Summary: Mr complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with suitable temporary accommodation when he became homeless and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault because it failed to carry out a suitability review, did not update his Personal Housing Plan and provide other support. The Council has already accepted it acted with fault and made a payment to Mr X to acknowledge his frustration and uncertainty. In addition to this, we decided, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr X’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable. To remedy the injustice to Mr X, the Council has agreed to make a further payment to acknowledge he was provided with unsuitable accommodation for 14 months. It will also take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation when he became homeless. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his homelessness/housing application including a:
1. failure to provide interim accommodation when it had reason to believe he may be homeless;
2. failure to carry out a suitability review; and
3. failure to update and review his Personal Housing Plan, including information about his debts.
2. Mr X says his family suffered significant distress as a result of being accommodated in unsuitable accommodation due to its insanitary conditions

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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Homelessness

8. 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.
9. If a council has ‘reason to believe’ someone may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make inquiries into what, if any, duty it owes.
10. If a council is satisfied an applicant is threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance, it must take steps to help the applicant keep their home or find somewhere new to live. This is called the prevention duty. In deciding what steps to take, a council must have regard to its assessment of the applicant’s case. (Housing Act 1996, section 195)
11. Councils should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and the applicant to take to help the applicant keep or secure suitable accommodation. These steps should be tailored to the household, and follow from the findings of the assessment, and must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and Homelessness Code of Guidance paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. If the council has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, it has an immediate duty under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 to provide interim accommodation, whilst it makes its enquiries. Examples of those in priority need includes those who are pregnant, have a dependent child or are vulnerable due to serious health problems, disability or old age.
13. 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 for them. 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)

Suitability of temporary accommodation

14. Temporary accommodation is accommodation provided to homeless applicants as part of a council’s main homelessness duty.
15. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and (from 3 April 2018) Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
16. In deciding whether accommodation is suitable, authorities must have regard to

• the space and arrangement of the accommodation;
• the state of repair and condition of the accommodation;
• location, including ease of access to established employment, schools and specialist health care; and
• the specific needs of the applicant and any household members due to a medical condition or disability.

17. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of the decision on their homelessness application. There is also a right to request a review of the suitability of temporary accommodation provided once the Council has accepted the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
18. Councils must complete reviews of the following decisions within eight weeks of the date of the review request regarding suitability of accommodation.
19. Applicants can also ask a council to reconsider its decision about the suitability of temporary accommodation at any time. This might be necessary, for example, if there is a change in the applicant’s circumstances. This new decision is open to review under section 202, with a new 21-day timescale. (R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin))
20. 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).
21. In May 2023 we issued a guide for practitioners Good Practice Guide - unsuitable temporary accommodation. This sets out the relevant law and guidance about temporary accommodation and our approach to complaints where councils have not provided suitable temporary accommodation to applicants who are owed the main housing duty.

What happened

22. Mr X, his wife and four children lived in private rented accommodation. In May 2023, Mr X received an eviction notice from his landlord. He contacted the Council for assistance with his pending homelessness. Mr X provided details of his income and expenditure. This included details of a credit card debt that has accrued due to the cost of living crisis. Despite this debt, Mr X says he always paid his rent in time and continued to do so.
23. The Council accepted Mr X was owed the Prevention Duty and completed a PHP. Mr X’s landlord confirmed his intention to evict Mr X because he needed to sell the property. Mr X was advised to remain at this address until the date of his eviction. In the meantime, he was told to look for property in the private sector due to the chronic shortage of social housing.
24. In September 2023, Mr X was evicted. The Council provided interim accommodation while his homelessness application was assessed. He was moved to a Council-run hostel (“the Hostel”) with shared facilities.
25. In November 2023, the Council accepted Mr X was owed the main homelessness duty and that he had been provided with suitable temporary accommodation. Mr X told the Council the Hostel was unsuitable because it had no private kitchen or bathroom. His family of six, including a baby shared small room. The other residents were inconsiderate, and the shared facilities were insanitary. Mr X says the toilets were regularly covered in urine and faeces.
26. The Council advised Mr X the Hostel was suitable temporary accommodation and him he could request a review of this decision.
27. In late January 2024, Mr X asked the Council to carry out a suitability review. The Council refused to do so because the request was late, but agreed to carry out a discretionary review instead.
28. Mr X was not notified of the outcome of this discretionary review. He instructed a solicitor pursue this matter. In response, the Council said:

• it was not under a legal obligation to carry out a later review that serves no purpose;
• the Council was working with Mr X to secure suitable, alternative accommodation; and
• a review, even if successful, “will not result in a greater outcome”.

29. Frustrated by the Council’s failure to provide alternative accommodation, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman

The Council’s position

30. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:

• accepted a minority of Hostel residents abused the facilities. The Council took action to address his concerns by introducing a new cleaning regime;
• there was no alternative temporary accommodation;
• Mr X failed to provide details of his credit card debt until December 2023. This affected his affordability assessment and future housing prospects;
• accepted it failed carry out the six monthly review of his PHP in July 2023.
• failed to update the PHP when Mr X became homeless in September 2023. Nor did it advise him he was owed the relief duty; and
• failed to use its discretion to review the Hostel’s suitability, or respond to this issue in its initial complaint response.

31. Having identified several failing in its handling of Mr X’s homelessness application, the Council accepted it acted with fault. Mr X was offered £1000 to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress experienced by Mr X.
32. Although pleased the Council had accepted some responsibility for its failings, Mr X brought his complaint back to the Ombudsman because he remained living at the Hostel.
33. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council;

• explained interim accommodation was not provided in May 2023 because there previous home was preferable to the Hostel, where they would have had to move to earlier than they did;
• confirmed Mr X moved to alternative temporary accommodation in January 2025;
• accepted the Hostel was unsuitable;
• confirmed a team of workers were now located at the Hostel to work directly with resident’s; and
• Mr X had provided details of his credit card debt, despite previosuly saying he had not.

Analysis

34. I will consider Mr X’s separate areas of complaint below:

Failure to provide interim accommodation

35. The Council explained that Mr X was advised to remain in his current accommodation until his was evicted because it was preferable to the interim accommodation that would have been offered by the Council. In the meantime, Mr X was provided with advice about how best to secure private, rented accommodation.
36. In my view this was appropriate advice in the circumstances. Mr X required a three-bedroom property that would have been difficult to source. Although not ideal, I agree it was preferable for Mr X to remain where he was, pending his eviction. The Council was not at fault.

Failure to carry out a suitability review

37. All accommodation provided by the Council to homeless applicants must be suitable for the needs of the specific household. When the Council accommodated Mr X at the Hostel, I have seen no evidence that it properly considered whether it was suitable for him and his family, especially as Mr X had a baby under one. It did not consider the factors described at paragraph 16. Nor have I seen evidence the issue was reconsidered in November 2023 when the Hostel became temporary accommodation. Failure to properly consider suitability on these two occasions was fault.
38. There was further fault when the Council failed to carry out a discretionary review of suitability when it said it would in February 2023. It gave a contradictory response to Mr X’s solicitor in March 2023 when the housing officer said it would not carry out a review because it would not change the outcome and the Council was trying to secure “suitable temporary accommodation”. Although not stated explicitly, this seems to strongly imply the Council accepted the Hostel was unsuitable. It is disappointing the Council did not confirm this until February 2025, in response to the Ombudsman’s preliminary enquiries.
39. In my view, the Hostel was unsuitable for Mr X and his family from when it became temporary, as opposed to interim accommodation, in November 2023. I say this because the Council had a duty to provide interim accommodation at short notice in September 2023. In the context of London’s extreme housing crisis I do not consider in unreasonable for Mr X to have been placed in hostel type accommodation in the short term while somewhere more suitable was found, particularly as Mr X was quite restricted about where he was able to live because his family’s circumstances. But the suitability of the Hostel should have been reviewed again as soon as the Council accepted Mr X was owed the main homelessness duty. Had it done so properly, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, it would have found the Hostel to be unsuitable, as implied by the Council’s response to Mr X’s solicitor and latterly accepted by the Council in February 2025.
40. The Council’s failure to properly consider suitability or to find alternative suitable accommodation, meant the family lived in unsuitable accommodation for 14 months. Our guidance on remedies says where a complainant has been deprived of suitable accommodation, we are likely to recommend a monthly payment of between £150 and £350. I consider the financial remedy should be £300 per month. In arriving at this figure, I have taken into consideration:

• Mr X had a newborn baby and three other children, living in one room with only a sink;
• the insanitary condition of the shared facilities;
• the length of time Mr X and his family spent in unsuitable accommodation; and
• the Council has already offered a partial financial remedy that acknowledged its failure to carry out a suitability review.

Failure to update and review his PHP, including information about his debts

41. The Council’s complaint responses repeatedly referred to Mr X’s failure to provide full disclosure about his financial circumstances in May 2023, and how this impacted on his ability to source affordable accommodation. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council accepted it has made a mistake and this information has been provided by Mr X at the correct time but disregarded by his case officer.
42. This was fault. This mistake caused Mr X significant frustration because the Council repeatedly refused to accept his position. My additional recommendation (below) reflects this injustice.
43. To the Council’s credit is has already accepted it was at fault in the way it handled Mr X PHP, apologised and offered Mr X £1000 in acknowledgement of his distress and frustration. This payment is in line with our guidance on remedies and for this reason I will not make any further recommendations to remedy this aspect of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

44. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to take the following action.
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology. This should include an apology for failing to accept he provided the Council with details of his debt;
• Pay Mr X £300 a month for the 14 months he lived in unsuitable accommodation. For the avoidance of doubt, this is in addition to the £1000 already paid/offered to Mr X in response to his complaint.
• Ensure procedures are in place to ensure the suitability of temporary accommodation is kept under review. Relevant staff should also be reminded of this obligation.
45. The Council has already taken appropriate action to address issues highlighted by this complaint about the Hostel and the review of PHP’s. For this reason, I will not make any further service improvement recommendations.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I intend have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X and improve its service.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman