The investigation

Our investigation

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his housing. He says the Council:

• failed to complete a housing needs assessment and failed to review this;

• failed to agree and complete a personalised housing plan;

• delayed in accepting the main housing duty;

• placed him and his family in several different bed and breakfasts;

• failed to provide any accommodation for a three-day period in January 2024;

• failed to provide financial support to help the family when they did not have any cooking or laundry facilities;

• failed to offer suitable accommodation;

• incorrectly said he declined a property; and

• wrongly ended the relief duty.

2. We investigated the complaint and decided to issue a report because the Council refused to make the symbolic payment we recommended to remedy the significant injustice Mr X and his family experienced.

3. We issued our report on 9 October 2025 and published it on our website on 6 November 2025. Details can be found via the link. The report found fault which had caused injustice to Mr X and made three recommendations. The Council has complied with two of the recommendations but has refused to comply with the third.

• To make a symbolic payment of £3,525 for the injustice caused to Mr X and his family by living in unsuitable bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation for 42 weeks longer than they should have done.

Legal and administrative background

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In our report of 9 October 2025, we use 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. We 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)

5. If, having issued a report, we are not satisfied with the action the Council has taken or proposes to take, we must then issue a further report. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31(2A))

6. If the Council’s officers or cabinet are minded to recommend refusal of our recommendations, the further report must be considered at full Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31A(1A))

How we considered this complaint

7. We produced this further report after giving the Council the opportunity to accept the recommendations and comply with them in full.

Council comments

8. The Council has provided the following reasons and justification for refusing to accept our recommendations in full.

• “The issue that is the subject of the recommendation are not of the Council’s making. The Regulations regarding “unsuitability” were made by Parliament in 2003, over 20 years ago. The geopolitical context has changed unrecognisably since then. Between 2015 and 2025 the numbers presenting to the city council as homeless increased from 2,163 to 6,891 and our provision, on which we spent over £5 million per year, was overwhelmed, as was the case in comparable cities throughout the UK. Therefore these pressures are a product of forces beyond one Council’s control, together with policy made by multiple Government agencies including the Home Office. To seek to penalise a Council for a national and international crisis is grossly unfair to the Council and taxpayers of Leicester.”

• “It is impossible to see that the LGSCO have not set a clear precedent here that they will be bound to follow in other complaints. This is the second consecutive case in which a four-figure sum of compensation has been recommended by the Ombudsman. We calculate this exposure to be £250k for Leicester City Council and many millions of pounds nationally. This could bring Councils closer to the prospect of an unbalanced General Fund leading to a significant and detrimental loss of local services for local people.”

• “The principle of awarding a remedy is predicated upon the public body who is at fault being able to put-right that error. This is not the case here. There will be no salutary effect from this compensatory exposure because we (like just about every other Council in the country) have no power to immediately create extra housing that would avert the need to keep families in B&B for more than six weeks. The LGSCO recognises that the Council had nowhere else to place Mr X’s family during this period.”

• “We are spending many millions of pounds to respond in a structured way to the pressures. In the last 12 months the Council has spent £45m in the acquisition of 253 self-contained family and single temporary accommodation units. It has also spent over £400m in conjunction with partners to deliver over 1,800 new permanent affordable homes in the city, with a further 800 in train to be delivered by 2027. Exposing us to pay hundreds of thousands of compensation will only serve to set-back our plans to strategically address it. By investing in new temporary housing stock we have reduced the number of families staying in B&B’s from 421 in 2024 to 55 today.”

Our comments

9. We acknowledge the Council has invested significantly in its attempts to address the housing shortages in its area. This is welcomed and the reduction in the number of families in B&B accommodation is positive.

10. We clearly differentiated between the failings detailed within the report that amounted to service failure (when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control) and those where fault by the Council had occurred (maladministration).

11. We note the Council’s views and comments on the 2003 Regulations, but the Regulations remain in force and continue to apply. We had to consider if the Council had acted within the requirements set out in those Regulations. We could not hold the Council to account to a lower or different threshold than that set out in the Regulations. We apply the same principles in all the cases and subject areas we investigate. Leicester City Council has not been singled out or treated differently.

12. We recognise the Council is concerned that agreeing to all the recommendations in the report could have significant financial implications with precedents being set. Each case brought to us is considered based on the individual circumstances. There is no evidence to support the Council’s view that agreeing to make the symbolic payment would open the floodgates for numerous other cases, especially given the reduction in the number of families being housed in B&B accommodation.

13. We have not taken a punitive approach in this case. Our recommended remedy for Mr X is a symbolic one to recognise the significant injustice he and his family has suffered. It is not to punish the Council. We have made numerous similar recommendations to councils throughout the country, informed by our Guidance on remedies. The Council’s continued refusal to make the symbolic payments recommended has meant the significant injustice experienced by Mr X and his family remains unremedied. This has further added to their distress.

Recommendations

14. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr X and his family, the Council should ensure full compliance with the recommendations set out in the original report and provide evidence of this without delay. The recommendation which has not been agreed is that the Council should:

• make a symbolic payment of £3,525 for the injustice caused to Mr X and his family by living in unsuitable bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation for 42 weeks longer than they should have done.

15. The Council must consider this report and confirm within three months the action it has taken or proposes to take. If the Council’s officers or cabinet are minded to recommend refusal of our recommendations, this further report must be considered at full Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 31A(1A))

Decision

16. The original investigation into this complaint was completed and a report issued, which explained the faults that had occurred and resulting injustice. We made recommendations to remedy that injustice. The Council has provided evidence of efforts to comply with two of the recommendations but has refused to fully remedy the injustice caused to Mr X. As we are dissatisfied with the Council’s response, we have issued a further report.

Print this page