Summary: The Council was at fault for repeated failures to consider the suitability of temporary accommodation it provided Mrs X and her family. The properties were unsuitable and Mrs X experienced avoidable financial loss and her children’s education suffered as a result. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments, and act to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council repeatedly provided unsuitable temporary accommodation and took too long to accept the accommodation was unsuitable.
2. As a result, Mrs X says she and her family experienced avoidable distress, financial loss, and her children’s education suffered.

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 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)
4. 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.
5. 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

6. I considered the complaint and the information Mrs X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mrs X and the organisation 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

What happened

10. The Council accepted a duty to house Mrs X in September 2023. The household is made up of Mrs X, Mr X, and their children.
11. In November 2023, the Council placed Mrs X and her family in Property 1. This was outside the Council’s area.
12. In May 2024, Mrs X asked for a review of the suitability of Property 1. She said the property was too far away from her children’s schools. She said the cost of the children travelling to school was unaffordable. The Council told her that because she asked for the review more than 21 days after she moved in “there is not an automatic right of review”. The council said it would consider her request at a meeting in June.
13. Mrs X says a Council officer called her in June to say it accepted she needed to move. Mrs X says the Council later emailed her to say this was a misunderstanding and the Council did not accept the property was unsuitable. The Council has not provided evidence of this communication. In the absence of evidence, I accept Mrs X’s account of what happened.
14. In July, the Council moved Mrs X and her family to Property 2. This was also outside the Council’s area and further from the children’s schools than Property 1. Mrs X asked for a review of the suitability of the property the next day.
15. In August, a mental health nurse wrote to the Council about the impact on Mrs X of living so far away from her support network and the difficulty the family faced getting the children to school.
16. In September, Mrs X tried to get her children into schools in the area of Property 2. Mrs X provided evidence showing none of her children could secure a school place in the area. She therefore continued to send her children to school in the Council’s area.
17. In mid-September, one child’s school wrote to the Council. The school said living in Property 2 “significantly affected” the child being able “to attend school regularly and on time”. It said:
• the child had to get up very early to travel to school because of the distance and lack of direct transport;
• when the family could not afford the train fare, the child had to take several buses which caused stress;
• the child needed speech and language therapy which was provided at school. Missing so much school impacted on the therapy essential for the child’s development;
• the long journey home left the child with little time to do homework and eat a meal before bed; and
• Mr X was bringing the children to school and then waiting in the area all day because of the cost and time in returning to Property 2.
18. A few days later, the Council wrote to Mrs X with the outcome of the suitability review. It accepted Property 2 was unsuitable.
19. Mrs X complained to the Council in early October. In response, it said it was sorry about the difficulties with her accommodation. It said it could not deal with a complaint because she had made a service request, not a complaint. It confirmed Mrs X was on its priority list for a move, but it could not give a timescale.
20. The Council provided Mrs X and her family with alternative temporary accommodation in mid-October at Property 3. This was in the Council’s area.
21. In November, Mrs X wrote to the Council. She said:
• within a week of moving into Property 3, the whole property had black mould;
• the ceiling dripped when it rained;
• clothes, shoes and furniture were ruined;
• she had reported it to the managing agents but they said it was her fault;
• she had contacted the temporary accommodation team but no one replied;
• the whole family was sleeping in one room because of the mould in the bedroom; and
• the mould had been cleaned twice but kept coming back.
22. In December, a mental health nurse wrote to the Council after visiting Mrs X at Property 3. The nurse confirmed Mrs X’s description of the condition of the property and provided photographs of the problem.
23. In January 2025, the Council agreed that Mrs X needed to move because the works required to Property 3 could not happen while they remained living there. It initially told Mrs X she should move into a hostel. Mrs X protested that it was unfair that she should have to move her family to live in one room with shared facilities when it was not her fault Property 3 was unsuitable.
24. Mrs X moved into Property 4 in mid-January. This is within the Council area and Mrs X says it is suitable.

My findings

The law and guidance

25. 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.
26. 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.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206)
27. 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)
28. 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)
29. 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)
30. The Code of Guidance has a chapter on suitability of accommodation. The Code is statutory guidance and councils should follow it unless there is a good reason not to. Councils should record and explain any decisions to depart from the Code.
31. Of relevance to this complaint, the Code says:
• Whether accommodation is suitable requires assessment of the accommodation considering the needs and circumstances of the homeless applicant and their household (17.4)
• “the location of the accommodation will always be a relevant factor” (17.4)
• Councils have a continuing duty to keep suitability under review (17.8)
• Councils must assess whether accommodation is suitable for each household individually and keep records to demonstrate this (17.9)
• As a minimum, accommodation should be free of Category 1 hazards (17.27)
• In considering suitability, councils must consider whether the accommodation is affordable to the applicant (17.48)
• Before placing a household outside its area, councils must consider the distance from its own area and try to keep established links with schools and other services and support (17.52 and 17.53)
• For families with children, councils have a duty under the Children Act 2004 to “discharge their functions with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”. This includes minimising disruption to education. (17.55)
• Offer letters should make clear why the Council considers the property to be suitable, with reference to the needs of the applicant and their household. “For families with school age children, the authority should set out how the impact on their education has been assessed and what arrangements have been made for their education in the area of placement.” (17.62)

Property 1

32. There is no evidence the Council considered the suitability of Property 1 before offering it to Mrs X. Failure to do so was fault.
33. The Council told Mrs X she was too late to ask for a suitability review. This is technically correct. However, the Council has a duty to keep suitability under review. Mrs X asked the Council to make a new decision about suitability, considering the information she provided about the impact on the children and the financial costs of being so far from the schools. Mrs X says the Council told her it thought the property was suitable. This was a new decision about suitability. The Council should therefore have written to Mrs X with its decision, giving her a new right of review and appeal. Failure to do so was fault. This denied Mrs X the ability to review the suitability of the accommodation.
34. We can decide, on balance of probabilities, what would have happened but for the fault to determine the extent of the injustice. On balance, had it properly considered the needs and circumstances of Mrs X and her family before offering it or at any time afterwards, the Council would have decided Property 1 was unsuitable. It cost the household around £100 a week on transport alone and had a significant impact on the children’s education.

Property 2

35. There is no evidence the Council considered the suitability of Property 2 before offering it to Mrs X. Its offer letter did not explain the reasons the Council considered the property was suitable or how it considered the impact on the children’s education. Failure to do so was fault.
36. Mrs X used her statutory right of review and the Council accepted Property 2 was unsuitable. Usually, we do not investigate where the review process provides an alternative remedy. In this case, however, I have exercised discretion to do so. This is because of the Council’s failure to comply with the Code before offering the property.
37. On balance, had the Council properly considered the needs of Mrs X and her household it would have realised Property 2 was unsuitable before offering it. It was further from the children’s schools than Property 1, cost just as much in transport, and there were no available school places in the area.
38. Once it accepted the property was unsuitable, it took the Council a further month to provide alternative accommodation. This delay was fault.

Property 3

39. The Council failed to consider and record its reasons Property 3 was suitable before offering it to Mrs X. Failure to do so was fault.
40. On paper, Property 3 appeared suitable. It was well located for schools and within the Council’s area. The information the Council had when it offered the property indicated it was suitable. However, it quickly became unsuitable. The Council failed to ensure the property was free of Category 1 hazards. The extent of the damp and mould was such that it could not be remedied while the family remained living there. On balance, therefore, it amounted to a Category 1 hazard and Property 3 was unsuitable.

Complaint handling

41. The Council’s refusal to accept a complaint from Mrs X was fault. The Council said she made a service request. This was not an accurate assessment. She complained about repeated moves of accommodation, unsuitable properties, and the delay moving her after the Council accepted Property 2 was unsuitable. The Council should have dealt with the complaint through its process.

Injustice

42. Because of fault by the Council, Mrs X and her family lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation from November 2023 until January 2025.
43. The financial impact on the family of the travel costs for the children in the year from November 2023 until October 2024 amounts to almost £4,000. This does not include the cost to Mr X for his fares to accompany them. They also had to pay for removals with every move. Mrs X says this was about £500 each time and the Council offered no help, even when the moves were because it accepted the property was unsuitable. These financial losses are an injustice.
44. The children also experienced significant injustice. The evidence shows the schools were worried about the impact on the children’s education of making such long journeys every day. Mrs X says when the family could not afford the train fare, the children had to miss school or take as many as three buses. One of the children has special education needs requiring therapy, which was interrupted. The impact on the children and their education cannot be easily quantified but is a significant injustice.

Back to top

Action

45. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X and her family from the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. Pay Mrs X £5,000 for her quantifiable financial losses; and
3. Pay Mrs X, for the benefit of the children, a further £4,200 in recognition of the impact on their education and avoidable distress for over a year.
46. The Council should take this action within four weeks of my final decision.
47. The Council agreed to recommendations to improve its consideration of suitability in response to complaints to us in 2023, twice in 2024, and again in early 2025. In April this year, the Council told us about the changes it would make to ensure it properly considered suitability of both interim and temporary accommodation. I have not, therefore, repeated that recommendation here.
48. However, the Council should also take the following action to improve its services:
1. Amend the template for letters offering temporary accommodation to ensure the Council explains why it considers the offered property is suitable with reference to the needs and circumstances of the household. Provide training or guidance to relevant staff as necessary.
2. Remind relevant staff that the Council has a duty to keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under review and that it should make a new decision, with new review rights, in response to a change in circumstances or other new evidence.
3. Remind relevant staff of the definition of a complaint and a service request and that when deciding a matter is a service request, the Council should set out how the individual can complain if they remain unhappy.
49. The Council should tell the Ombudsman about the action it has taken within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Decision

50. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman