Summary: The Council accepts it acted with fault, resulting in Ms X spending too long in unsuitable temporary accommodation. It has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused. However, the Council was also at fault for failing to keep the suitability of Ms X’s accommodation under review and delay completing the statutory review process. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the suitability of the temporary accommodation the Council provided to meet its homelessness duty to her. In particular that the Council:
• Failed to keep the suitability of the accommodation under review
• Delayed accepting a statutory review request
• Took too long to complete the statutory review
2. Ms X says the Council’s proposed remedy of £2,000 is insufficient to remedy the injustice to her and her children of living in unsuitable accommodation.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and the information Ms X and the Council provided.
6. I considered relevant law and guidance.
7. I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
8. Ms 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

Temporary accommodation

9. If a council is satisfied an applicant is 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 his or her household.  This duty applies to interim and temporary accommodation.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
11. Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually. Whether accommodation is suitable will depend on the relevant needs, requirements and circumstances of the homeless person and their household. (Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.4 & 17.9)
12. 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
13. Certain decisions councils make about homelessness carry a statutory right of review. The review decision then carries a right of appeal to court on a point of law. Homeless applicants have a right to review the suitability of temporary accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, s202)
14. Homeless applicants must request a review within 21 days of the decision. However, applicants can 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 s202, with a new 21 day timescale. R(B) v Redbridge LBC [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin)

What happened

15. Ms X approached the Council as homeless in October 2021. In December, the Council wrote to Ms X accepting the main housing duty to her. This letter said it was satisfied Ms X’s temporary accommodation was suitable.
16. In January 2022, a contractor inspected the property. The contractor reported significant disrepair in the property, including pests, penetrating damp and mould, and a bowing roof. The report recommended the family move to alternative accommodation.
17. In early February, Ms X asked the Council to move her to different accommodation. She said the property was unsafe for her and her children due to the pests and the mould.
18. In April, Ms X made a formal request to review the suitability of the temporary accommodation. She said the accommodation was unsuitable due to the disrepair and the distance from her children’s schools.
19. In August, the Council completed its suitability review. It decided the property was unsuitable due to the disrepair.
20. Ms X moved into alternative accommodation in November.
21. Ms X complained to the Council about the time taken to move her to suitable accommodation. She asked the Council to apologise and make a remedy to her in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
22. The Council wrote to Ms X in December in response to her complaint. It said its legal team would contact her about a financial remedy but that it intended to follow the Ombudsman’s guidance.
23. Ms X did not hear from the Council and so wrote to it again in March 2023. The Council said her complaint was closed and that her solicitor should contact its legal team about the financial remedy.
24. The Council wrote to Ms X in April. It apologised and offered her £50 a week as a remedy from January 2022, when the contractor inspected, until she moved in November. This was 40 weeks and so £2,000.
25. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She says the remedy should be £350 a month to reflect the injustice to her and her children of living in unsuitable accommodation.

My findings

26. The Council’s letter to Ms X in December 2021 accepting the main housing duty does not tell her about her right to request a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. This was fault. This denied Ms X access to her statutory review rights, which is an injustice.
27. The Council has a duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review. The Council failed to consider whether the accommodation was suitable when the contractor reported on the disrepair in January 2022 or when Ms X asked the Council to move her in February. This was fault. This caused Ms X avoidable distress, which is an injustice.
28. Ms X asked for a statutory review of suitability in April 2022. The Council has 56 days to complete this review. The Council did not complete the review until August, when it accepted the property was unsuitable. It should have made this decision in June. This delay of two months was fault. This delayed the Council looking for alternative accommodation for Ms X. But for this delay, Ms X might have moved out of the unsuitable accommodation sooner. This uncertainty is an injustice to Ms X.
29. The Council told Ms X in December 2022 that it would write to her separately about a financial remedy. Despite this, Ms X had to chase the Council in March 2023 and did not get a response from the Council until late April. This poor complaint handling was fault. It caused Ms X further avoidable distress and time and trouble, which is an injustice.
30. In its letter in April, the Council accepted it acted with fault. It offered Ms X £2,000 to remedy the injustice to her of her time spent in unsuitable accommodation. It said that this reflected the “clear detriment” to her but that because the property was not a B&B, she did not have the additional costs of buying food.
31. In arriving at this remedy, the Council applied the wrong part of our remedy guidance. We recommend a weekly payment for households placed in unsuitable B&B accommodation.
32. Ms X was not in a B&B. The part of our remedies guidance which applies recommends a payment of between £150 and £350 a month for time spent in unsuitable accommodation.
33. Nevertheless, the Council’s proposed remedy of £2,000 is £200 a month for the ten months Ms X spent in unsuitable accommodation. This is within the range suggested by our guidance. I consider it to be a suitable remedy for the injustice to Ms X of living in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
34. I make further recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s fault below.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. In addition to the remedy already offered, to remedy the injustice to Ms X from the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise for its failure to keep the suitability of the accommodation under review and its delay completing the statutory review.
• Pay Ms X a further £250 in recognition of her avoidable distress, missed review rights, uncertainty, and time and trouble.
36. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
37. The Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
• Ensure all letters accepting the main housing duty inform the applicant of their statutory right to review the suitability of the accommodation offered to meet that duty.
• Remind relevant staff of the ongoing duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review, especially when there are reports of disrepair or other changes of circumstances which may affect suitability.
• Remind relevant staff that any decision that despite disrepair or another change in circumstances, temporary accommodation remains suitable should be communicated in writing and set out the applicant’s statutory right to ask for a review of the decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. Create or amend any template letters as necessary.
• Remind staff with responsibility for responding to complaints that when upholding a complaint, the response should set out what action the Council will take to remedy any injustice caused.
38. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within eight weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. I have recommended an improved remedy to that proposed by the Council, which remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman