West Midlands council failed to carry out suitability review of accommodation and gave resident conflicting advice, Ombudsman finds

In its report the LGSCO concluded that the resident suffered distress, remained living in unsuitable conditions and was denied the opportunity to ask for a section 202 suitability review.

The council has agreed to make a payment totalling more than £1,500 and to apologise to the resident.

The background to the Ombudsman’s investigation was that the resident and his four children moved into the temporary accommodation, a block of flats, in September 2022 before he moved to a larger room within the building in June 2024.

In early December 2024, the resident contacted the council regarding the suitability of the housing. He reported the family had no proper heating for two years, and there was not enough hot water for him and his family to shower.

In May 2025, the council carried out a suitability assessment to inform its future offers of accommodation but did not make a suitability decision about the resident’s specific accommodation.

Birmingham said the resident stopped paying his service charge in April 2024 on advice given by staff at his accommodation.

The council also informed the resident of his rent arrears in August 2024, and set up a payment plan while referring him to the housing benefit team, but this was paused due to outstanding information it needed about his universal credit.

This was received, and the council processed his application in December 2024.

In early January 2025, the council told the resident he had not honoured the payment plan, despite him receiving his universal credit.

He told the council he would not be paying the service charge until the disrepair issues in his accommodation had been resolved.

In March 2025, the council and the resident agreed to a new payment plan which has resulted in all arrears now being cleared.

The LGSCO found that the council should have made a decision about the suitability of the accommodation, and whether the family could continue to occupy it, upon first contact by December 2024.

It should have then put its suitability decision in writing and, if it decided it was suitable, it should have notified him about his right to request a section 202 review.

The council did not do this. According to the LGSCO, this was fault, which meant the resident was denied the opportunity to request a section 202 suitability review of the accommodation.

The council has accepted the ongoing disrepair issues at the accommodation regarding the heating and hot water, which the resident said meant he had to seek warmth in his car, and it worsened his health.

There were also occasions he and his family could not shower with hot water. The council said that upon completion of the suitability assessment it actioned to inform its future offers, it moved the resident to another unit within the accommodation.

The Ombudsman decided that it is more likely than not that the accommodation was not suitable, meaning the family remained living in unsuitable conditions for longer than they should have.

Had the council completed a suitability review of this accommodation when this should have been triggered in December 2024, the resident may have been relieved of his situation sooner.

The resident alleged that Birmingham also mismanaged his finances and lost his medical information, but the Ombudsman found no evidence to support these claims.

The council was entitled to ask for up-to-date records when completing actions such as suitability assessments. This does not, on its own, indicate that the council lost his information, the LGSCO said.

To remedy the injustice caused to the resident by the identified faults, the council has agreed to:

• Apologise for the distress caused, for the denied opportunity to request a section 202 suitability review, and for the time spent living in unsuitable conditions.
• Pay £1,425 to acknowledge the time spent living in unsuitable conditions and the denied opportunity to request a section 202 suitability review caused by the identified fault.
• Pay £100 for the distress caused by the conflicting advice was given about the repayment terms.

A spokesperson for Birmingham City Council said: “The council accepts the findings and has agreed to implement the recommended actions to address the issues identified in this case. These actions were completed within four weeks of the final decision and are intended to remedy the injustice experienced by Mr B and ensure that appropriate improvements are made.”

Harry Rodd