Summary: Miss X complained the Council kept her and her child in unsuitable temporary accommodation for 18 months. The Council was at fault for failing to move Miss X. This caused Miss X distress, and the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for the impact of the delay.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council kept her and her baby daughter in unsuitable temporary accommodation after accepting the accommodation was unsuitable in July 2024.
2. It took the Council 18 months to find Miss X and her daughter new temporary accommodation. This caused Miss X uncertainty, instability, anxiety, and distress. It also exacerbated her mental health symptoms.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

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 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)
10. The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of their household. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. 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.
12. The Council’s duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate, non-deferable, and unqualified. (Elkundi, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601)

Our guidance

13. We have issued guidance for practitioners on unsuitable temporary accommodation (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman, Unsuitable temporary accommodation, Guide for practitioners, May 2023). This sets out our approach and what we expect to see from councils where it accepts accommodation is unsuitable but has not moved the applicant. This includes the circumstance when we may find fault (maladministration) or service failure.
14. Where the failure to move an applicant is due to a lack of available properties, despite the council’s best efforts to secure more, we would regard that as service failure.
15. But where we find the council is not taking steps to resolve the situation, despite accepting the accommodation is unsuitable, we are more likely to be critical. This is likely to be fault.
16. We recognise the reality that a shortage of available accommodation means councils are not always able to fulfil their “immediate, non-deferable, and unqualified” duty to provide suitable temporary accommodation. In these cases, we expect to see evidence of councils making efforts to fulfil their duties, at both individual and strategic level. We also expect to see councils considering whether there are steps that can be taken to reduce the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on the household. This includes:
• Evidence of approaching housing providers.
• Considering using the council’s own housing stock or arrangements with registered providers to use housing stock.
• Increasing priority on the housing register for people in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
• Considering temporary aids, adaptations or support which might reduce the impact of the unsuitable accommodation on disabled household members in the meantime.
• Procurement plans or other strategic action to tackle the shortfall in available accommodation.
17. Simply adding the applicant to a ‘transfer list’ or similar, and waiting for a suitable property to become available will not meet our expectations for how a council should demonstrate its efforts to meet its duty. We encourage councils to maintain a policy or procedure setting out how they allocate temporary accommodation.

The Council’s temporary accommodation placement policy

18. The Council keeps a temporary accommodation transfer list for applicants who need to move to alternative temporary accommodation. Priority is decided by five bands, with Band 1 being highest priority and Band 5 the lowest priority. Time spent in temporary accommodation is also considered, so households who have been waiting longest will be considered first. Households in unsatisfactory properties, such as where the property is considered unsuitable, are placed in priority Band 3.

What happened

19. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
20. The Council decided Miss X was homeless, eligible for assistance, had a priority need, and was not intentionally homeless in December 2022. The Council placed Miss X in temporary accommodation (TA).
21. Miss X told the Council she was pregnant in October 2023, with the baby due in April 2024. She wanted to move home for medical and welfare reasons. She mentioned sexual harassment, a personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. She said the drug environment and harassment triggered her PTSD.
22. Miss X’s representative asked for a review of the suitability of her TA in January 2024. They said the TA was unsuitable due to its size (it was a studio apartment) and lack of appropriate washing facilities. This negatively impacted Miss X’s mental health. They said Miss X was entitled to a one-bedroom flat under the Council’s allocations scheme, as she was pregnant.
23. The Council started a review in February 2024. In April, the Council asked Miss X to give further information.
24. The Council’s medical adviser reviewed the evidence and recommended the Council provide Miss X accommodation with a separate bedroom in July 2024.
25. The Council wrote to Miss X on 19 July 2024 confirming it agreed her TA was unsuitable. This was because the Council’s medical adviser considered the current set up was negatively affecting Miss X. They recommended a one-bedroom property. The Council said it placed Miss X on the TA transfer list, to be offered new TA as soon as possible.
26. From September 2024 until April 2025, Miss X reported pests within her TA building. These reports were handled by the building’s managing agent, with pest control treatment and any necessary works.
27. Miss X asked for an update on her TA transfer in October 2024. The Council told Miss X there was a shortage of suitable TA, meaning no transfer was available, but she remained on the transfer list.
28. The Council added Miss X’s child to her housing application records in December 2024. It also gave Miss X information about alternative housing options, such as bidding for properties and other rehousing routes. That was because availability of suitable TA remained limited.
29. Miss X raised concerns about mould and environmental conditions at her TA in January 2025. These were addressed by the managing agent. Miss X also raised concerns about street noise. The Council again explained alternative options available to Miss X, including rehousing schemes outside London.
30. The Council’s medical adviser reviewed Miss X’s circumstances in February 2025. They considered the pest issues and space constraints were not medical issues that would give Miss X extra medical priority.
31. Miss X complained to the Council about her unsuitable TA on 27 February 2025. She said she raised concerns about her living conditions and situation, but the Council had not offered alternative accommodation or a solution. She said the property is a studio and she lives in the same room as her baby. This makes cooking and daily tasks difficult, and the noise can wake the baby. She also said she made multiple reports of rodents. This was causing significant distress and hardship.
32. Miss X reported concerns relating to domestic abuse in March 2025. The Police attended and assessed the risk as low. The Council told Miss X it could offer emergency accommodation if she did not feel safe.
33. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint on 31 March 2025 and apologised it had not made her an offer to move accommodation since the suitability review. It said there was a chronic shortage of housing, and the system was under extreme pressure. The Council said it spoke to the managing agent, and they treated pests in February, with another treatment booked for April. The Council also said Miss X’s housing priority was correct and was the highest possible priority for applicants where the Council has accepted the main housing duty within the last five years. The Council recommended Miss X consider other rehousing options and listed organisations she could register with. It also gave advice about other housing schemes.
34. Miss X’s representative asked the Council for an update on Miss X’s TA transfer in June 2025. The Council reiterated the impact of severe supply shortages and confirmed Miss X remained on the transfer list.
35. The Council offered Miss X new TA outside the borough in January 2026. That was due to the prolonged wait for suitable TA inside the borough, and continuing supply constraints.
36. Miss X told the Council she relied on family support and mental health services in London, making it difficult for her to move outside the borough. The Council asked for up to date medical information, and contacted the perinatal mental health team to clarify Miss X’s support arrangements and any limits on moving her.
37. The Council asked its medical adviser about Miss X’s future housing needs, and whether she needed to live in the same borough, or in London. The Council’s medical adviser said the areas surrounding the location where Miss X currently lived were acceptable for continuing social support.
38. The Council then formally offered Miss X new TA outside the borough. This was a two-bedroom flat. Miss X accepted and moved into the new TA.
39. Miss X asked the Council to move her back to London in February 2026 on medical and support grounds. She said the out of borough placement adversely affected her wellbeing due to isolation from her support network. The Council started the suitability review process. That review started after Miss X complained to the Ombudsman and was not part of my investigation.

My investigation

40. Miss X told me the Council’s delays finding her suitable new TA had a serious impact on her and her daughter. She said the uncertainty and instability caused distress and anxiety. It also affected her mental health, worsening her symptoms.
41. The Council recognised it took longer than expected to arrange a move for Miss X and it recognised the frustration this delay caused. It said this was due to exceptionally high demand, and implementing a revised pricing model that meant other Local Authorities offered higher rates. This resulted in a backlog developing. It continued to allocate TA according to priority.
42. The Council told me it looked at availability across its existing TA suppliers and with potential new providers in its attempts to identify suitable alternative accommodation. This included nightly paid arrangements and leased accommodation. It also looked at availability within its own housing stock, but there were no suitable properties available within the required timescales.
43. The Council also said it took steps to address pressures within TA provision and to strengthen service delivery. This includes ongoing reviews of the transfer list to reflect current assessed needs, introducing a new Allocations manager to strengthen governance and oversight, and continued engagement with accommodation providers. The Council said supply has increased and it is now in a stronger position.

Analysis

44. The Council accepted Miss X’s former TA was unsuitable in July 2024, but did not move her to new TA out of borough until January 2026. That is about 18 months spent in TA which the Council accepted was unsuitable for Miss X’s needs. Miss X also had a baby with her during this time.
45. The Council operates a transfer list which considers different circumstances and considers the time spent in TA. Though we would still expect the Council to do more than just make applicants sit and wait once they are on the list.
46. In this case, the Council did consider Miss X’s reports of pests, and the impact the TA was having on her mental health. It referred her concerns to its medical adviser, but ultimately decided Miss X was not entitled to additional priority. The Council gave its medical adviser Miss X’s medical records, so there was no fault in those decisions.
47. I considered whether we would expect the Council to provide Miss X with any additional support while she waited for a transfer. Miss X suffers with recognised mental health conditions which she said were exacerbated by her living conditions. However, she was accessing support within the community. There were no disabilities which the Council could offer adjustments or adaptations for, so the Council could only give Miss X information about bidding on properties and alternative ways she may be able to find a new property – which it did. I also note the pest control issues themselves were reported to the managing agent of the property, who made efforts to address the problem each time it was reported. I did not find there was enough evidence to suggest the Council was at fault for failing to provide Miss X with support.
48. I am satisfied the Council took sufficient steps in line with our guidance to source accommodation and tackle its backlog. That was through checks with existing suppliers and new providers, as well as reviewing the needs of applicants on its transfer list and appointing a new Allocations manager to oversee the service.
49. I therefore found the Council’s failure to secure immediate new TA for Miss X amounted to service failure rather than maladministration. Nevertheless, this still amounts to fault, and 18 months is a significant amount of time for Miss X and her child to spend in unsuitable accommodation, and this understandably caused Miss X frustration and distress which the Council should provide a remedy for.
50. Under our remedy guidance, we usually recommend a financial remedy payment of between £150 and £350 a month where a complainant has had to remain in unsuitable accommodation. The figure should be based on the impact on the complainant and other household members, taking into account factors like overcrowding and disrepair, disability, and vulnerability.
51. Miss X raised issues with the size of her TA, rodent infestation, and the impact on her mental health. The Council’s medical assessor accepted she needed a bedroom rather than a studio for her and her baby. Miss X was also vulnerable, given her mental health and the support she needed. Though I found the managing agent dealt with property issues such as pests. I therefore consider a payment of £200 a month, for the 18 months Miss X was in unsuitable TA, is suitable. That amounts to £3,600.
52. Given the Council confirmed it has increased supply and is in a stronger position, I do not consider I need to make any service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed Action

53. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X for leaving her and her child in unsuitable TA for 18 months, recognising her vulnerability and the impact it had on the household.
• Pay Miss X £3,600, which is £200 a month, for the 18 months she remained in unsuitable TA.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

The Council was at fault for failing to move Miss X to suitable new TA for 18 months. This caused Miss X distress, and the Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for the impact of the delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman