Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about its decision to place her in unsuitable accommodation. It accepted it was not suitable for her and her child. It failed to act on her initial report about access problems or advise sooner about possible harassment. The stage 1 response under its complaints procedure was incomplete. The Council agreed to apologise for the fault, make a symbolic financial payment, reimburse a month’s council tax, and carry out a review to ensure the failures cannot be repeated in future. There was no fault on her remaining complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council:
1. placing her in unsuitable temporary accommodation;
2. delaying processing her suitability review request;
3. failing to act when she was locked out of the property for 8 weeks; and
4. failing to protect her from hazards and harassment.
2. As a result, she and her vulnerable son lived in unsuitable conditions which caused stress and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I investigated Miss Y’s complaint even though she had, and used, a right to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation offered her. This is because while the suitability review eventually upheld her review request, there remained potential unremedied injustice to her.
7. I investigated her complaint only to October 2025. This is because this was the date the Council sent her its stage 2 final response under its complaints procedure. This means the Council was able to respond to her formal complaints made before October 2025, but not after it. Any reference made to events after this date is to put the complaint in context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.
9. I note the Council’s response to my enquiries was incomplete with certain sections not responded to and some questions missed entirely.

Back to top

What I found

Homelessness: law and guidance

10. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
11. Councils must complete an assessment if they are satisfied an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness. Councils must notify the applicant of the assessment. They should work with applicants to identify practical and reasonable steps for the council and 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. They must be provided to the applicant in writing as their personalised housing plan (PHP). (Housing Act 1996, section 189A and the Code paragraphs 11.6 and 11.18)
12. Councils must take reasonable steps to help to secure suitable accommodation for any eligible homeless person. When a council decides this duty has come to an end, it must notify the applicant in writing (Housing Act 1996, section 189B)
13. A council must secure interim accommodation for an applicant and their household if it has reason to believe the applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and have a priority need. (Housing Act 1996, section 188)
14. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, it has a duty to secure accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
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 temporary accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and the Code, paragraph 17.2)
16. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision the accommodation offered is suitable. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. (Housing Act 1996, section 202)
17. If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need, the council has a duty to make accommodation available (unless it refers the application to another housing authority under section 198).

What happened

18. In February 2025, Miss Y and her young child, who has a health condition, were allocated temporary accommodation when the Council decided she was homeless. It accepted it owed her the main housing duty. It considered the property suitable for her.
19. Although she moved in, she was unhappy with its condition and told the Council. She reported broken windows, mould, duct tape holding the window together, tripping hazards in the hall and living room, and exposed wiring, for example. During her time in the property, Miss Y told the Council she had been locked out of the property for eight weeks by the landlord because of a defective lock. During this period, she still paid rent.
20. Miss Y asked for a review of its suitability the following month, which she later withdrew. In May, she made a further request for a review.
21. The Council acknowledged her request in June. Miss Y told the Council she was unable to access the property because the key had broken in the lock. She claimed it was because the lock was poorly maintained and that the landlord said it was Miss Y’s responsibility to resolve and refused to help or pay for it. Miss Y could not afford to replace the lock as she was on benefits and said the Council failed to help.
22. I have seen an email from the landlord confirming she was told on 13 June about this problem. I have also seen the text message Miss Y sent her that day about it. Miss Y sent the Council an email a few days later. In it, she set out the problem she was having with access to the accommodation because of the lock.
23. Hearing nothing, she contacted the Council again on 19 July. This was to a different officer. The officer’s out of office email told her she was away for two days. The officer later said an unwillingness to change the locks could be viewed as harassment as it involved withholding services.
24. Miss Y chased the officer two days later. Shortly after, the officer replied. The officer said she could not confirm the landlord would have to pay the cost of changing the lock. The officer would contact the landlord about it and recommended Miss Y also contact the landlord. Later the same day, Miss Y told the Council she had spoken to the landlord so did not need the officer to do so. Several days later, Miss Y told the Council the landlord would change the lock the following day.
25. Towards the end of the month, the Council contacted the landlord for information and asked for an inspection to assess Miss Y’s claims.
26. In August, the Council contacted the landlord after receiving Miss Y’s further report about being locked out of the property. The landlord disputed Miss Y’s version of events and claimed she was not told about the failure to replace the lock until July. The landlord agreed to the locksmith changing it and a date was arranged. The landlord said she was unaware Miss Y did not have access until this point as she understood Miss Y would arrange the lock change back in June. Miss Y disagreed with the landlord’s version.
27. The Council sent her its interim decision (‘minded to refuse’) on her review. It asked her to extend the time for it to carry out the review to the end of August.
28. Miss Y was unhappy with this request as she considered it unfair in the circumstances. She was also unhappy with the interim decision. The Council sent a report done following an inspection to the landlord. Miss Y agreed to give the Council until September to complete the review.
29. In September, the Council called Miss Y who had by now returned the keys to the landlord and was staying temporarily with a friend. An internal email from the reviewing officer said, ‘No matter how long I look at this case and the content on the review/housing file I will never be able to satisfy myself that this property was suitable for the applicant’. The officer upheld her review, deciding the property was unsuitable. The Council reinstated the main housing duty it owed to her. The Council could not say the property was suitable for her when her tenancy started or during it.
30. In mid-September, the Council offered her temporary accommodation which it considered suitable. It advised her she had the right to ask for a statutory suitability review of this accommodation if she felt it was not suitable for her needs.
31. The Council also sent her its stage 1 response under its complaints procedure. It accepted she experienced difficulty and disruption by being placed in unsuitable accommodation.
32. In October, the Council sent her its stage 2 response.
33. The following month, it told her it had discharged the main housing duty to her because she refused to accept a suitable offer of temporary accommodation.

My findings

Complaint a): placing in unsuitable accommodation

34. I found fault on this complaint. This was because the suitability review found the accommodation was unsuitable and it could not say it was suitable from the start of the tenancy, or during the life of it.
35. I am satisfied this failure caused Miss Y an injustice. She and her young child remained in unsuitable accommodation for about seven months. She also spent some time pursuing the Council about its unsuitability, and experienced anxiety and frustration.

Complaint b): delay with review

36. I found no fault on this complaint, having taken the following into account:

• The Council had 56 days (8 weeks) to carry out this review about the suitability of her accommodation. She asked for a review in May, and it was decided in September, 16 weeks later.
• While it took 16 weeks, the Council could, and indeed did, ask Miss Y for an extension to the eight-week deadline, to which she agreed. I also note this was explained to Miss Y in its letter acknowledging her request in June. Miss Y did not need to agree to the extensions requested and could have agreed only to an extension of seven days, for example, to allow it time to reach its decision on her request.
• I am satisfied the Council explained to Miss Y why it needed more time to provide its response to her request.

Complaint c): failing to act when locked out of accommodation

37. I found some fault on this complaint. This is because the evidence I have seen shows Miss Y alerted the Council to this issue in mid-June. There is nothing to show what the Council did in response. This caused her an injustice as she has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the problem could have been resolved sooner. It also caused her frustration as she later had to chase the Council about it until she got a response in mid-July.
38. After this contact, I found no fault by the Council. This is because the officer said she would contact the landlord about it, but Miss Y later said there was no need as she had spoken to her already. She later told the Council the landlord was going to replace the lock.
39. The evidence showed the Council contacted the landlord about the lock who confirmed she would resolve the problem.

Complaint d): failing to protect her from hazards and harassment

40. On balance, I found the Council could have advised Miss Y earlier that the landlord’s unwillingness to change the lock could amount to harassment, because a service was being withheld. I say this because Miss Y had alerted the Council to the problem in mid-June. She was not given this advice until mid-July when she chased the Council.
41. I am satisfied this caused some injustice during this period. She had the uncertainty of not knowing whether the situation could have been resolved sooner but for the fault.
42. On balance, I found no fault on her complaint about it failing to protect her from hazards for the following reasons:

• Miss Y reported hazards in her accommodation. The Council carried out an inspection of it and listed the repairs needed. It listed three which could result in a possible hazard (blocked window vents, lack of working fire alarm, and issues with the radiators). The landlord agreed to check and ensure repairs would be carried out, especially those listed as possible hazards.
• The Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool for councils to identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from deficiencies found in dwellings. A category 1 hazard is a hazard considered to be a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety. Other hazards are classed as category 2.
• Although the Council did not formally carry out a HHSRS assessment, I am satisfied that following its inspection, it raised the problems it found with the landlord. The landlord responded to the requests. This meant there were attempts at an informal approach which appeared to be working and so avoided the need for formal action.

43. I found no fault on any complaint Miss Y has about the Council’s actions between the September review decision and when it sent her its stage 2 response the following month. The Council restored the main housing duty to her. Miss Y was told it had been restored and that she could bid for accommodation. The same month, it offered her temporary accommodation.
44. I have also considered how the Council dealt with her formal complaints and make the following finding:

• In its stage 1 response, the Council responded to her complaint about the suitability of her accommodation by stating the suitability request she made was upheld. It failed to address her two other complaints which it set out in its letter. These were her complaints about its handling of her case during the tenancy and the impact this had on her and her child.
• I consider this was fault as it caused some distress (lost opportunity, frustration, and confusion).

Back to top

Action

45. I considered our guidance on remedies, the condition of the accommodation, the age of her child, and his health.
46. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss Y a written apology for the following failings: placing her in unsuitable accommodation for seven months; not acting on her mid-June report about the lock/access; not advising her sooner that unwillingness to change the lock could amount to harassment; provide a response that fully addressed her stage 1 complaint.
2. Pay £1,050 to Miss Y for the time she and her child spent living in this accommodation (7 months x £150).
3. Reimburse her one month’s council tax for the period mid-June to mid-July once satisfied she had paid it.
4. Review why it failed to act on her mid-June report about access problems because of the lock.
5. Review why she remained in unsuitable accommodation for seven months, ensure it has evidence for suitability reviews showing why it was considered suitable at the start of the tenancy, and act to ensure other applicants in the same position are moved at the earliest opportunity to suitable accommodation.
6. Remind relevant officers dealing with formal complaints of the need to address all heads of complaints raised.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. I found the following on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint b): no fault;
• Complaint c): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint d): fault causing injustice.

49. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman