Summary: Mrs X complains the Council left her family in temporary accommodation that was unsuitable, despite accepting this following a suitability review. We have concluded our investigation and found the Council at fault for allowing the family to remain in unsuitable housing for nearly five months. This caused significant disruption and distress, particularly given the family’s vulnerabilities. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council placed her family in accommodation, which was too far from her child’s school. The suitability review later found the property was unsuitable, but Mrs X was left there for several months. Mrs X says this caused long, stressful journeys, disruption to her child’s education, and safety risks. As a result of the Council’s actions, Mrs X says her mental health deteriorated, her husband’s work was affected, and she incurred extra expenses. Mrs X would like the Council to provide a remedy for lost earnings, financial expenses, and the emotional distress suffered by her and her son.

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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke with Mrs X and considered evidence provided by her and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 sets out councils’ duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
7. Where a council is satisfied that an applicant is eligible, homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, it owes a main housing duty to secure suitable accommodation. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
8. A council may discharge this duty by making an offer of suitable accommodation. Accommodation must be suitable for the applicant and the household as a whole. Suitability includes consideration of the location, size, condition, and affordability of the accommodation, as well as any health or education needs. (Housing Act 1996, section 206; Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraphs 17.2–17.9)
9. When offering accommodation, councils must consider the impact of the location on the applicant’s ability to maintain employment, access healthcare or education, and stay close to support networks. This is particularly important where the applicant or their household has specific vulnerabilities. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraphs 17.45–17.55)
10. Applicants can request a suitability review of accommodation offered to discharge a duty. This is known as a section 202 review. The Council must consider whether the accommodation was suitable at the date of the original offer. (Housing Act 1996, section 202; Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.11)
11. If a suitability review determines the accommodation was not suitable, the main housing duty under section 193 continues. The Council must take reasonable steps to secure suitable accommodation. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.16)
12. Councils must keep the suitability of temporary accommodation under ongoing review, particularly if circumstances change or if accommodation has previously been found unsuitable. (Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.9)
13. Where an applicant remains in temporary accommodation that is known to be unsuitable, this can amount to a breach of the Council’s statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation. It is not enough for a Council to demonstrate that alternative accommodation was scarce; the duty to provide suitable accommodation remains.

Back to top

What happened

14. Mrs X approached the Council for housing assistance and was placed in temporary accommodation at Property 1. This was intended to discharge the Council’s main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.
15. Shortly after accepting the offer, Mrs X requested a review of the suitability of Property 1. She raised concerns about the distance from her child’s school, the length of the daily journey, and the impact on her family’s wellbeing. The Council advised her to accept the offer while the review was underway. Mrs X moved into the property and continued to raise concerns, including about the journey times, her child’s special educational needs, and the practical and financial impact of the placement.
16. The Council completed its suitability review in December 2023 and decided Property 1 was not suitable. It reinstated Mrs X’s priority on the housing register and confirmed its homelessness duty remained. The Council said it could not offer a return to Property 2, the family’s previous temporary accommodation, as it had become uninhabitable, and that no other suitable units were available at the time.
17. Following the review decision, the Council enabled Mrs X to bid for alternative housing through the housing register. She bid for a property in February 2024, and the Council nominated her to Property 3. The tenancy did not begin until May 2024.
18. The Council said this delay was partly due to the availability of suitable housing and partly due to processes outside its control, such as the readiness of Property 3. It clarified that Property 3 was owned by a Registered Provider and was advertised via the Council’s choice-based lettings scheme. The Council said that while other properties had been advertised during this time, none were within Mrs X’s preferred area and she did not bid for them. The Council did not carry out a formal assessment of the impact on the family during this period but acknowledged the logistical difficulties involved in the placement at Property 1.

Back to top

Analysis

19. Councils have a statutory duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure suitable accommodation for applicants owed the main housing duty. Where temporary accommodation is provided, it must remain suitable for as long as the duty continues. If, following a review under section 202, accommodation is determined to be unsuitable, the Council must take prompt steps to end the placement and secure alternative suitable provision. This is a continuing duty that is not discharged simply because accommodation is difficult to find.
20. In this case, the Council completed a suitability review in December 2023 which found that Property 1 was not suitable for Mrs X and her family. The unsuitability related primarily to its distance from her child’s school and the impact this had on his additional needs, including ADHD. The Council accepted this in its review decision, which meant the statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation under section 193(2) remained ongoing. Despite this, the family remained at Property 1 until May 2024, a period of almost five months after the Council had formally acknowledged that the accommodation did not meet their needs.
21. The Council says the delay was due to a lack of available alternative accommodation, including the fact that the previous temporary accommodation, Property 2, had become uninhabitable. It says there were no other suitable properties in its stock or advertised through its choice-based lettings system in the family’s preferred area. While we recognise the reality of the current housing crisis and pressures on temporary accommodation, these challenges do not override the legal requirement to provide suitable housing. The duty to provide suitable accommodation is a continuing obligation and is not met by leaving families in accommodation already deemed unfit for their needs.
22. The Council noted that some other properties had been advertised during this period, but none were within Mrs X’s preferred area or close to her child’s school. Whilst this illustrates the limited availability of suitable housing options, it remains the Council’s responsibility to ensure that any accommodation it provides, whether temporary or settled, is suitable under the law. The duty to secure suitable accommodation rests solely with the authority. Where it is aware an applicant remains in unsuitable housing, particularly where this affects a child with known vulnerabilities, the Council must act proactively and without delay.
23. Allowing the family to remain in accommodation deemed unsuitable, particularly where the issues related to safety, stress, and disruption to a child with special educational needs, amounts to a failure to meet the Council’s obligations under the Housing Act 1996. Mrs X described the considerable emotional toll, the strain on her mental health, and disruption to her husband’s ability to support the family. Most significantly, she reported that her child’s behaviour was severely affected by the length and nature of the journey to school, with regular incidents that placed him at risk.
24. The Council did not carry out any formal impact assessment or revisit the family’s circumstances during the months they remained in unsuitable housing. This was a missed opportunity to review the ongoing risk and to seek out interim solutions or mitigation measures. While the Council eventually secured alternative accommodation, the delay meant the family continued to experience an avoidable level of hardship and disruption.
25. The Council’s failure to act on its own review decision and to secure suitable accommodation within a reasonable period amount to fault; this failure is not excused by systemic pressures. Where a local authority identifies that its placement is causing avoidable harm to a vulnerable household, it must take urgent and sustained action to put matters right. That did not happen here, and the injustice to Mrs X and her family was significant.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Where applicants remain in unsuitable temporary accommodation for a prolonged period, the Ombudsman normally recommends a financial remedy to recognise the avoidable distress and harm experienced. Our published guidance suggests a payment of £150 to £350 per month may be appropriate, depending on the severity of the impact and the specific circumstances of the household.
27. Mrs X also sought a remedy for loss of earnings and other financial expenses incurred during this period. However, the Ombudsman cannot normally recommend reimbursement for specific financial losses such as lost income, as we are not a substitute for the courts. Our role is to remedy the avoidable distress, disruption, and time and trouble caused by fault, rather than provide a financial settlement for quantifiable economic loss.
28. In this case, the Council accepted that Mrs X’s accommodation was unsuitable in December 2023, but the family remained there for nearly five months. During this time, Mrs X reported significant disruption to her child’s education, distress linked to his additional needs, and deterioration in her own mental health. These were compounded by the financial strain of daily travel and limited access to support. Given the vulnerability of the household, we consider this case sits toward the upper end of our guidance range. We have therefore applied a remedy of £300 per month for five months, totalling £1,500, to reflect the cumulative distress, disruption, and avoidable harm caused.
29. In addition, we consider a separate payment of £150 is appropriate to recognise the time and trouble Mrs X went to in pursuing her complaint, particularly after the Council had already accepted that the placement was unsuitable. She had to continue contacting the Council, navigating its lettings system, and seeking support while remaining in accommodation that did not meet her family’s needs.
30. To remedy the injustice caused and to help prevent recurrence, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X and her family.
2. Pay £1,500 to recognise the distress and hardship caused by remaining in unsuitable accommodation for five months.
3. Pay £150 to recognise the avoidable time and trouble involved in pursuing the matter.
4. 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. The Council should update the Ombudsman on the outcome of its review.
31. The Council will complete actions a-c within one month of the Ombudsman’s Final Decision and action d within three months of the Ombudsman’s Final Decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. Mrs X complains the Council left her family in temporary accommodation that was unsuitable, despite accepting this following a suitability review. We have concluded our investigation and found the Council at fault for allowing the family to remain in unsuitable housing for nearly five months. This caused significant disruption and distress, particularly given the family’s vulnerabilities. We have proposed recommendations to the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman