Summary: Ms X complained the Council has placed her and her family in unsuitable accommodation and has wrongly discharged it homelessness duty. We found the Council’s failure to secure suitable accommodation for Ms X and her family is fault. This fault has caused Ms X an injustice. The Council apologise and make a to Ms X and confirm the homelessness duty to owes her. It will also review internal procedures.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council has placed her and her family in unsuitable accommodation and has wrongly discharged it homelessness duty. The Council reviewed the suitability of the accommodation in May 2025 and concluded it should not have discharged the s193 duty but has not reinstated the duty or provided any alternative accommodation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms 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

Homelessness

6. 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.
7. 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). But councils will not owe the main housing duty to applicants who have turned down a suitable final accommodation offer or a Housing Act Part 6 offer made during the relief stage, or if a council has given them notice under section 193B(2) due to their deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. (Housing Act 1996, section 193 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 15.39)
8. Homeless applicants may request a review within 21 days of being notified of a number of decisions, including the suitability of accommodation offered to the applicant after a homelessness duty has been accepted (and the suitability of accommodation offered under section 200(3) and section 193). Applicants can request a review of the suitability of accommodation whether or not they have accepted the offer.
9. The review must be carried out by someone who was not involved in the original decision and who is more senior to the original decision maker. Councils must complete reviews of decisions on suitability of accommodation within eight weeks of the date of the review request.

What happened here

10. The Council accepted a main housing duty to Ms X in July 2024. It provided temporary accommodation for Ms X and her three children. Ms X moved to alternative temporary accommodation in December 2024. She requested a review of the suitability of this accommodation in January 2025. Ms X told the Council she was not looking at private rental accommodation and only wanted social housing.
11. In late February 2025 the Council offered Ms X a private rental property to discharge its homelessness duty. Although Ms X did not consider the property suitable for herself and her family, she accepted it and moved in. The Council discharged its homelessness duty on 7 March 2025.
12. Ms X and her solicitor requested a review of the suitability of the property. The Council completed the review on 20 May 2025 and concluded the property was not suitable and the s193 duty should be reinstated and the case reassessed. The Council wrote to Ms X confirming it could not uphold the original decision to discharge the s193 duty.
13. Ms X complains that having determined the accommodation was not suitable the Council has not reinstated the duty or provided suitable accommodation for her family. Ms X says she has a number of health issues which cause extreme pain in her legs and lower back and that the property has too many stairs for her to be able to access her bedroom and the bathroom.
14. In response to my enquiries the Council says it invited Ms X to view a private rental property in August 2025 but she declined as it was not social housing. The Council has not provided evidence it reinstated the s193 duty or of any other action taken to source suitable accommodation for Ms X.
15. In March 2026 the Council told Ms X it was reassessing her circumstances and would aim to make a new offer of accommodation. It subsequently confirmed this would either be a private rented sector offer, or further temporary accommodation, depending on availability.
16. Mrs X told the Council she did not want a private rented sector tenancy or further temporary accommodation. She asked the Council to prioritise her family and provide permanent social housing. The Council advised Ms X that in line with the Localism Act it could discharge its housing duty through a suitable private rented sector offer and was not obligated to provide permanent social housing.
17. It also confirmed that Ms X’s housing register application was separate to the homelessness duty. The Council had awarded Ms X Band B priority on the housing register under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. This was because her current accommodation was considered suitable but was having an adverse impact on her health. It said it would transfer her Band B award to her Part 7 homeless application and close the Part 6 application. The Council told Ms X that 70% of social housing allocations are given to Part 7 homeless applicants so this would put her in a stronger position for bidding.
18. The Council told Ms X that as Band B priority was awarded because her current accommodation was having a negative effect on her health she would lose this priority if the Council offered her new temporary accommodation. If the Council offered Ms X a private rented sector property it would discharge her homelessness duty and she would also lose the Band B priority.
19. It gave Ms X two options:
• To continue bidding for social housing with Band B priority; or
• To accept further temporary accommodation or a private rented sector offer and lose Band B priority.
20. Mrs X told the Council on 16 March 2026 that she chose option 1.

Analysis

21. The Council determined Ms X’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable in May 2025. The Council’s letter told Ms X the Council could not uphold the decision to discharge its s193 duty towards her but did not explain what would happen next. Having determined the accommodation was unsuitable we would expect the Council to make efforts to secure suitable temporary accommodation. The failure to do so is fault.
22. The Council says it invited Ms X to view a property in August 2025 but she declined. I have not received any evidence of the reason Ms X declined, but do not consider this one invitation to view a property is evidence Council was proactively seeking suitable accommodation. The Council has not evidenced any other efforts to secure suitable accommodation for Ms X.
23. We are mindful of the difficulties in finding housing in London and nationally. However, the law says temporary accommodation must be suitable and the duty to provide suitable accommodation is immediate and cannot be deferred. The delay moving Ms X to suitable accommodation since May 2025 is fault.
24. Our Guidance on Remedies recommends a payment of £150 - £350 for each month spent in unsuitable temporary accommodation. The Council was aware the property did not adequately accommodate Ms X’s family and was considered unsuitable on medical grounds. Ms X has lived in unsuitable accommodation with her three children since May 2025.
25. In considering an appropriate remedy I am mindful of the fact Ms X has recently chosen to remain in the unsuitable accommodation so that she has increased priority on the housing register.
26. I do not consider the Council to be responsible for any injustice caused by living in unsuitable accommodation from that point onwards.
27. In the circumstances I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment of £250 per month for the 10 months between May 2024 when it assessed her property was not suitable and March 2026 when it outlined Ms X’s options and she chose to remain in the property.

Back to top

Action

28. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Ms X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms X for the fault identified in this case. 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.
• pay Ms X £2500 to recognise the distress and difficulties she experienced due to living in unsuitable accommodation between May 2024 and March 2026.
• write to Ms X confirming the homelessness duty it currently owes her.
• review internal procedures for monitoring applicants who remain in unsuitable accommodation following a section 202 suitability review. This should include identifying steps to escalate cases where no timely move occurs.
29. The Council should take this action within one month and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman