Summary: We found fault on Ms Y’s complaint about the Council failing to provide her with the review decision it agreed to do during court proceedings. It failed to do the review within 8 weeks, tell her promptly of its decision that the property was unsuitable, and keep a record of its decision and reasons. She lost the chance to have the review done within this time period, commuted to her son’s school longer than needed, and suffered frustration. The Council agreed to send an apology, make a payment for the delays, establish why the review was not done within 8 weeks, remind staff about recording decisions, and to tell applicants about suitability decisions promptly.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. move her and her family from unsuitable temporary accommodation for more than two years;
2. provide her with the review decision it agreed to do in July 2024;
3. consider the distance from home to school for her son in previous reviews;
4. move her from her accommodation despite the landlord having a possession order for its return in August 2024; and
5. properly follow procedure after she issued court proceedings as it twice agreed to carry out a further review to prevent a full hearing.
2. As a result, she and her children continued to live in a property which did not meet their needs and affected their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated the following:

• Complaint a): This was because Mrs Y appealed the Council’s decisions that her temporary accommodation was suitable to the courts. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. In this case, we cannot consider exercising discretion because she took court proceedings.
• Complaint c): This was because this was an issue she could have raised as part of her appeal against the Council’s review decisions. She would have been aware from its decision just what it had, and had not, considered. As noted, she had taken court action against the Council about its review decisions which means we have no jurisdiction to consider this part of her complaint.
• Complaint d): This was because I am not satisfied this caused her significant injustice even if there had been fault. Mrs Y remained in the property until the Council offered her another one in January 2025.
• Complaint e): This was because we have no jurisdiction to investigate what happened at court. This was a matter for her legal representative to have raised during court proceedings. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action, or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered all the information provided by Ms Y and the Council, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I also considered our investigation of her previous complaint decided in November 2022 (22 000 662). The Council carried out the agreed remedy which included making a suitability decision and a payment for distress.
9. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Homelessness

10. 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.
11. 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 duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)
12. 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 accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)
13. Applicants can ask a council to review its decision that the accommodation offered is suitable. Councils must complete the review within eight weeks of receiving the review request. (Housing Act 1996, sections 202)

What happened

14. Ms Y was unhappy the Council placed her and her family in unsuitable temporary accommodation for more than two years. She has two children aged 18 and 9. The unsuitable accommodation affected her children’s welfare and education and caused her own mental health to worsen. She needed a three bedroom, low level property.
15. When the Council placed her in temporary accommodation (property 1), she asked for a review of its suitability because of the 1.5 hour commute her youngest child had to school. This child also had health issues which made the travelling to and from school difficult. In November 2023, she appealed its review decision which said the property was suitable for her and her family.
16. In April 2024, her landlord got a possession order against her. She had until August to leave.
17. During court proceedings in July, and based on legal advice, the Assistant Director of Housing Needs decided to carry out a new section 202 review. This was sent to the review team (a third party company) to do. The review team carried out reviews on the Council’s behalf.
18. In September, the Council told her the review had not been done. It would chase the review team.
19. In its response to her MP in November, the Council explained property 1 ‘had already been deemed unsuitable’ due to Ms Y’s health needs. To receive permanent accommodation, she needed to bid for Council properties on its housing register. She was in Band A2 (emergency priority need) because of her medical condition. The Council explained from joining the housing register in November 2017, Ms Y only bid for 18 properties.
20. An internal email sent at the end of November confirmed Ms Y had viewed and accepted another property (property 2). The offer letter, a copy of which I have not seen, would be sent to her in the ‘coming days’.
21. Ms Y said they moved to property 2 because the managing agents had an available property. She claimed the Council gave them no help and had not arranged property 2 for her. Property 1 was about three times the distance to the school than property 2. Her travel time to school would be cut to about 20 minutes.
22. In January 2025, the Council wrote to Ms Y. The Council noted since asking for the review, it had offered her property 2 which she accepted. As a result, the Council decided it was no longer necessary to carry out the review.

My findings

23. I found the following on this complaint:
1. Ms Y appealed the Council’s last suitability decision it made in November 2023. This was to the courts.
2. During these proceedings, in July 2024, the Council accepted there was a problem with its November 2023 decision. It agreed to make a fresh section 202 review decision.
3. It was clear from the Council’s response to her MP it had decided property 1 was unsuitable for her. The Council failed to show a record of this decision and why it had been reached. Nor did it show it communicated this decision to her before November. This caused Ms Y frustration as she was unaware of any decision being made at all.
4. I am satisfied as the Council accepted the property was unsuitable, there would have been no point in Ms Y appealing any failure to make its section 202 review decision after 8 weeks had passed.
5. The Council should have reached its decision 8 weeks after deciding it would carry out a further review in July. This would have been by 24 September. I am satisfied the failure to show it made a decision by this date was fault. I am also satisfied this caused Ms Y an injustice. She suffered from distress from having lost the chance to have it decided by this date. She also suffered frustration.
6. Although I have not seen the offer letter for property 2, I am satisfied Ms Y was offered it in December and moved in that month or January 2025. This means Ms Y remained in property 1 about 12 weeks longer than she would have done but for the delay.
7. Although Ms Y claimed the Council did not arrange property 2, on balance, I am satisfied it had done. I say this because I consider the evidence showed it was more likely than not that the Council had arranged it.

Back to top

Action

24. I considered our guidance on remedies.
25. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision:
1. Send Ms Y a written apology for failing to: make a section 202 review decision within eight weeks of agreeing to carry one out; keep a record of the decision that her property was unsuitable; tell her at the time that it had decided the property was unsuitable; carry out and decide the section 202 review within 8 weeks.
2. Pay £900 to Ms Y for the avoidable injustice the fault caused which included increased travel costs (£300 a month x 3: taking account of her health and the distance to school for her son with his health issues).
3. Carry out a review to identify the reasons why the section 202 review did not take place within 8 weeks and act to ensure the delay experienced on this case is not repeated on future cases.
4. Remind relevant staff of the need to record decisions about suitability.
5. Remind relevant staff of the need to promptly inform applicants of the decision about suitability.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I found fault on Ms Y’s complaint. The agreed action remedy the injustice this caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman