The Council then took action and spoke to Mr D in October 2025. For that period I have not seen evidence of fault. As I explain above, Mr D can make a new complaint to the Council about the actions taken after 13 October which would include the main handling of the request in 2025 to move to Oxford Council. I also note Mr D feels the Council should have enabled him to bid for social housing properties advertised by other councils including Oxford Council. There is no fault in this matter, the Council does not have the right to allow housing register applicants to bid for social housing properties advertised by other councils expect for those covered by the West London Scheme.
36. Mr D complains that Officers did not reply to requests for assistance. In respect of the suitability issue and a banding review I have found fault by the Council because Officers failed to take forward Mr D’s requests. I have not seen evidence of any other fault in this matter.

Did the fault cause an injustice

37. There was delay by the Council and a failure to take forward Mr D’s request to reassess the suitability of his accommodation. Mr D was left without a decision for over six months up to the end of the investigation period, this was a lost opportunity to carry out a reassessment. The faults with the banding matter meant Mr D was caused avoidable delay. I cannot say he should have been awarded band A priority sooner because the Council maintains that decision was reached in December after the receipt of medical evidence from October and November.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr D the Council has agreed to:
• Pay Mr D £200 for delay and a lost opportunity
• Send Mr D a letter of apology
39. The Council should confirm what improvements it will make to ensure suitability requests and banding reviews are picked up and progressed in a timely manner. Also that housing assessments are properly documented and decisions sent to applicants.
40. 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

41. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman