The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to move her to more suitable temporary accommodation when it decided her accommodation was unsuitable causing distress. We found fault as the Council delayed carrying out a rehousing assessment under its transfer policy. We have recommended a suitable remedy for the injustice caused in this case, so we have completed our investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council failed to move her to more suitable temporary accommodation (TA) following a decision in December 2024 her TA was unsuitable for her family’s needs. Ms X says this has caused the family distress. And due to the unsuitable accommodation, her daughter went to live with her grandmother for a period because of her health needs. Ms X says she has also incurred storage costs and had to reduce her hours at work due to the impact on to her health.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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)
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Ms X’s concerns from July 2024 when she raised complaints about the suitability of her TA to August 2025 when Ms X made her complaint to us.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation and statutory guidance 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.
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) 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) Case law in R(B) v Redbridge (2019) EWHC has established: A council makes initial decision on whether accommodation provided is suitable and applicant has a section 202 right of review of that initial decision This does not mean a council has made a continuing decision that accommodation remains suitable throughout the applicant’s stay An applicant can ask a council to make another updated suitability decision later on if the household’s circumstances change The council can reassess the suitability of the accommodation and issue an updated suitability decision. The applicant then has a section 202 right of review of that updated decision Review timescales and right of appeal Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks (56 days) of the date of the review request: eligibility for assistance; not in priority need; intentionally homeless; suitability of accommodation; notice being given of deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate and the effect of the notice is to bring the relief duty to an end.
These periods can be extended if the applicant agrees in writing.
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) The Council’s Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy The Council’s TA Placement policy says that accommodation must provide adequate space and room standards for the household and be fit to inhabit. Households in TA will often be placed in units with 1 bedroom less than they would be entitled to on a permanent basis with the expectation a living room has a dual purpose as a living and sleeping area.
The Council will also consider health reasons. If an applicant or member of the household is citing medical grounds the applicant will be asked to submit medical information. The policy says the key test in determining the impact of medical issues is whether the condition itself makes the housing offered unsuitable. The Council also recognises the need to safeguard and promote the welfare children in the household and will consider this when deciding whether the offer is suitable.
The Council’s transfer request procedure The Council’s rehousing and registration and lettings team has a transfer request procedure. The procedure says where the TA provided under section 193 is unsuitable or becomes unsuitable it must act to ensure that alternative suitable accommodation is provided. When it is believed that TA is or has become unsuitable an officer with knowledge of the case will make a transfer request. The officer may decide a transfer is necessary after conducting a rehousing or Personal Housing Plan (PHP) assessment and gathering more information. Evidence may also be provided by other services that indicate an applicant needs to move. This may be from the Police, Adults or Children’s Services or another partner organisation.
If management agrees to the transfer the applicant will be added to transfer list. TA placement officers use this as a point of reference when deciding who to sign up for available TA units when the list is generated each week.
The Council gives applicants a priority banding that reflects the urgency of the case. The bands range from 1- 3 with 1 being highest priority. Those in band 1 should expect to be the first applicants considered by the lettings team. Those whose effective date for bidding falls after the Localism Act 2022 will be made an offer of either suitable accommodation in the Private Sector or alternative TA whichever comes first and is affordable.
If an applicant is overcrowded at their TA, they are unlikely to be given the highest priority for a move as the TA placements policy allows for over occupation by one room. If approved for a transfer officers tell applicants, they may not move immediately. If an applicant considers their TA has become unsuitable and officers do not agree so no transfer request, they can request a first-tier suitability decision.
Background to the complaint The following is a summary of key events. It does not include all the information I considered as part of my investigation.
Ms X first approached the Council for housing in 2016. The Council accepted a main housing duty towards Ms X, provided her with a two bedroomed property as TA and allocated her housing application band B priority. Ms X lives with her daughter and son. Ms X’s daughter has some health conditions.
Ms X asked the Council for a first-tier suitability review on 8 July 2024 saying the TA was now unsuitable for her and her family. Ms X said her children had to share a single bedroom and the property’s bathroom was inadequate as it did not meet her daughter’s medical needs. A Council Rehousing Officer carried out a rehousing assessment on Ms X in July 2024. The Council says the assessment was to maintain an up-to-date understanding of the needs of Ms X and family and update the PHP. It says it was not a ‘suitability’ assessment. The Rehousing Officer sent Ms X a copy of the reassessment and asked for a medical information. The officer said the Council would seek a medical assessment and then consider the property’s suitability.
The officer sent Ms X’s health form and medical documents to its medical adviser. The medical adviser did not consider Ms X should be awarded any medical priority. But noted the property was overcrowded which would qualify for a separate priority.
Ms X’s property provider contacted the Council to advise the property was too small for Ms X and considered it unsuitable for the family. The Council held a Team around the Family (TAF) meeting in October 2024 to discuss Ms X’s situation.
Ms X complained to the Council in October 2024 it had delayed carrying out a medical assessment and officers had not communicated with her. The Council responded in December 2024 and accepted it had delayed completing the medical assessment. And there had been limited communication with Ms X although the rehousing officer had been working in the background to move Ms X’s case along. The Council said it would continue to work with Ms X, support her to secure alternative accommodation and keep her fully updated on the process. The Council confirmed it had added her case to the transfer list for move to alternative TA. So, considered it was making progress in Ms X’s case.
In December 2025 Ms X sent an email from her support worker explaining the negative impact of the property on her daughter’s mental health. Ms X also asked for progress on their accommodation transfer and said again the property was no longer suitable for them. The Council and other professionals held a TAF meeting in March 2025 about Ms X’s situation. The Rehousing Officer told Ms X the outcome of the meeting and asked her to clarify the issues with the bathroom and the recent OT report.
The Council issued a first-tier suitability decision on 8 April 2025. It confirmed it had considered the rehousing assessment form from July 2024, photographs of the bathroom Ms X provided, and health assessment form dated September 2024. It had sought a medical assessment which decided there were no specific medical needs. So, the property was not unsuitable on medical grounds. The Council was satisfied the TA although not ideal remained suitable for Ms X to occupy.
The Council noted Ms X needed a three bedroomed property so, while it could provide TA with one fewer room than needed, Ms X was overcrowded. The Council agreed a transfer to alternative TA for Ms X although it could not say when. The Council advised Ms X to keep bidding for properties. It explained the average wait time for an applicant in band B for 3-bed accommodation was about 12 years and 8 months. Ms X had been waiting for 9 years. The Council advised Ms X she could seek a review of the decision under section 202.
The Council says the rehousing officer made enquiries from September 2024 into the suitability of the TA and associated issues raised by Ms X. The officer liaised with other services, attended professionals’ meetings organised by the children’s school and gained medical evidence. The officer also considered the views of the TA provider and carried out an internal suitability review. The Council says regrettably, the process took longer than desirable, with Ms X being told of the First-Tier suitability decision on 8 April 2025. Ms X submitted a suitability review under section 202 to the Council at the end of April 2025.
The Council made Ms X an offer of a three bedroomed private rented accommodation in September 2025. Ms X refused the offer as she considered it unsuitable due to her health needs and those of her daughter. Ms X sent medical documents to support her refusal which the Council considered, and it withdrew the offer. The Council held a further TAF meeting about Ms X’s situation and sought a further OT report for Ms X’s daughter.
In April 2026 the Council considered the suitability review request and overturned the decision the property was suitable. The Council changed Ms X’s priority to 1 for a TA transfer.
My assessment
Ms X questioned the suitability of the TA in July 2024. The documents show the Council considered it under its Transfer Policy as a rehousing assessment needing Ms X to submit a First-Tier suitability review. This follows the requirements of the case law in paragraph 10 which allows a council to make an updated suitability decision if the household’s circumstances change. The Council confirms the First-Tier suitability review was a suitability assessment despite calling it a suitability review.
The Council did not complete the First-Tier suitability assessment until April 2025 taking nine months to make a decision. Although the case law does not specify a timescale for the review the statutory right of review under section 202 allows a council to take up to 56 days. We would therefore consider it reasonable to expect a council to carry out a suitability reassessment decision within the same time frames. The Council took longer than the 56 days which is fault. This has caused an injustice to Ms X through distress as it has delayed her right to seek a statutory review under section 202 by nine months once the Council issued an updated suitability decision the TA was suitable.
Once it issued the decision the Council then told Ms X of her right to request a suitability review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 which also follows the stages under the case law. Ms X was then able to submit a suitability review.
The delay has also caused Ms X uncertainty as we cannot say what the outcome would have been if Ms X had been able to submit a statutory suitability review before April 2025. And whether she would have been moved any sooner by the Council due to the chronic shortage of TA nationally and in the Council’s area.
Agreed Action
To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified in paragraph 33 the Council will within four weeks of my final decision: Apologise to Ms X for the delay in dealing with her suitability assessment. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
Make Ms X a symbolic payment of £350 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in dealing with her concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation for nine months and advising her of the statutory right of review.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice and have recommended a suitable remedy for Ms X.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman