Summary: Ms B complained that the Council delayed in carrying out a review of the suitability of her temporary accommodation. We found the Council at fault for taking nine months rather than eight weeks to complete the review. This meant Ms B and her family lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than was necessary. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment of £900.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that London Borough of Lambeth (the Council) took too long to carry out a suitability review of her temporary accommodation which meant Ms B and her family lived in an unsuitable property for six months longer than necessary. This caused them significant distress and inconvenience.

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 B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms B 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

Suitability of accommodation

6. 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. This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main housing duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
7. 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) The Council must complete the review within eight weeks of the date of the review request. If the Council’s review decides the accommodation is unsuitable, the Council must provide suitable accommodation. If the review decides the accommodation is suitable, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law. (Housing Act 1996, section 204)

What happened

8. The Council accepted Ms B and her family were homeless in June 2022. It placed them in temporary accommodation in a different borough.
9. On 23 January 2024 Ms B requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation. She said it was unsafe and unsanitary: she had experienced a burglary, there was anti-social behaviour in the block, her buggy had been stolen and there was mould on the walls.
10. The Council acknowledged the review request on 30 January. On 11 February Ms B submitted a formal complaint. The Council rerouted the complaints to the review team to carry out a suitability review.
11. In May Ms B complained to us as she had heard nothing further. We sent the complaint back to the Council to investigate and respond to her.
12. On 17 June she made a further complaint to the Council about the unsuitability of the accommodation. The Council responded on 5 July saying it had escalated the suitability review, which would be completed in the next 14 days. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.
13. On 29 July Ms B escalated the complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure as she had not received a review decision. The Council carried out a property inspection on 20 September and responded to her complaint on 25 September. It apologised for the delay in completing the suitability review. It said the property inspection was now done. It had noted some minor repair issues, but no serious disrepair and it was not uninhabitable. But it had noted some anti-social behaviour concerns. The review was still in progress, and it would notify her of the outcome in due course.
14. On 3 October it sent Ms B its review decision. It concluded that due to the antisocial behaviour in the area the accommodation was unsuitable for a family.
15. On 24 March 2025 the Council offered Ms B permanent accommodation. She accepted and moved in the following month. Ms B wished to continue her complaint due to the distress and inconvenience she experienced living in unsuitable accommodation for longer than was necessary.
16. In response to my enquiries the Council said it has a backlog of suitability reviews due to staff shortages. It currently has 21 open suitability reviews along with four other suitable offer reviews and cannot give an expected completion time due to the staffing issues. It says it is still working on some reviews from 2024. It has recently recruited more staff who are currently being trained.

Findings

17. The Council should have completed the review within eight weeks. It took nine months. This was fault which caused Ms B injustice as she lived in unsuitable accommodation for longer than was necessary.

Back to top

Action

18. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B by the delay, The Council has agreed, within one month of the date of the decision, to apologise to Ms B and make a symbolic payment of £900.
19. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
20. As the Council is taking action to improve staffing levels in order to reduce the backlog of reviews, I have not made a service improvement recommendation.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman